answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Nowadays 249 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be CCXLIX but the ancient Romans probably worked out the required calculations as follows:-

MDCCLXXVI+ICCL = MMXXV => 1776+(250-1) = 2025

MDCCLXXVI+CCXXXXVIIII = MMXXV => 1776+249 = 2025

MDCCLXXVI-ICCL = MDXXVII => 1776-(250-1) = 1527

MDCCLXXVI-CCXXXXVIIII = MDXXVII => 1776-249 = 1527

For more complicated calculations the Romans would have made use of an abacus calculating device.

QED

User Avatar

Wiki User

โˆ™ 2015-08-19 13:57:38
This answer is:
User Avatar
Study guides

Algebra

20 cards

A polynomial of degree zero is a constant term

The grouping method of factoring can still be used when only some of the terms share a common factor A True B False

The sum or difference of p and q is the of the x-term in the trinomial

A number a power of a variable or a product of the two is a monomial while a polynomial is the of monomials

โžก๏ธ
See all cards
3.74
โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…
834 Reviews

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What is 1776 plus 249 added in two different ways and 1776 minus 249 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations in Roman numerals with work shown?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What is 1776 plus 444 added in two different ways and 17776 minus 444 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations in Roman numerals?

Both 1776 plus 444 added in two different ways will have sum of MMCCXX = 2220 and both 17,776 minus 444 subtracted in two different ways will have a difference of (XVII)CCCXXXII = 17,332


How would you work out 1776 plus 549 in two different ways and 1776 minus 549 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

Roman numerals are entirely inappropriate for doing such calculations. I believe the people in Roman times did such calculations on an abacus or something similar - which is basically similar to converting them to the Arabic numbers we use. If you really want to do it in Roman numerals - which is basically NOT a good idea - you would have to keep the thousands, hundreds, etc. separate, and handle carry (for addition) and borrowing (for subtraction).


What is 1767 plus 9 added in two different ways and 1767 minus 9 subtracted in two different ways but working out all calculations from start to finish in Roman numerals?

Nowadays we think that the equivalent of 9 in Roman numerals is only IX whereas in fact IX is an abridged version of VIIII in ancient Roman numerals thus facilitating the conversion and calculations of the given Hindu-Arabic numerals into Roman numerals in several ways as follows:- MDCCLXVII+VIIII = MDCCLXXVI => 1767+9 = 1776 MDCCLXVII+IX = MDCCLXXVI => 1767+(-1+10) = 1776 MDCCLXVII-VIIII = MDCCLVIII => 1767-9 = 1758 MDCCLXVII-IX = MDCCLVIII => 1767-(-1+10) = 1758 Note that in mathematics that -(-1+10) is equivalent to +1-10 and so -(-I+X) is equivalent to -VIIII


What is 1776 plus 249 added in two different ways and 1776 minus 249 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

Under today's modern rules now governing the Roman numeral system the equivalent of 249 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be CCXLIX which does not lend itself quite easily to arithmetical operations but there exist credible evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have carried out the requested calculations as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+ICCL = MMXXV => 1776+(250-1) = 2025MDCCLXXVI+CCXXXXVIIII = MMXXV => 1776+249 = 2025MDCCLXXVI-ICCL = MDXXVII => 1776-(250-1) = 1527MDCCLXXVI-CCXXXXVIIII = MDXXVII => 1776-249 = 1527Note that in mathematics -(250-1) becomes -250+1 or as 1-250The above calculations were fairly simple and straight forward to work out but for more complicated calculations the Romans would make use of an abacus calculating device.QED


How would you subtract 999 from 1776 in two different ways and working out both differences throughout in Roman numerals?

Notwithstanding the fact that in todays modern notation of Roman numerals 999 is now considered to be CMXCIX inasmuch that the ancient Romans would have probably subtracted the given numbers in either of the following formats:-As: MDCCLXXVI-IM = DCCLXXVII => 1776-(1000-1) = 777.Or as: MDCCLXXVI-DCCCCLXXXXVIIII = DCCLXXVII => 1776-999 = 777.For more complicated calculations the Romans would have used an abacus calculating device.QED


What is 1776 plus 999 added in two different ways and 1776 minus 999 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we know them today now governing the Roman numerals system had nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and as result of these rules the equivalent of 999 converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be CMXCIX which hardly lends itself quite easily for the purpose of mathematical operations but there exist credible evidence to show that the ancient Romans would have worked out the requested calculations as in the following formats:-MDCCLXXVI+IM = MMDCCLXXV => 1776+(1000-1) = 2775MDCCLXXVI+DCCCCLXXXXVIIII = MMDCCLXXV => 1776+999 = 2775MDCCLXXVI-IM = DCCLXXVII => 1776-(1000-1) = 777MDCCLXXVI-DCCCCLXXXXVIIII = DCCLXXVII => 1776-999 = 777Note that in mathematics -(1000-1) becomes 1-1000 and that the above calculations were fairly simple and straightforward to work out but for more advanced calculations the Romans would have used an abacus calculating device.QED


What is 1999 plus 1776 added in two different ways and 1999 minus 1776 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we know them today now governing the Roman numerals system had absolutely nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and as a result of these rules 1999 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be MCMXCIX which hardly lends itself quite easily for the purpose of arithmetical operations but notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there exist credible evidence to support the premiss that the ancient Romans would have worked out the requested calculations as in the following formats:-MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+MDCCLXXVI = MMMDCCLXXV => 1999+1776 = 3775IMM+MDCCLXXVI = MMMDCCLXXV => (2000-1)+1776 = 3775MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-MDCCLXXVI = CCXXIII => 1999 -1776 = 223IMM-MDCCLXXVI is the same as the above because IMM = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIIIThe above calculations were fairly simple and straightforward to work out but for more complicated calculations the Romans would have made use of an abacus calculating device.QED


What is 1776 plus 444 added in two different ways and 1776 minus 444 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations in Roman numerals?

Nowadays the modern conversion of 444 into Roman numerals is now considered to be CDXLIV which doesn't lend itself quite easily to mathematical calculations but there exist historical evidence to suggest that the ancient Romans would have calculated the equivalent of 444 on an abacus calculating frame as CCCCXXXXIIII and then logically abridged it to IVLD thus facilitating the required calculations as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+CCCCXXXXIIII = MMCCXX => 1776+444 = 2220MDCCLXXVI+IVLD + MMCCXX => 1776+(500-56) = 2220MDCCCLXXVI-CCCCXXXXIIII = MCCCXXXII => 1776-444 = 1332MDCCLXXVI-IVLD = MCCCXXXII => 1776-(500-56) = 1332Note that in mathematics 1776-(500-56) becomes 1776-500+56 = 1332 and that negative and positive numerals once went in opposite directions somewhat similar to today's number line.QED


What is 1999 plus 666 added in two different ways and 1999 minus 666 subtracted in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

The rules as we know them today now governing the Roman numeral system had absolutely nothing to do with the Romans because they were introduced during the Middle Ages and as a result of these rules the equivalent of 1999 when converted into Roman numerals is now considered to be MCMXCIX which hardly lends itself quite easily for the purpose of mathematical operations but notwithstanding the aforementioned inasmuch that there exist credible evidence to support the premiss that the ancient Romans would have carried out the requested calculations as in the following formats:-MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII+DCLXVI = MMDCLXV => 1999+666 = 2665IMM+DCLXVI = MMDCLXV => (2000-1)+666 = 2665MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII-DCLXVI = MCCCXXXIII => 1999-666 = 1333IMM-DCLXVI is the same as the above because IMM = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIIIFor more intricate and complicated calculations the Romans would have made use of an abacus calculating device.QED by David Gambell


How would you work out 1776 plus 9 in two different ways and 1776 minus 9 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals with explanations?

When 9 is converted into Roman numerals it is IX which is an abridged version of VIIII and so the required calculations are as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+IX = MDCCLXXXV => 1776+(10-1) = 1785MDCCLXXVI+VIIII = MDCCLXXXV => 1776+9 = 1785MDCCLXXVI-IX = MDCCLXVII => 1776-(10-1) = 1767MDCCLXXVI-VIIII = MDCCLXVII => 1776-9 = 1767Note that in mathematics -(10-1) changes to 1-10QED


How would you work out 1776 plus 99 in two different ways and 1776 minus 99 in two different ways but working out all four calculations entirely in Roman numerals?

Not withstanding today's modern notation of Roman numerals in as much that the ancient Romans would have probably worked out the required calculations as follows: MDCCLXXVI+IC = MDCCCLXXV => 1776+(100-1) = 1875 MDCCLXXVI+LXXXXVIIII = MDCCCLXXV => 1776+99 = 1875 MDCCLXXVI-IC = MDCLXXVII => 1776-(100-1) = 1677 MDCCLXXVI-LXXXXVIIII = MDCLXXVII => 1776-99 = 1677


What is the purpose of the Chinese abacus?

For working out arithmetical calculations

People also asked