JA
From what I've obseved, if there's 2 "numbers" E.G. LX, then if thesecond one is lover in value fromt he first one, then the 2 are added together, if the second is higher than the first one (E.G. XC) then the lower number is subtracted fromt he higher one.
james2001
Founding member
cwathen posted:
Incidentally, can someone explain to me quite how roman numerals work? In that sometimes a number is added on to the preceeding number and sometimes it's subtracted to the next number. I know that, for instance, CM means 100 from 1000 so 900, and that LX means 50 plus 10 so 60, but I only know that because I know it, what rules actually cause that to happen?
From what I've obseved, if there's 2 "numbers" E.G. LX, then if thesecond one is lover in value fromt he first one, then the 2 are added together, if the second is higher than the first one (E.G. XC) then the lower number is subtracted fromt he higher one.
AS
Chris, no-one has been banned from using images in their sig. The check script has no ability to ban people. There isn't even a tally of 'multiple offenders'!
I'm not sure why the code isn't working for you - I've manually changed it myself and it doesn't work so something's not right somewhere. I'll look into it.
Cheers, Asa
Asa
Admin
cwathen posted:
If I ask very nicely I may well be allowed to have the images back again, but I haven't yet.
Chris, no-one has been banned from using images in their sig. The check script has no ability to ban people. There isn't even a tally of 'multiple offenders'!
I'm not sure why the code isn't working for you - I've manually changed it myself and it doesn't work so something's not right somewhere. I'll look into it.
Cheers, Asa
MA
From what I've obseved, if there's 2 "numbers" E.G. LX, then if thesecond one is lover in value fromt he first one, then the 2 are added together, if the second is higher than the first one (E.G. XC) then the lower number is subtracted fromt he higher one.
You have to be careful to treat each number as a seperate entity.
so for example 1999 is
1000=M
+
900=CM
+
90=XC
+
9=IX
or MCMXCIX
Marcus
Founding member
james2001 posted:
cwathen posted:
Incidentally, can someone explain to me quite how roman numerals work? In that sometimes a number is added on to the preceeding number and sometimes it's subtracted to the next number. I know that, for instance, CM means 100 from 1000 so 900, and that LX means 50 plus 10 so 60, but I only know that because I know it, what rules actually cause that to happen?
From what I've obseved, if there's 2 "numbers" E.G. LX, then if thesecond one is lover in value fromt he first one, then the 2 are added together, if the second is higher than the first one (E.G. XC) then the lower number is subtracted fromt he higher one.
You have to be careful to treat each number as a seperate entity.
so for example 1999 is
1000=M
+
900=CM
+
90=XC
+
9=IX
or MCMXCIX
MB
No you don't. That assumes that the Romans thought of their numbers in deanery (base 10) format - which they didn't - hence why they built up their imperial numbering system which, as in imperial measures of weight and distance, have constantly changing bases - i.e. 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 - respectively I, V, X, L, C, D and M.
Thus it would be perfectly acceptable to a Roman to use MXM for 1990, as in that time deanery (decimal) numbers would not have been in use, therefore they wouldn't have started off with the thousands, hundreds, tens and units, coded each and then put them all together. They would have stuck together the relevant letters in as short a form as possible.
So, "a thousand plus one less than another thousand" would quite rightly be MIM. Only in modern eyes does it appear necessary to encode 1000, 900, 90 and 9 separately. If the Romans had been doing that, they would have just written four symbols, for 1, 9, 9 and 9 in a row. But they didn't do that, did they?
I noticed quite a few American programmes getting it wrong with MXMXCIX.
Quote:
You have to be careful to treat each number as a seperate entity.
No you don't. That assumes that the Romans thought of their numbers in deanery (base 10) format - which they didn't - hence why they built up their imperial numbering system which, as in imperial measures of weight and distance, have constantly changing bases - i.e. 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 - respectively I, V, X, L, C, D and M.
Thus it would be perfectly acceptable to a Roman to use MXM for 1990, as in that time deanery (decimal) numbers would not have been in use, therefore they wouldn't have started off with the thousands, hundreds, tens and units, coded each and then put them all together. They would have stuck together the relevant letters in as short a form as possible.
So, "a thousand plus one less than another thousand" would quite rightly be MIM. Only in modern eyes does it appear necessary to encode 1000, 900, 90 and 9 separately. If the Romans had been doing that, they would have just written four symbols, for 1, 9, 9 and 9 in a row. But they didn't do that, did they?
I noticed quite a few American programmes getting it wrong with MXMXCIX.
DJ
I'd like to know why, now that we're well into the 21st century, certain TV companies *cough* BBC *cough* are
still using the effectively obsolete system of ancient Roman Numerals for the copyright dates on their TV shows.
Using EastEnders as an example . . . what's wrong with using 2003 instead of MMIII like this . . . ?
http://djgm.co.uk/stuff/eastenders-endcap.jpg
still using the effectively obsolete system of ancient Roman Numerals for the copyright dates on their TV shows.
Using EastEnders as an example . . . what's wrong with using 2003 instead of MMIII like this . . . ?
http://djgm.co.uk/stuff/eastenders-endcap.jpg
MB
It's a mystery to me.
Popular rumour (which probably means it wrong) says that TV companies started doing it to disguise repeats.
These days, with old shows being repackaged so that they can be given new copyright dates, it seems all the more pointless.
Incidentally, the BBC only started using roman numerals in 1976 remember. Fairly recent in TV terms. AFAIK ITV Generic Credit style is arabic numbering, is it not?
As for the BBC, Gill Sans Light is a terrible font to display Roman Numerals in. At least the previous font (Futura Condensed DemiBold Italic) was nice and clear for the purpose. I think it's time the Beeb started using Arabic numbering once more.
That's got me thinking - isn't it funny how the BBC (or anybody else for that matter) dispensed with including "STEREO" or "WIDESCREEN" in their credits.
i.e. we used to have /B/B/C/ COLOUR (c) BBC 197x
Or GRANADA Colour Production
But we never had /B/B/C/ STEREO or |B|B|C| Widescreen, did we?!
Popular rumour (which probably means it wrong) says that TV companies started doing it to disguise repeats.
These days, with old shows being repackaged so that they can be given new copyright dates, it seems all the more pointless.
Incidentally, the BBC only started using roman numerals in 1976 remember. Fairly recent in TV terms. AFAIK ITV Generic Credit style is arabic numbering, is it not?
As for the BBC, Gill Sans Light is a terrible font to display Roman Numerals in. At least the previous font (Futura Condensed DemiBold Italic) was nice and clear for the purpose. I think it's time the Beeb started using Arabic numbering once more.
That's got me thinking - isn't it funny how the BBC (or anybody else for that matter) dispensed with including "STEREO" or "WIDESCREEN" in their credits.
i.e. we used to have /B/B/C/ COLOUR (c) BBC 197x
Or GRANADA Colour Production
But we never had /B/B/C/ STEREO or |B|B|C| Widescreen, did we?!
DJ
Remember when BBC annos (on the digital versions of BBC ONE and TWO) used to add
the words "in widescreen" when introducing widescreen programs? IIRC, This was back
in 1999-2000 when 16:9 widescreen broadcasts on BBC TV were few and far between.
"This is BBC ONE. Time now for another visit to Casualty . . . in widescreen."
When did they actually stop doing that . . . ?
the words "in widescreen" when introducing widescreen programs? IIRC, This was back
in 1999-2000 when 16:9 widescreen broadcasts on BBC TV were few and far between.
Quote:
"This is BBC ONE. Time now for another visit to Casualty . . . in widescreen."
When did they actually stop doing that . . . ?
:-(
For the first year or so of Nicam they put the word 'Stereo' in the top left hand corner of the globe symbol. Before NICAM started the phrase 'Stereo Where Availiable' appeared beneath the 1 logo on certain trails
Examples here:
http://www.vintagebroadcasting.org.uk/bbcnicam.htm
A former member
Mark Boulton posted:
But we never had /B/B/C/
STEREO
or |B|B|C| Widescreen, did we?!
For the first year or so of Nicam they put the word 'Stereo' in the top left hand corner of the globe symbol. Before NICAM started the phrase 'Stereo Where Availiable' appeared beneath the 1 logo on certain trails
Examples here:
http://www.vintagebroadcasting.org.uk/bbcnicam.htm