Chat with our AI personalities
Well, darling, "xcx" in Roman numerals is actually not a thing. Roman numerals are made up of seven basic symbols: I, V, X, L, C, D, and M. So, if you're looking for a Roman numeral equivalent, you're out of luck with "xcx." Maybe next time try something like "90" instead.
In Roman numerals, "xcx" is not a valid representation of any number. Roman numerals consist of seven symbols: I (1), V (5), X (10), L (50), C (100), D (500), and M (1000). The Roman numeral for 90 is XC, which represents 100 (C) minus 10 (X). If there is an error or misunderstanding in the representation of "xcx," it would not correspond to any standard Roman numeral value.
It is: 205 = CCV in Roman numerals
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.
As written 'mcmlxxx' it is meaningless. Roman Numerals are ALWAYS CAPITAL letters ; MCMLXXX MCMLXXX = 1980.
They are: CCCLXXI = 371