On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 11:36:49 -0400, Steve Smith wrote: >Clocks traditionally have IIII instead of IV. As far as I can tell, no one >really knows why. Nine is always IX. > I've heard it called esthetic. _______________ VIII A IIII is a better visal balance than _______________ VIII A IV and
_______________ IX A III is a better visal balance than _______________ VIIII A III From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtractive_notation ...Subtractive notation, as opposed to the subtractive system used in the longhand form of numbers, was rarely used in Ancient Rome[1] but became popular in the 13th century.[2] >On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:16 PM, CM Poncelet wrote: > >> FWIW I had an analog wall-clock in the late-50's / early-60's that >> showed 4 as IIII - not IV. I cannot remember what its 9 was. Using >> letters as numerals prevented the Romans and Greeks etc. from inventing >> algebra. <grin> CP Um... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Polygon_approximation_era Archimedes computed upper and lower bounds of π by drawing a regular hexagon inside and outside a circle, and successively doubling the number of sides until he reached a 96-sided regular polygon. By calculating the perimeters of these polygons, he proved that 223/71 < π < 22/7 (that is 3.1408 < π < 3.1429).[50]. How!? Were his calculations preserved? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
