Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 2 down vote favorite

I found an online calculator (www.novaroma.org/via_romana/numbers.html) saying that $4000$ is $MMMM$ in Roman numerals. But I also found on the Finnish Wikipedia that it is denoted by $M\bar{V}$. Which is correct or both?

share|improve this question

closed as off topic by Holdsworth88, Alexander Gruber, Fabian, Davide Giraudo, Nameless Dec 31 '12 at 11:37

Questions on Mathematics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to math within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Both could be considered to be correct. There's a convention when writing roman numerals that writing a bar above a symbol multiplies its value by 1000, so $\bar{V}$ represents 5000, and $M\bar{V}$ is 5000 minus 1000, which is 4000.

share|improve this answer
2  
is this conventione userd only in US highschools or was it already used in Ancient Rome? – miracle173 Dec 31 '12 at 9:51
Overlines as multiplication with 1000, as well as extending the sequence D=|) and M=(|) with |)), ((|)) and so on for higher powers are known only since the middle ages (so that's still way before anyone would have thouhgt of founding a US high school). – Hagen von Eitzen Dec 31 '12 at 10:08
up vote 0 down vote

My understanding of Roman Numerals, is that the version that is correct is the one with fewer characters in it.

However, there are specific cases made against it, like why 4 is represented by IIII instead of IV on clocks

Also, if you're talking about historical accuracy, when Roman Numerals were introduced they were listed out as just addition of terms on the right. Enforcing of the subtraction rule is a 'recent' phenomenon.

share|improve this answer
I don't think the Roman civilisation existed 3000 years ago, did it? Did you mean 300 years ago? – John Wordsworth Dec 31 '12 at 10:51
@OldJohn What I meant was that when Romans started out (hence the or so), they didn't use the subtraction method, but listed it out as addition. Enforcing of the subtraction is a 'recent' phenomenon. – Calvin Lin Dec 31 '12 at 11:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.