0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How can 1999 possibly be IMM in roman numerals when it is MCMXCIX?
In accordance with the rules laid down during the Middle Ages 1999 in Roman numerals works out as MCMXCIX but these rules were introduced centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Romans themselves would have probably calculated 1999 on a abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and by placing I to both sides of these numerals simplified them to IMM (-1+2000 = 1999) Or alternatively they could have possibly worked out 1999 as IXCMMCX which gives a final result of IMM when positive and negative numerals are cancelled down. This method is achieved in the following manner: 1000 = M 1000+900 = CMM 1000+900+90 = XCMMC 1000+900+90+9 = IXCMMCX => IMM when cancelled down. Both methods will give exactly the same result when converting any Hindu-Arabic numerals into Roman numerals.
What are the possible differences of 99 from 1999 in roman numerals giving details of your work?
In today's terms 1999 and 99 in Roman numerals are MCMXCIX and XCIX respectively. MCMXCIX - XCIX = MCM (1000-100+1000 = 1900) Alternatively in the days of the Roman Empire the Romans themselves would have probably wrote out 1999 and 99 as IMM and IC respectively. IMM - IC = CMM (-100+2000 = 1900)
Why is the year 1999 correct in roman numerals as mdcccclxxxxviiii or imm and not as mcmxcix?
Because the Roman numerals MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII add up to 1999 and by placing I to the left and right hand sides of these numerals they can be simplified into IMM (2000-1). The numerals MCMXCIX in fact represent M-C+M-X+C-I+X which when simplified leaves -I+M+M = IMM (2000-1). Numerical values: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1. David Gambell, Merseyside, England. Conventionally accept wisdom tells us that MCMXCIX (1000 + 900 + 90 +9) and MCMXCVIIII (1000 + 900 + 90 + 5 + 4) both mean 1999, although the former is more popular as it is shorter. The alternative mentioned above, IMM is incorrect on two counts. According to the website Algebra.com Roman numerals read from left to right and always start with the highest value numeral, as I (1) is patently less than MM (2000) IMM is clearly wrong. Also while I may preceed V or X it should not be placed in front of any higher value numerals.
What is the correct notation for 1999 in Roman numerals is it MCMXCIX or IMM giving reasons why?
Under today's guidelines governing the Roman numeral system 1999 converted into Roman numerals is officially MCMXCIX which doesn't seem to add up because:- 1000 = M which is M 900 = CM which is a simplification of DCCCC 90 = XC which is a simplification of LXXXX 9 = IX which is a simplification of VIIII And:- M+CM = CMM which is a simplification of MDCCCC (1900) CMM+XC = XMM which is a simplification of MDCCCCLXXXX (1990) XMM+IX = IMM which is a simplification of MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII (1999) Or:- M+DCCCC = MDCCCC MDCCCC+LXXXX = MDCCCCLXXXX MDCCCCLXXXX+VIIII = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII Now consider the following:- M+CM+XC+IX = IMM (2000-1) CM+XC+IX+M = IMM XC+IX+M+CM = IMM IX+M+CM+XC = IMM No matter how the above numerals are arranged they will always add up to IMM or MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII in expanded format. Examples of simplification of Roman numerals can be found in the book entitled 'History of Mathematics' volume 2 by David Eugene Smith first published in 1925 and ISBN 0486 204 308. For instance LXXXVIIIIS (89.5) is simplified to SXC (100-10.5) Therefore it follows that for 1999 in Roman numerals IMM is more plausible than MCMXCIX.
How would you add together 90 9 900 1000 and 1 using Roman numerals in step by step stages?
The above numbers when converted into Roman numerals are XC, IX, CM, M and I respectively and the Romans probably added them together in the following manner:- XC+IX = IC (90+9 = 99) CM+IC = IM (900+99 = 999) M+IMM = IMM (1000+999 = 1999) I+IMM = MM (1+1999 = 2000) But today we would add them up in the following manner which leaves the final calculation open to question because:- XC+IX = XCIX (99) CM+XCIX = CMXCIX (999) M+CMXCIX = MCMXCIX (1999) I+MCMXCIX = ? It appears that the former way of counting is more plausible than the latter.
When was Imm Cologne created?
Imm Cologne was created in 1949.
How can 1999 possibly be IMM in roman numerals when it is MCMXCIX?
In accordance with the rules laid down during the Middle Ages 1999 in Roman numerals works out as MCMXCIX but these rules were introduced centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Romans themselves would have probably calculated 1999 on a abacus counting device as MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII and by placing I to both sides of these numerals simplified them to IMM (-1+2000 = 1999) Or alternatively they could have possibly worked out 1999 as IXCMMCX which gives a final result of IMM when positive and negative numerals are cancelled down. This method is achieved in the following manner: 1000 = M 1000+900 = CMM 1000+900+90 = XCMMC 1000+900+90+9 = IXCMMCX => IMM when cancelled down. Both methods will give exactly the same result when converting any Hindu-Arabic numerals into Roman numerals.
What is the birth name of Elliott Imm?
Elliott Imm's birth name is ElliottMilesImm.
Declaration from Non-Accompanying Parent IMM 5604?
Where I can send the imm 5604
When was Alexandrea Imm born?
Alexandrea Imm was born on September 29, 1984, in California, USA.
What are the possible differences of 99 from 1999 in roman numerals giving details of your work?
In today's terms 1999 and 99 in Roman numerals are MCMXCIX and XCIX respectively. MCMXCIX - XCIX = MCM (1000-100+1000 = 1900) Alternatively in the days of the Roman Empire the Romans themselves would have probably wrote out 1999 and 99 as IMM and IC respectively. IMM - IC = CMM (-100+2000 = 1900)
What is the abbreviation for immersion?
Imm.
When was Elliott Imm born?
Elliott Imm was born on October 22, 1985, in Los Angeles County, California, USA.
How do you exactly add together 1776 and 223 in Roman numerals if the answer is not MCMXCIX?
It is done simply as follows:-MDCCLXXVI+CCXXIII = MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII => 1776+223 = 1999Which can be abridged to: IMM (2000-1)And that: IMM+I = MM => (2000-1)+1 = 2000If we were to format MCMXCIX into M+CM+XC+IX they too would be abridged to IMM as follows:-M+CM = CMM => 1000+(1000-100) = (2000-100)CMM+XC = XMM => (2000-100)+(100-10) = (2000-10)XMM+IX = IMM => (2000-10)+(10-1) = (2000-1)And that: IMM+I = MMTodays rules governing the Roman numeral system were introduced during the Middle Ages and probably had nothing to do with the ancient Roman way of counting.Values: M=1000, D=500, C=100, L=50, X=10, V=5 and I=1Note: 5*I=V, 2*V=X, 5*X=L, 2*L=C, 5*C=D and 2*D=MQED by David Gambell
Is MCMXCIX bigger or smaller than IMM in Roman numerals or are they both the same giving reasons why?
They are both the same because in todays modern notation of Roman numerals the equivalent of 1999 is MCMXCIX which means 1000+900+90+9 = 1999 But the ancient Romans would have probably gone for the simpler version of IMM which means 2000-1 = 1999
Where are the outlets of speed stacks in Singapore?
Imm
What is 1066 plus 1999 using Roman numerals showing how you obtained your answer?
According to today's rules we would write out the equivalent of 1066 and 1999 into Roman numerals as MLXVI and MCMXCIX respectively and to add them together is quite difficult. But the Romans probably simplified MCMXCIX to IMM in the following manner:- M+CM = CMM (1000+900 = 1900) CMM+XC = XMM (1900+90 = 1990) XMM+IX = IMM (1990+9 = 1999) Therefore: MLXVI+IMM = MMMLXV (1066+1999 = 3065)
