For those who don't know their Roman numerals

[niltrias]

I harbor an intense distaste for VIII. It is just so...wrong.
I generally refuse to use it.

[Jacob_Lee]

I harbor an intense distaste for VIII. It is just so...wrong.
I generally refuse to use it.

I hate it too, I wish it would be IIX instead of VIII

[Flame]

but roman number is VIII, can't be helped. XD Anyway isn't so hard. 5+3 = 8. V-III. You can take a flash look, if are 3, is eight. If 2 is seven, without count the lines all the times XD

[niltrias]

but roman number is VIII, can't be helped. XD Anyway isn't so hard. 5+3 = 8. V-III. You can take a flash look, if are 3, is eight. If 2 is seven, without count the lines all the times XD

Thats not the problem.

The rule is if the lesser number lies before the greater, subtract. If it lies behind the greater, add. That being the case, one could make the argument that IIIIIX means 5, and logically one would be correct. The reason that this is not the case is because V is a more economical method for expressing the arabic numeral 5 than IIIIIX is.

However, IIX is the more economical expression of 8, beating VIII by a character. Its not a question of understanding it or not, its a question of logic or illogic.

This is the sort of thing up with which I shall put in the field of language, but not in the field of mathematics, which should be the more inherently logical method of expression.

[Flame]

ah i see. So the real numbers are VIII but if we wanna simply take the Logic behind those numbers, we could optimize with IIX...Honestly it could confuse everyone used with romans numbers anyway.

[niltrias]

ah i see. So the real numbers are VIII but if we wanna simply take the Logic behind those numbers, we could optimize with IIX...Honestly it could confuse everyone used with romans numbers anyway.

No one who understands roman numerals would be confused by IIX. It is inherently understandable by the standards of the system. The only thing that is hard to understand is why VIII exists.

[Flame]

uh. well, i'm from Rome and if you wrote IIX, to me is nonsense, i'm used with VIII only because it is it. I never thougt if it was wrong or right, i know it is 8 and no more. Anyone that use roman numbers like they are, use VIII, so is "original" write IIX and i'll need more time to understand IIX than VIII. Simply i'm used with VIII XD wrong or not

[niltrias]

uh. well, i'm from Rome and if you wrote IIX, to me is nonsense, i'm used with VIII only because it is it. I never thougt if it was wrong or right, i know it is 8 and no more. Anyone that use roman numbers like they are, use VIII, so is "original" write IIX and i'll need more time to understand IIX than VIII. Simply i'm used with VIII XD wrong or not

It is not nonsense to you. The second to last sentence betrays your attempt in the first.

edit 1: you are not the person I want to debate this with, for a number of reasons.

edit 2: your argument of nonsense is as valid as me saying "peice" is nonsensical when it should be "piece"...expect that that argument falls under linguistic as opposed to mathematical considerations. Even in the wider sense that linguistic conventions allow, it is still...nonsense.

[Sidran]

Computer would be confused with IIX as it does not follow strict rule: Only one lower numeral is allowed for operation of subtraction.

While IIII is logical to substitute IV, IIX cannot substitute VIII.
Allowing more than one lower numeral for subtraction operation would introduce a lot a confusion.

[niltrias]

Computer would be confused with IIX as it does not follow strict rule: Only one lower numeral is allowed for operation of subtraction.

While IIII is logical to substitute IV, IIX cannot substitute VIII.
Allowing more than one lower numeral for subtraction operation would introduce a lot a confusion.

Here we get back into the economy of terms...