XLXX is already in Roman numerals. In Arabic numerals it would be the number
60.
L=50
X=10
XX= ten and ten which = 20
XL = ten before 50 which = 40
So XLXX reads 10 before 50 plus 10 plus 10 = 60
2005
It is: 205 = CCV in Roman numerals
In modern day notation of Roman numerals MCMLXIII is the equivalent of 1963 but the ancient Romans would have probably expressed it quite differently
We do use Roman numerals today. For example, Roman numerals are often found in making outlines; to label book chapters; to label the frontmatter (pages) in books.
The Roman numerals for 64 are ILXV (65-1) or LXIIII (64) and they are not LXIV. So your question is: What is the cube root of LXIIII in Arabic numerals? The answer is 4 which is IIII or IV in Roman numerals.
XLXX is really nonsense and not a correct number. It represents 50 - 10 + 10 + 10 which would be 60. The proper way to write it is LX.
It is 60 because XLXX can be simplified to LX = 50+10 = 60
trythgttrf
Nothing, or more accurately, it breaks the usual conventions so it's impossible to say what the person who wrote it intended it to mean. You aren't allowed to have the same signifier on both sides.
988 = CMLXXXVIII in Roman numerals
Not a valid sequence for Roman numerals
Those Roman Numerals mean 1991.
"120" in Roman numerals is "CXX".
it means 1,150 in roman numerals
It does not mean anything because it is an invalid arrangement of Roman numerals
"D" in Roman Numerals equals 500.
In Roman numerals, it means N M C.