511:
alphabetic notation is used in Greek and Arabic texts, Roman numerals in Latin, Hindu numerals in
Sanskrit. The essential point, common to all, is the place value notation and the use of a zero symbol. The modification of this notation to decimally written numbers as well, which took place in India, produced the "Hindu numerals" which we use now and which appear in slowly increasing frequency in the later Middle Ages in Arabic as well as in Byzantine and Latin texts. For the computational methods this is of very little importance since it does not matter in what form the individual digits are written. — Otto Neugebauer,
170:
marks a significant difference) is much more handy for performing all kinds of operations thana system like the Roman. In fact, the Romans did not do any long divisions or stuff like that with their symbols, but they used an abacus for calculations, and an abacus is basically a positioning system. By the way, the Arabic numbers should really be called Indian numbers, that's where they originally came from, although they were introduced into Europe by the Arabs. In reply to the last post, I think the progress in the
Western world owes much more to the Arabic digits than to the Roman humanistic legacy....
276:
write IIII than IV. Generally romans didn't like subtractions. And they even wrote IC for 99. It was a bit more normal to use IX than IV, but VIIII was still heavilly used. Maybe a new section ought to be added about Roman numberals as used in the ancient times. (That is: write so you are understod as the only rule it seems.) Many of these variations have survived because people tend to see them in old books and arcitetctual places. Anyone that understands norwegian might want to incorporate some of the information there about older practices from there.
193:
all. It seems to me that entire new opportunities became available to us, when we switched numbering systems. However, I'd like to have some references before I write up an encyclopedia article about it. Are there any good studies of history where fundamental practices changed because of better math? Like some example from military history, where someone, because they were able to figure out their logistics better, were able to win some battle. --
926:
31:
493:
I use the convenient modern 'comma and semi-colon' notation , in which 6,13;10,0,58 represents 6 × 60 + 13 + 10 × 60 + 0 × 60 + 58 × 60. Ptolemy uses the system only for fractions, and represents whole numbers, even when combined with sexagesimal fractions, by the standard Greek (alphabetic) notation. The translation follows the mixed notation (thus the above number would be written 373;10,0,58 in the translation, and
598:|)) = 5000, |))) = 50,000. However, there may be no evidence for numbers greater than 100,000 were represented in this way -- the overbar being used instead (later?): single overbar (with small drops, [ on its side) for x 1000; full-three sides for x 100,000. The overbar multiplication was apparently not applied to I,V, L (?).
557:
My specific objection was the conclusion (badly worded or not) that Roman's had a positional notation system simply because the it is assumed the Greek's had one. Both conclusions are un-supportable. The specialized use of
Babylonian sexagesimal counting by Ptolemy in Roman/Greek society is akin to
177:
Anyone who reflects on the universal history of written number-systems cannot be but struck by the ingeniousness of this system, since the concept of zero, and the positional value attached to each figure in the representation of a number, give it a huge advantage over all other systems thought up by
492:
was taken over by the Greeks (one may guess by the
Hellenistic astronomers) from the Babylonians as a convenient way of expressing fractions and (to a lesser extent) large numbers, and of performing calculations with them. It is the first place-value system in history . In the translation and notes
205:
Of course culture is terribly complex, and I certainly did not want to reduce the success of
Western culture (or, let's say, the current dominant position of Western culture in economic terms) to the adoption of a certain numerical system. In any case, the main point of my previous post is that the
94:
I've read somewhere that Roman numerals were partly responsible for slowing the development of science and math. This was purely because they are harder to deal with, and it takes even a trained user longer to add, subtract, multiply and divide numbers written in Roman numerals that it does someone
751:
is just as bad as the previous one. As far as I know, the only usage of 'MIM' and 'IMM' is by people who haven't even bothered finding out what roman numbers really are. The 'pedia should report correct information. Your sentence gives the impression there is doubt about what the correct usage is.
597:
The reverse-C is the "apostrophic C" . The notation (|) for 1000 is likely to be the origin of the M symbol, rather than M-for-mille. Each level of bracketing multiplies the represented value by 10: ((|)) = 10,000; (((|))) = 100,000. Half symbols were used to represent half the value: |) = 500 ;
589:
What I was told in Latin class boils down to this: originally, the Romans used the Greek letter Phi (Φ), which was unused in their own alphabet, to denote the number 1,000. To denote half its value (i.e., 500), they halved the letter Phi, resulting in the regular "hardware representation" I+reverse
169:
I do not believe that the difference between operating with Roman or Arabic numerals is just a question of getting used to one or the other, as some of the above posters seem to imply. A positional number system like the Arabic one(with a symbol for the zero, which the Romans didn't have, and which
760:
One point of that section is that the question of "correct" usage isn't as simple as you state. Not only has usage varied somewhat with time and place, the Romans themselves exhibited some inconsistency in their usage, and a degree of personal preference seems to have been involved. Certainly we
267:
This article was just cited in an
Associated Press story today,with its mention of a supposed Roman ruler ordering a change from "IV" to "IIII",which as I understood it was older(subtractive notation being an innovation even if during classical times).However,the article refers to an "incorrectly"
192:
I certainly agree that culture and 'progress' are complex topics. It seems to me, though, that the tools (physical and mental) that are available to people drastically change their outlook on the world. Mathmatics is the basis of science and technology, and arithmetic is the starting point of it
161:
Obviously this is easier to perform with sums, and it is true that main progresses in main scientific disciplines were achieved by arabs (just think of astronomy). I wouldn't however agree it simply slowened progress: Roman system might have been better structured to complete a mentality which put
157:
With romans you need to realise "where" in the proportion of values your number is located: is 98 closer to 50 or 100? Am I talking about something that is of (this) kind of proportion or of (this other kind)? Idea is: main identifiable concept = one hundred, my number differs from that of II less
776:
The usage XIIX for 18 is attested in actual usage in medieval times, and I think IC for 99 is also. People who actually wrote and read these numerals could communicate unambiguously with a slightly more flexible version of "The Rules", so who are we to be throwing around epithets such as "patent
275:
I just corrected (= deleted) this. IIII was very common before the middel ages. It was only in the middel ages that roman numerals where "standarized". When mulitiplication and division became important the rules listed on the page where developed. For a roman it was much more natural to actually
153:
With arabic numbers you have to learn by heart some concepts like fixed relationships: series of adding or multiplying factors (like 2,4,6.8.... or 3,6,9,12,.... or 4.8.12.16,.... and so on) will be recalled from your memory when you compute the separate parts of a multiplying operation. In roman
129:
I can kind of see how Roman numerals would be easier to learn how to count. But there's a lot more science needs than simple counting. It's multiplying and division that seem to be overly difficult in Roman numerals. I remember in 3rd grade, learning how to divide using Arabic numbers was hard
116:
I think that it is only that arabic system was used by phoenician merchants in the whole
Mediterranean area well before that Rome had an influence over a similarly extended territory. A fact is that Rome created the widest empire of ancient world using its numbers, and another fact is that we use
510:
The sexagesimal place value notation, including a symbol for zero, is of course of
Babylonian origin. By its adoption in Greek astronomy it also became the standard method in Indian, Islamic, and western European treatises and tables. The method of writing the single digits is insignificant. The
124:
In Latin class I had learned the exact opposite of what
Ansible suggested. From what I understand, the Roman numeral system is supposedly really easy to count on your hands with. Essentially, the Roman numerals were quicker to add and subtract with, whilst Arabic numerals are easier to mulitiply
104:
Maybe yes, maybe not: they certainly could not interact with "our" computing system because of lenght (in chars) of single numbers, which is variable too. For instance: number 77 is expressed in arabic with two chars only, while LXXVII needs six. But the worse is that number 78 needs seven chars
688:
The sentence seems to be in reference to traditional list formatting, specifically the 'outline' format commonly utilized as a method to brainstorm/pre-draft for writing or senquencially listing subjects/topics found in text (e.g. the Table of
Contents in a textbook.) So the sentence should be
200:
Sure it's important, but given that everyone from India to Iceland had the use of the numeral system by some date, we're in Sapir-Whorf fallacy zone to use it as much of an explanation. And what about the Central American zero? There are scholars who insist that the invention of double-entry
141:
As far as I remember, there is no different operational method with roman numbers, since it should be only a matter of graphical rendering, or I didn't meet this point in my studies. The concept of division should be the same in both methods. Roman system has a different approach to rendering,
590:
C, which in turn was standardised into D. Reversed-C on its own I've never seen (but that doesn't mean it may not exist). This, by the way, contradicts what the first paragraph says about I+reverse C being an old representation of M, I think someone's got it confused with D. Correct this? —
112:
On the other side, every calculation in roman numbers requires a logical scheme that is different from arabic system. I could not say which is the best: if you are latin-minded (and you are consequently used to decline words, verbs and other object of same frequency making use of a sort of
677:
Romans certainly didn't use 1, 2, or 3. The arabic numbers entered europe long after the fall of the Roman empire. According to Georges Ifrah, Universalgeschichte der Zahlen, the Codex Vigilanus from 976 C.E. is the oldest european work containing arabic numbers.
217:
Take a look here above: most of the words you use have latin or greek roots. Maybe this is stats, still it's not economy. I agree that the explanation of this concept might be better shown in arabic numbers, but I still prefer a latin "idea", than a fair perfect
142:
requiring not to consider a linear sequencial scale (as in arabic ones) but a more complex thought about "notable" numeric entities: 99 is in arabic only the number after 98, in roman it is the one before one hundred (closer relevant entity), and is "IC" (
108:
But this does not mean that there are operations that you cannot perform with them too. If you try to calculate a square root of some number, you will get the same result with both systems. Maybe obviously this would require a different use of the space.
150:). A rendering like LXXXXVIIII would be the first result in our current mentality, but a second thought is required to better describe it in latin concepts (so LXXXXVIIII is a wrong form, correct being only IC - or the other one proposed in article).
547:
Also, Ptolemy was a Roman Empire era scholar. Clearly his work did not influence the development of Roman numerals. I would imagine that an article on Roman Era Math would be better suited to discuss the influence of Ptolemy rather than Roman
201:
accounting (Venice, late middle ages) is really what does it for the West. My only goal here is to suppress sweeping, universalistic statements about the zero changing the world. It did so, but very, very, very slowly. --MichaelTinkler
187:
Oh - so the West was able to 'progress' using Arabic zero while the Arabs were not? Just a query from a specialist in the western humanities. Let's not start this silliness. Culture is considerably more complex than ease of computation.
714:
Some rules regarding Roman numerals state that a symbol representing 10 may not precede any symbol larger than 10. For example, one should represent the number "ninety-nine" as XCIX, not IC. However, these rules are not universally
438:
that it is possible to perform the four basic arithmetic functions (addition, substraction, multiplication and division) using Roman numerals without a positional notation system. No doubt the Greeks used similar approaches.
604:
It is useful to remember that arithmatic was performed on Abaci, not with the written numbers (as we would with Arabic/Indian numerals). Roman numerals are a direct representation of what is on the Abicus.
911:, but it was a relatively recent development during the Middle Ages. The other forms shown were those actually used by the Romans, which were still popular throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance. —
806:; I haven't read it all, so this may be silly: I think the comment "There was no need for a zero." on the entry "Zero" in the long table of numerals should go; it seems to arise from a confusion of the
352:
in such a positional notation system, including a special symbol for zero. The Romans could have simply transcribed the Greek version into Latin characters if they had a need for such a system.
786:
894:
752:
This is misleading. And if you feel the need to state that "People do not always bother following rules", it should be done in the context of human behaviour in general. --
465:
We have a misunderstanding here, no doubt due to my poor wording — I will attempt to reword the paragraph to take your confusion into account. You are correct that basic
373:
to represent nothing (Number Words and Number Symbols, Karl Menninger, 1969, pp 399) but this is only part of the necessary ingredients for a positional notation system.
854:
needs context or explanation. I assume this is a taking-the-name-of-the-lord-in-vain kind of thing, but it's too vague as is. Besides, the whole reason we use Rx for
538:
This is an article on Roman numerals, so unless it has a proven impact the Roman numeral system, perhaps this discussion should be moved to Greek numerals.
255:
But don't replace the ISO Roman numerals with them. Morwen says they have been deprecated from Day 1 and are there just for compatibility issues.
154:
maths, you will constantly evaluate concrete "weight" of numbers, so you will get your result with less use of memory and deeper instant analysis.
826:(e.g. 1999). A Roman farmer owning zero cows had as much (or as little) need for the number zero as a modern farmer. -- But perhaps the table
777:
nonsense"? My guess is that "The Rules" were written by printers round about the time that they standardized spelling. Tverbeek is right.
769:
standard for them, the position that there is an indisputable standard for "correct" usage - and that you have it - seems hard to justify.
766:
681:
The sentence seems to require some historical context. Given the fact that this context is not given, I suggest to remove the sentence. --
635:
Actually, I took the step and edited the Barney bit out. As for the Barney is Satan redirect, I do not know how to remove that. —
648:
162:
humanist sciences before technical sciences, but today's progressed world belongs more to latin civilisation than to arabian one.
113:"on-the-fly" developping), you will find it as natural as today we find arabic ones, the longer time only depending on writing.
117:
arabic system; opinions might evaluate whether it is better for us, but keep in mind that we were born "within" this mentality.
976:
971:
966:
954:
272:...in Roman times there were sundials,but not clocks!(Could the ruler have been more modern?)--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com
81:
76:
71:
59:
731:
That last sentence reflects that fact that - "kosher" or not - some people do it anyway. Since the role of Knowledge is
735:
to proclaim what's right, but to describe what's done, I've restored a slightly modified version of that statement.
617:
I highly doubt that this joke could possibly qualify as encyclopedic. Can we remove it and its associated redirect
933:
38:
130:
enough. What are even the rules for doing manual division with Roman numerals? Does anyone even know anymore? --
850:
Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the god Jove (and later YHWH).
240:
Indeed. The very word "abacus" is a Latin one, though nowadays abaci are chiefly identified with East Asia. --
447:
288:
which instructs the reader how to perform addition, subtraction, multiplication and division operations using
450:
system). Regardless, they were not decimal positional notion systems. That had to wait for the concept of
158:(so it's on the left = IIC), while let's say 105 is more than one hundred by 5 (so it's on the right = CV).
915:
694:
522:
Neugebauer implies that writers did use Roman numerals for the individual digits in a sexagesimal system!
669:
When describing members of a list, first A, B, C, D tended to be used, then 1, 2, 3 then i, ii, iii, iv.
622:
241:
818:
zero, as e.g. CI clearly means 101, not 11, 110, 1001, or whatever. But the entries in this table are
601:
I have really been looking for fractional notations: The reverse-C appears as '1/4' in some contexts.
762:
644:
618:
690:
942:
357:
47:
17:
873:
761:
can and should spell out the usage that's most prevalent, but since no one can find the original
787:
photo of an ancient inscription with the numeral XIIX (the tomb of Secundinus on the Via Appia)
682:
120:
I do think however, that it would be quite complicated to eventually revert our system now :-)
858:
instead of just R] is because Rx resembled the symbol for Jove. So why write Rx but avoid IV?
446:) while the Romans only used 2 characters; one to represent 1 and the other to represent 5 (a
95:
using Arabic numerals. This greater barrier to entry, as it were, resulted in less research.
859:
435:
315:
311:
285:
256:
194:
131:
99:
744:
293:
148:, being more purely latin minded, and I have many books with that form too - just checked
912:
778:
652:
528:
466:
443:
349:
345:
289:
770:
736:
583:
568:
458:
326:
300:
698:
485:
Greek numerals for each digit (0–59), as the following explanations by experts show.
234:
790:
606:
211:
181:
415:
In a further example, the numerals to represent a count of eleven would have been
299:
Once you get the hang of it, it is rather easy, but not as easy at using Arabic.
941:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
636:
629:
591:
470:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
442:
However, the Greeks did have a character to present each count from 1 to 10 (a
231:
173:
I would like to quote Georges Ifrah from "The Universal History of Numbers":
753:
725:
478:
393:
A Greek positional notation system would have a count of ten represented by
835:
651:
and {{rfd}} to the redirect (although it doesn't appear due to a bug). —
336:
Impact of Greek notation system on Romans: positional or non-positional?
789:. Does anyone know of an ancient example of the use of IC, IM or XM? --
363:
582:
I don't get how the flipped C works. Can someone explain it better?
227:
226:
I thought that in the Roman era and the Middle Ages, people used the
870:
According to a book I have the value for the 5,000 roman numeral is
724:
kosher, any way you look at it. So I removed the last sentence.
451:
920:
743:
I beg to disagree. There is no reason to report usage that is
25:
284:
For those that might be inclined, I have added an article on
802:
The are lengthy learned discussions on this talk page about
628:
I agree. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and delete it. —
344:
But that can't be true because many Romans were educated in
230:
for calculation and the numerals for writing them down. --
876:
314:
article. I guess they should be merged...have fun :)
310:
That title is spelled wrong, and there was already a
210:
for doing mathematics than the Roman numerals are. --
376:
In Greek numerals, a count of one is represented by
888:
749:However, these rules are not universally followed
747:, unless in very particular cases. The statement
469:are not positional. Nevertheless, Ptolemy used a
419:. However, the ancient Greeks would have used
325:That is what I get for working late. Corrected
834:, or rather should be split into two tables?--
8:
720:The last sentence is wrong. MIM for 1999 is
340:The following was removed from the article:
513:A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy
125:with. Just some thoughts... --BlackGriffen
252:Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ Ⅷ Ⅸ Ⅹ Ⅺ Ⅻ are all in unicode.
248:A note about Unicode roman numeral symbols
877:
875:
939:Do not edit the contents of this page.
558:the use of calculus in modern society.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
383:and a count of ten is represented by
7:
660:Romans used arabic numbers in lists?
798:"There was no need for a zero" ...?
865:
24:
924:
649:Knowledge:Redirects for deletion
454:as a number in the 6th century.
90:Numerals Caused Slow Development
29:
866:5000 - Isn't it an overlined V?
400:in the tens column followed by
366:(circa 85 - circa 165 AD) used
699:22:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
889:{\displaystyle {\frac {}{V}}}
814:zero: The was no need for a
664:I wonder what the sentence
497:in Greek . — G. J. Toomer,
292:without converting them to
995:
907:) for 5000 is shown under
838:10:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
685:22:40, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
461:19:00, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
146:I am not aware it is wrong
916:16:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
862:05:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
639:22:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
632:14:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
625:17:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
594:14:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
586:08:00, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
571:07:43, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
531:01:19, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
356:The Greeks did not use a
303:05:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
244:07:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
781:07:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
773:20:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
739:15:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
728:07:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
655:19:26, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
609:11:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
448:bi-quinary coded decimal
423:just as the Romans used
329:06:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
318:05:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
259:17:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
178:people through the ages.
793:14:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
756:17:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
348:whose astronomers used
235:00:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
890:
937:of past discussions.
891:
404:in the units column (
208:intrinsecally better
42:of past discussions.
874:
206:Arabic numerals are
705:Is MIM ok for 1999?
477:system copied from
358:positional notation
18:Talk:Roman numerals
886:
709:The article said:
499:Ptolemy's Almagest
982:
981:
949:
948:
943:current talk page
903:The overlined V (
884:
822:digits; they are
98:Is this true? --
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
986:
963:
951:
950:
928:
927:
921:
906:
895:
893:
892:
887:
885:
880:
878:
785:I came across a
674:intends to say.
623:Antaeus Feldspar
613:Barney is Satan?
436:Roman arithmetic
434:I have shown in
408:instead of just
312:Roman arithmetic
286:Roman arithmetic
280:Roman Arithmetic
188:--MichaelTinkler
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
994:
993:
989:
988:
987:
985:
984:
983:
959:
925:
909:Alternate forms
904:
879:
872:
871:
868:
844:
800:
745:patent nonsense
707:
662:
645:Barney is Satan
643:I've added the
619:Barney is Satan
615:
580:
515:(1975), p.1113.
501:(1998), pp.6-7.
338:
294:Arabic numerals
282:
265:
250:
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
992:
990:
980:
979:
974:
969:
964:
957:
947:
946:
929:
919:
918:
883:
867:
864:
852:
851:
843:
840:
830:be a table of
799:
796:
795:
794:
758:
757:
718:
717:
706:
703:
672:
671:
661:
658:
657:
656:
614:
611:
579:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
562:
561:
560:
559:
552:
551:
550:
549:
542:
541:
540:
539:
533:
532:
524:
523:
519:
518:
517:
516:
505:
504:
503:
502:
487:
486:
483:non-positional
467:Greek numerals
444:decimal system
350:Greek numerals
337:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
320:
319:
306:
290:Roman numerals
281:
278:
264:
261:
249:
246:
238:
237:
223:
222:
219:
203:
202:
190:
189:
168:
166:
165:
164:
163:
159:
155:
151:
136:
135:
134:
122:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
991:
978:
975:
973:
970:
968:
965:
962:
958:
956:
953:
952:
944:
940:
936:
935:
930:
923:
922:
917:
914:
910:
902:
901:
900:
897:
881:
863:
861:
857:
849:
848:
847:
841:
839:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:zero and the
809:
805:
797:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
780:
774:
772:
768:
764:
755:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
738:
734:
729:
727:
723:
716:
712:
711:
710:
704:
702:
700:
696:
692:
686:
684:
679:
675:
670:
667:
666:
665:
659:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
640:
638:
633:
631:
626:
624:
620:
612:
610:
608:
602:
599:
595:
593:
587:
585:
577:
570:
569:Denise Norris
566:
565:
564:
563:
556:
555:
554:
553:
546:
545:
544:
543:
537:
536:
535:
534:
530:
526:
525:
521:
520:
514:
509:
508:
507:
506:
500:
496:
491:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
460:
459:Denise Norris
455:
453:
449:
445:
440:
437:
432:
430:
426:
422:
418:
413:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
391:
389:
386:
382:
379:
374:
372:
369:
365:
361:
359:
354:
353:
351:
347:
341:
335:
328:
324:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
304:
302:
297:
295:
291:
287:
279:
277:
273:
271:
262:
260:
258:
253:
247:
245:
243:
242:167.206.188.3
236:
233:
229:
225:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
199:
198:
197:
196:
186:
185:
184:
183:
179:
174:
171:
160:
156:
152:
149:
147:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
128:
127:
126:
121:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
96:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
960:
938:
932:
908:
898:
869:
855:
853:
846:The clause
845:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
801:
775:
759:
748:
732:
730:
721:
719:
713:
708:
687:
680:
676:
673:
668:
663:
647:redirect to
634:
627:
616:
603:
600:
596:
588:
581:
512:
498:
494:
482:
474:
456:
441:
433:
428:
424:
420:
416:
414:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
392:
387:
384:
380:
377:
375:
370:
367:
362:
355:
343:
342:
339:
305:
298:
283:
274:
269:
266:
254:
251:
239:
207:
204:
191:
176:
175:
172:
167:
145:
143:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
97:
93:
65:
43:
37:
931:This is an
471:sexagesimal
316:Adam Bishop
257:WhisperToMe
105:(LXXVIII).
36:This is an
495:τογ ι ο νη
481:but using
475:positional
473:(base 60)
360:system.
977:Archive 5
972:Archive 4
967:Archive 3
961:Archive 2
955:Archive 1
913:Joe Kress
779:Cbdorsett
691:MRLCrouse
689:removed.
653:Joe Kress
578:Flipped C
548:numerals.
529:Joe Kress
479:Babylonia
221:Greetings
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
771:Tverbeek
737:Tverbeek
715:applied.
584:lysdexia
427:and not
327:denorris
301:denorris
144:really,
934:archive
836:Niels Ø
824:numbers
791:Zundark
607:Sawatts
388:(de´ka)
371:(ouden)
364:Ptolemy
263:Clocks?
218:result.
212:Calypso
195:ansible
182:Calypso
132:ansible
100:ansible
39:archive
899:RyanJ
856:recipe
832:digits
828:should
812:number
637:Cwoyte
630:Cwoyte
621:? --
592:Cwoyte
228:abacus
860:kwami
842:Jove?
816:digit
808:digit
398:(mia)
381:(mia)
346:Greek
270:clock
268:made
232:Error
16:<
804:zero
754:Egil
726:Egil
695:talk
683:Kune
452:zero
820:not
767:ISO
765:or
763:RFC
733:not
722:not
701:-
412:).
390:.
896:?
697:)
605:--
567:--
527:—
457:--
431:.
429:II
425:XI
421:ια
417:αα
406:αο
296:.
945:.
905:V
882:V
693:(
410:ι
402:ο
395:α
385:ι
378:α
368:ο
180:-
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.