Question on Roman numerals ...

So I wuz doing the crossword puzzle this morning and one of the cloos
was "Roman 950". Of course this is "CML", BUT it reminded me of a
long-nagging question regarding Roman numeral numbering ...

One of the clubs I wuz a member of was designing a medal to be issued in
1990, and a long debate ensued as to whether 1990 should be denoted as
MCMXC or MXM. No fists were thrown, but it was a relatively heated
debate (for a koin klub) and eventually it seemed to be decided that
either representation was acceptable, and MXM was picked for the medal.

So, after today's reminder via the crossword puzzle, I browsed a whole
bunch of Roman Numeral sites on the web, and every single CRN (Convert
to Roman Numerals) calculator I tried translated 1990 to MCMXC. So were
we wrong? Is MXM for 1990 incorrect, or just a lesser-used "either/or"
option for the date?

Any opinions from the r.c.c readership?

(And as an aside, if "Roman 950" had been a two-letter answer rather
than three, would "LM" have been correct??)

[the first part of my "contribute more to r.c.c this year" New Year's
Resolution ... others are encouraged to do so once the light bulb and
other political controversies are resolved ...]

--
Ken Barr Numismatics * * * *email:
P. O. Box 32541 * * * * * * website: *http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA *95152 * * Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
408-272-3247 * ** NEXT SHOW: San Jose Coin Club Jan 27 - 29 (table 200)

On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:43:55 -0800, Ken Barr wrote:



[the first part of my "contribute more to r.c.c this year" New Year's
Resolution ... others are encouraged to do so once the light bulb and
other political controversies are resolved ...]

--
Ken Barr Numismatics * * * *email:
P. O. Box 32541 * * * * * * website: *http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA *95152 * * Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
408-272-3247 * ** NEXT SHOW: San Jose Coin Club Jan 27 - 29 (table 200)

That thread hasn't evolved to "How many numismatics does it take to
change the light bulb?" yet. Ya might need a snickers bar.

beekeep

On Jan 1, 12:43*pm, Ken Barr wrote:
So I wuz doing the crossword puzzle this morning and one of the cloos
was "Roman 950". *Of course this is "CML", BUT it reminded me of a
long-nagging question regarding Roman numeral numbering ...

One of the clubs I wuz a member of was designing a medal to be issued in
1990, and a long debate ensued as to whether 1990 should be denoted as
MCMXC or MXM. *No fists were thrown, but it was a relatively heated
debate (for a koin klub) and eventually it seemed to be decided that
either representation was acceptable, and MXM was picked for the medal.

So, after today's reminder via the crossword puzzle, I browsed a whole
bunch of Roman Numeral sites on the web, and every single CRN (Convert
to Roman Numerals) calculator I tried translated 1990 to MCMXC. *So were
we wrong? *Is MXM for 1990 incorrect, or just a lesser-used "either/or"
option for the date?

Any opinions from the r.c.c readership?

(And as an aside, if "Roman 950" had been a two-letter answer rather
than three, would "LM" have been correct??)

[the first part of my "contribute more to r.c.c this year" New Year's
Resolution ... others are encouraged to do so once the light bulb and
other political controversies are resolved ...]

--
Ken Barr Numismatics email:
P. O. Box 32541 website:http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA 95152 Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
408-272-3247 * * *NEXT SHOW: San Jose Coin Club Jan 27 - 29 (table 200)

Way back, about (mumbly-mumbly) years ago when I was in grade school,
we were taught that Roman numbers were correct only with adjacent
number representations. The easiest way to clarify this is with the
year 1999. Though by the left-right rules MIM would be 1999, by
definition it must be M-CM-XC-IX (obviously remove the hyphens).

I had a math teacher who once said that correct Roman numbers could
extend to two positions (I never could find proof of acceptability of
that). However, using that scenerio, M-XM-IX and M-CM-IC would both
be correct. For M-IM to be correct, you'd have to extend to three
positions.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a few aspirin and lie
down. My head hurts.

Jerry
May everyone's numismatic 2012 be better than their 2011.

In article ,
Ken Barr wrote:
So I wuz doing the crossword puzzle this morning and one of the cloos
was "Roman 950". Of course this is "CML", BUT it reminded me of a
long-nagging question regarding Roman numeral numbering ...

One of the clubs I wuz a member of was designing a medal to be issued in
1990, and a long debate ensued as to whether 1990 should be denoted as
MCMXC or MXM. No fists were thrown, but it was a relatively heated
debate (for a koin klub) and eventually it seemed to be decided that
either representation was acceptable, and MXM was picked for the medal.

So, after today's reminder via the crossword puzzle, I browsed a whole
bunch of Roman Numeral sites on the web, and every single CRN (Convert
to Roman Numerals) calculator I tried translated 1990 to MCMXC. So were
we wrong? Is MXM for 1990 incorrect, or just a lesser-used "either/or"
option for the date?

Any opinions from the r.c.c readership?

It turns out that Cecil Adams addressed this issue 22 years ago. The
short answer is, the Romans didn't know either.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-for-the-1990s
[begin quote]
There is not now nor has there ever been any universally accepted method
of styling Roman numerals. For that matter, it's only been in the last
few hundred years that there's been any general agreement on what symbols
stand for which quantities.
[snip]
But it turns out the subtractive system was used only sporadically by the
ancient Romans and their medieval successors and never in a systematic
way. Comb through old documents and inscriptions and you'll find such
erratic usages as LXL, 90; XXCIII, 83; LXXIIX, 78; and even IIIIX, 6. A
popular German arithmetic textbook published in 1524 gives 99 as XCIX,
but even today you'll find some people who'll hold out for IC.

So where does this leave us? Well, if we are truly desperate for moral
guidance, we may turn to the world of computers. Cecil happens to have a
desktop publishing program known as Xerox Ventura Publisher, an amazing
bit of software that I believe was used originally to torture heretics
during the Inquisition Among other things it will convert numbers up to
9,999 into Roman numerals for use as page numbers.

Punching in 1990, we come up with MCMXC, an unsurprising and somehow
comforting result. But if we then try 1999, we get MIM. Why MIM for 1999
and not MXM for 1990? Lord knows. Worse, if we enter 9,999 we get what
appears to be IZ. I have scoured my reference books in vain for any
indication that Z was ever used for 10,000, which moves me to write the
whole thing off as the product of malicious computer geekery, an
impression that actually trying to use Ventura will certainly strengthen.
[end quote]

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

On Jan 1, 1:10*pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
In article ,
Ken Barr wrote:





So I wuz doing the crossword puzzle this morning and one of the cloos
was "Roman 950". *Of course this is "CML", BUT it reminded me of a
long-nagging question regarding Roman numeral numbering ...

One of the clubs I wuz a member of was designing a medal to be issued in
1990, and a long debate ensued as to whether 1990 should be denoted as
MCMXC or MXM. *No fists were thrown, but it was a relatively heated
debate (for a koin klub) and eventually it seemed to be decided that
either representation was acceptable, and MXM was picked for the medal.

So, after today's reminder via the crossword puzzle, I browsed a whole
bunch of Roman Numeral sites on the web, and every single CRN (Convert
to Roman Numerals) calculator I tried translated 1990 to MCMXC. *So were
we wrong? *Is MXM for 1990 incorrect, or just a lesser-used "either/or"
option for the date?

Any opinions from the r.c.c readership?

It turns out that Cecil Adams addressed this issue 22 years ago. *The
short answer is, the Romans didn't know either.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...he-proper-way-...
[begin quote]
There is not now nor has there ever been any universally accepted method
of styling Roman numerals. For that matter, it's only been in the last
few hundred years that there's been any general agreement on what symbols
stand for which quantities.
[snip]
But it turns out the subtractive system was used only sporadically by the
ancient Romans and their medieval successors and never in a systematic
way. Comb through old documents and inscriptions and you'll find such
erratic usages as LXL, 90; XXCIII, 83; LXXIIX, 78; and even IIIIX, 6. A
popular German arithmetic textbook published in 1524 gives 99 as XCIX,
but even today you'll find some people who'll hold out for IC.

So where does this leave us? Well, if we are truly desperate for moral
guidance, we may turn to the world of computers. Cecil happens to have a
desktop publishing program known as Xerox Ventura Publisher, an amazing
bit of software that I believe was used originally to torture heretics
during the Inquisition *Among other things it will convert numbers up to
9,999 into Roman numerals for use as page numbers.

Punching in 1990, we come up with MCMXC, an unsurprising and somehow
comforting result. But if we then try 1999, we get MIM. Why MIM for 1999
and not MXM for 1990? Lord knows. Worse, if we enter 9,999 we get what
appears to be IZ. I have scoured my reference books in vain for any
indication that Z was ever used for 10,000, which moves me to write the
whole thing off as the product of malicious computer geekery, an
impression that actually trying to use Ventura will certainly strengthen.
[end quote]

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1999 might be better expressed as "Cos II Ann III GVILELMVS
JEFFERSONVS CLINTONVS", starting from 20 January of that year, of
course.

oly

In article , (beekeep) wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 09:43:55 -0800, Ken Barr wrote:



[the first part of my "contribute more to r.c.c this year" New Year's
Resolution ... others are encouraged to do so once the light bulb and
other political controversies are resolved ...]

--
Ken Barr Numismatics * * * *email:
P. O. Box 32541 * * * * * * website: *http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA *95152 * * Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
408-272-3247 * ** NEXT SHOW: San Jose Coin Club Jan 27 - 29 (table 200)

That thread hasn't evolved to "How many numismatics does it take to
change the light bulb?" yet. Ya might need a snickers bar.

beekeep

can i have some goetz's caramels? those things rock!

In article , Jerry Dennis wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:43=A0pm, Ken Barr wrote:
So I wuz doing the crossword puzzle this morning and one of the cloos
was "Roman 950". =A0Of course this is "CML", BUT it reminded me of a
long-nagging question regarding Roman numeral numbering ...

One of the clubs I wuz a member of was designing a medal to be issued in
1990, and a long debate ensued as to whether 1990 should be denoted as
MCMXC or MXM. =A0No fists were thrown, but it was a relatively heated
debate (for a koin klub) and eventually it seemed to be decided that
either representation was acceptable, and MXM was picked for the medal.

So, after today's reminder via the crossword puzzle, I browsed a whole
bunch of Roman Numeral sites on the web, and every single CRN (Convert
to Roman Numerals) calculator I tried translated 1990 to MCMXC. =A0So wer=
e
we wrong? =A0Is MXM for 1990 incorrect, or just a lesser-used "either/or"
option for the date?

Any opinions from the r.c.c readership?

(And as an aside, if "Roman 950" had been a two-letter answer rather
than three, would "LM" have been correct??)

[the first part of my "contribute more to r.c.c this year" New Year's
Resolution ... others are encouraged to do so once the light bulb and
other political controversies are resolved ...]

--
Ken Barr Numismatics email:
P. O. Box 32541 website:http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA 95152 Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
408-272-3247 =A0 =A0 =A0NEXT SHOW: San Jose Coin Club Jan 27 - 29 (table =
200)

Way back, about (mumbly-mumbly) years ago when I was in grade school,
we were taught that Roman numbers were correct only with adjacent
number representations. The easiest way to clarify this is with the
year 1999. Though by the left-right rules MIM would be 1999, by
definition it must be M-CM-XC-IX (obviously remove the hyphens).

I had a math teacher who once said that correct Roman numbers could
extend to two positions (I never could find proof of acceptability of
that). However, using that scenerio, M-XM-IX and M-CM-IC would both
be correct. For M-IM to be correct, you'd have to extend to three
positions.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a few aspirin and lie
down. My head hurts.

Jerry
May everyone's numismatic 2012 be better than their 2011.

it's hard to think it could be worse.

"Ken Barr" wrote in message
...
So I wuz doing the crossword puzzle this morning and one of the cloos
was "Roman 950". Of course this is "CML", BUT it reminded me of a
long-nagging question regarding Roman numeral numbering ...

One of the clubs I wuz a member of was designing a medal to be issued in
1990, and a long debate ensued as to whether 1990 should be denoted as
MCMXC or MXM. No fists were thrown, but it was a relatively heated
debate (for a koin klub) and eventually it seemed to be decided that
either representation was acceptable, and MXM was picked for the medal.

So, after today's reminder via the crossword puzzle, I browsed a whole
bunch of Roman Numeral sites on the web, and every single CRN (Convert
to Roman Numerals) calculator I tried translated 1990 to MCMXC. So were
we wrong? Is MXM for 1990 incorrect, or just a lesser-used "either/or"
option for the date?

FWIW, the mint used MCMXC on the 1990 gold American eagles. From a
mathematical viewpoint
, I think that would be the preferred way to write it. In their day, RN's
were used in commerce and one had to manipulate these monsters regularly.
And when you do that it helps to keep things consistent.

Any opinions from the r.c.c readership?

(And as an aside, if "Roman 950" had been a two-letter answer rather
than three, would "LM" have been correct??)

[the first part of my "contribute more to r.c.c this year" New Year's
Resolution ... others are encouraged to do so once the light bulb and
other political controversies are resolved ...]

--
Ken Barr Numismatics email:
P. O. Box 32541 website: http://www.kenbarr.com
San Jose, CA 95152 Coins, currency, exonumia, souvenir cards, etc.
408-272-3247 NEXT SHOW: San Jose Coin Club Jan 27 - 29 (table 200)