1-10 by 1: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X 10-100 by 10: X, XX, XXX, XL, L, LX, LXX, LXXX, XC, C 100-1000 by 100: C, CC, CCC, CD, D, DC, DCC, DCCC, CM, M
Combine as needed. I don't torture myself doing math with Roman Numerals, but they are cool for many purposes. Much to my surprise, the Super Bowl is sticking with them through LI and beyond, which is pretty rare these days. sas On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Clark Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > [Default] On 16 Jun 2017 11:18:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main > [email protected] (Jesse 1 Robinson) wrote: > > >TGIF. With due respect to the view that Indian (Hindi? Sanskrit?) via > Arabic numerals were the progenitor of our modern big-endian bias, I'd like > to point out that Roman numerals--remember them you old dudes?--are > apparently big-endian. Lord knows who invented that convoluted system, but > it persisted in academia and in commerce for centuries. > > As I recall 9 is IX not VIIII and 90 is XC not LXXXX. Is anyone > energetic enough to verify this. I am not tonight. > > Clark Morris > > > >Friday off topic. I read somewhere that at the time of American > independence circa 1776, it was de rigueur for an educated person to be > able to do *arithmetic* in Roman numerals. You could not otherwise claim to > be properly schooled. A footnote on the whimsy of stodgy education > standards. > > > >. > >. > >J.O.Skip Robinson > >Southern California Edison Company > >Electric Dragon Team Paddler > >SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager > >323-715-0595 Mobile > >626-543-6132 Office ?=== NEW > >[email protected] > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin > >Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 10:56 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: (External):Re: RFE? xlc compile option for C integers to be > "Intel compat" or Little-Endian > > > >On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:43:38 +0100, David W Noon wrote: > >>... > >>This is not the way computers do arithmetic. Adding, subtracting, etc., > >>are performed in register-sized chunks (except packed decimal) and the > >>valid sizes of those registers is determined by architecture. > >> > >I suspect programmed decimal arithmetic was a major motivation for > little-endian. > > > >>In fact, on little-endian systems the numbers are put into big-endian > >>order when loaded into a register. Consequently, these machines do > >>arithmetic in big-endian. > >> > >Ummm... really? I believe IBM computers number bits in a register with > >0 being the most significant bit; non-IBM computers with 0 being the > least sighificant bit. I'd call that a bitwise little-endian. And it > gives an easy summation formula for conversion to unsigned integers. > > > >>As someone who was programming DEC PDP-11s more than 40 years ago, I > >>can assure everybody that little-endian sucks. > >> > >But do the computers care? (And which was your first system? Did you > feel profound relief when you discovered the alternative convention?) > > > >IIRC, PDP-11 provided for writing tapes little-endian, which was wrong > for sharing numeric data with IBM systems, or big-endian, which was wrong > for sharing text data. > > > >For those who remain unaware on a Friday: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliput_and_Blefuscu#History_ > and_politics > > > >-- gil > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- sas ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
