Roman Numerals chart to 1,000,000

Judson McClendon

unread,

Nov 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/17/98

to

Here's a handy chart. The over-bar letters are not used very often,
because they present character set problems. I used the underscore
character on the line above to do it for this chart, so everybody
should be able to print it okay.

As you can see, the over-bar'ed letters represent 1000 times the value
of the letter without the over-bar. A moment of thought should tell
you that the Romans had to deal with budgets and other amounts far in
excess of the 5,000 limit normally assumed today for Roman Numerals
without the over-bar.

ROMAN NUMERALS
__
1 I 50 L 9,000 VX
_
2 II 60 LX 10,000 X
__
3 III 70 LXX 20,000 XX
___
4 IV 80 LXXX 30,000 XXX
__
5 V 90 XC 40,000 XL
_
6 VI 100 C 50,000 L
__
7 VII 200 CC 60,000 LX
___
8 VIII 300 CCC 70,000 LXX
____
9 IX 400 CD 80,000 LXXX
__
10 X 500 D 90,000 XC
_
11 XI 600 DC 100,000 C
__
12 XII 700 DCC 200,000 CC
___
13 XIII 800 DCCC 300,000 CCC
__
14 XIV 900 CM 400,000 CD
_
15 XV 1,000 M 500,000 D
__
16 XVI 2,000 MM 600,000 DC
___
17 XVII 3,000 MMM 700,000 DCC
_ ____
18 XVIII 4,000 MV 800,000 DCCC
_ __
19 XIX 5,000 V 900,000 CM
_ _
20 XX 6,000 VM 1,000,000 M
_
30 XXX 7,000 VMM
_
40 XL 8,000 VMMM
--
Judson McClendon judm...@bellsouth.net (remove numbers)
Sun Valley Systems http://personal.bhm.bellsouth.net/~judmc
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

bagh...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Nov 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/17/98

to

In article <4Qf42.436$956.6...@news3.mia>,

"Judson McClendon" <judm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Here's a handy chart. The over-bar letters are not used very often,
> because they present character set problems. I used the underscore
> character on the line above to do it for this chart, so everybody
> should be able to print it okay.
>
> As you can see, the over-bar'ed letters represent 1000 times the value
> of the letter without the over-bar. A moment of thought should tell
> you that the Romans had to deal with budgets and other amounts far in
> excess of the 5,000 limit normally assumed today for Roman Numerals
> without the over-bar.
>
> ROMAN NUMERALS

So what's the roman numeral for Zero :)

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Koen Pollentier

unread,

Nov 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/17/98

to

Okay, I know, it just doesn't exist !

bagh...@my-dejanews.com wrote :

K Sheglova

unread,

Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98

to

an unwritten on scroll or tablet I suppose ;)

K Sheglova

dirk

unread,

Nov 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/20/98

to

Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Here's a handy chart. The over-bar letters are not used very often,
> because they present character set problems. I used the underscore
> character on the line above to do it for this chart, so everybody
> should be able to print it okay.
>
> As you can see, the over-bar'ed letters represent 1000 times the value
> of the letter without the over-bar. A moment of thought should tell
> you that the Romans had to deal with budgets and other amounts far in
> excess of the 5,000 limit normally assumed today for Roman Numerals
> without the over-bar.
>
> ROMAN NUMERALS

Let's see a qbasic program to do this

Robert E Wightman

unread,

Nov 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/20/98

to

Interesting, I didn't know about the overbar for values of 5000 and
over. I seem to remember from history lessons at school that a roman
legion was 5000 men (?), maybe that's why it all repeats from then on.

Nice one Mr McLendon, culture and programming in one newsgroup!

PS did they use a double overbar for 5,000,000?
--

Have fun, it's not worth it otherwise.

Bob Wightman

<b...@pattinson.demon.co.uk>

Judson McClendon

unread,

Nov 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/20/98

to

Robert E Wightman wrote:
>
>PS did they use a double overbar for 5,000,000?

Yes, two over-bars = times 1,000,000. I understand the use of three or
more over-bars was virtually zip. They probably didn't have billions of
anything. :-)

Randall Bart

unread,

Nov 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/22/98

to

'Twas Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:24:17 +0000, when Robert E Wightman
<b...@pattinson.demon.co.uk> illuminated comp.lang.cobol thusly:

>>Judson McClendon wrote:

>>> ROMAN NUMERALS
>>> __
>>> 1 I 50 L 9,000 VX

This is just a typo, right?
__
IX is the correct form for 9,000.

>>> _ ____
>>> 18 XVIII 4,000 MV 800,000 DCCC
>>> _ __
>>> 19 XIX 5,000 V 900,000 CM
>>> _ _
>>> 20 XX 6,000 VM 1,000,000 M
>>> _
>>> 30 XXX 7,000 VMM
>>> _
>>> 40 XL 8,000 VMMM

AIUI, the overbar wasn't mixed within a digit position. Thus
__
IV is 4,000
__
VI is 6,000
___
VII is 7,000
____
VIII is 8,000.

Not that someone didn't write it the other way somewhere, but these were
the usual forms. Judson's form for 4000 is awkward. Imagine the number
14,000.
___
XIV is easier to write than
_ _
XMV. The over bar was written with a single stroke, leaving a gap for MV
would be odd. In fact, 11,000 was written as
__
XI rather than
_
XM, though the latter may have been used by some.

>PS did they use a double overbar for 5,000,000?

Yes.

--
R B |\ Randall Bart
a a |/ mailto:Bart...@usa.spam.net mailto:Bart...@att.spam.net
n r |\ 1-310-542-6013 Please reply without spam I Love You
d t ||\ Greatest Unisys A Series Programmer Available is Now Available
a |/ http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00/RBResume.html
l |\ The Year 2000 Bugs: http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://members.aol.com/PanicYr00/Sequence.html

Judson McClendon

unread,

Nov 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/22/98

to

Randall Bart wrote:
>
>>>Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>>>> ROMAN NUMERALS
>>>> __
>>>> 1 I 50 L 9,000 VX
>
>This is just a typo, right?
>__
>IX is the correct form for 9,000.

_
Yep, that's a typo. Sorry! However, MX would have been my choice,
because I prefer not to use two different symbols for the same
value. Your point about alternating over-barred and plain letters
is a good one, but in practice most large numbers are not going to
be multiples of 1,000. Those would have some plain letters anyway,
though most would be on the right.

Michael Astrauskas

unread,

Nov 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/23/98

to

Randall Bart wrote:

> Not that someone didn't write it the other way somewhere, but these were
> the usual forms. Judson's form for 4000 is awkward. Imagine the number
> 14,000.
> ___
> XIV is easier to write than
> _ _
> XMV. The over bar was written with a single stroke, leaving a gap for MV
> would be odd.

Wouldn't that be 999,005?

> In fact, 11,000 was written as
> __
> XI rather than
> _
> XM, though the latter may have been used by some.

Wouldn't this be 0?

--
- Michael Astrauskas (AKA Julian) ICQ UIN: 1946065, Trevelyan
My Anime-type art: www.geocities.com/timessquare/6300/

Student of Psychology, History, Chemistry, English, and Theatre

Dave Navarro

unread,

Nov 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/23/98

to

This doesn't go as high as your chart, but someone might find it useful:

' Roman routine for PowerBASIC
' by Dave Navarro, Jr. (da...@powerbasic.com)
' Last Revision: September 12, 1993

' Convert a number between 1 and 3999 to a roman numeral.
' Example: CopyRight$ = "(c) " + Roman$(1993)

DEFINT A-Z 'Required for all numeric functions, forces PB to not
'include floating point in UNIT (makes it smaller)

FUNCTION Roman$(BYVAL Number) PUBLIC
LOCAL RomanChar$, RomanCharSub$, I
STATIC Rv(), Rv1()

RomanChar$ = "MDCLXVI"
RomanCharSub$ = "CCXXII?"
DIM Rv(1:7), Rv1(1:7)
Rv(1)=1000 :Rv(2)=500 :Rv(3)=100 :Rv(4)=50 :Rv(5)=10 :Rv(6)=5 :Rv(7)=1
Rv1(1)=900 :Rv1(2)=400 :Rv1(3)=90 :Rv1(4)=40 :Rv1(5)=9 :Rv1(6)=4 :Rv1(7)=1

IF Number < 4000 THEN
FOR I = 1 TO 7
WHILE Number >= Rv(I)
Temp$ = Temp$ + MID$(RomanChar$,I,1)
Number = Number - Rv(I)
WEND
IF Number >= Rv1(I) THEN
Temp$ = Temp$ + MID$(RomanCharSub$,I,1)
Temp$ = Temp$ + MID$(RomanChar$,I,1)
Number = Number - Rv1(I)
END IF
NEXT I
END IF
Roman$ = Temp$
END FUNCTION