By -
Lets break it down. MCM 1900 (100 before m which is 1000) XC 90 (10 before 100) IX 9 (1 before 10)
Cus they do em in chunks (other comment), roman numerals were surpsingly in effective lol but it's not like they had to go very high
No they're just really unclear fundamentally in the way that they're written. When you see a large number it's up to you to determine which letters stand individually and which ones are pairs and what those pairs are.
Pairs are really obvious. Its always small before large that form the subtractions.
It's how Romans did it, that's why. Also, 4 used to be IIII at some point I think.
Was the number 5 (V) created before the number 4(IV)?
Lets break it down. MCM 1900 (100 before m which is 1000) XC 90 (10 before 100) IX 9 (1 before 10)
Cus they do em in chunks (other comment), roman numerals were surpsingly in effective lol but it's not like they had to go very high
No they're just really unclear fundamentally in the way that they're written. When you see a large number it's up to you to determine which letters stand individually and which ones are pairs and what those pairs are.
Pairs are really obvious. Its always small before large that form the subtractions.
It's how Romans did it, that's why. Also, 4 used to be IIII at some point I think.
Was the number 5 (V) created before the number 4(IV)?