Roman Numerals

[Drew1776]

In school I was taught that when using Roman numerals you will only find 3 of any given character in a row NEVER 4. For example

4 would be IV NOT IIII

Doing some cursory research online confirmed my belief that 4 should be expressed as IV yet I have seen many clocks use IIII. So, is this just a mistake due to the ignorance of the clock maker or is there a different, perhaps historical, explanation?

[D'kian]

Doing some cursory research online confirmed my belief that 4 should be expressed as IV yet I have seen many clocks use IIII. So, is this just a mistake due to the ignorance of the clock maker or is there a different, perhaps historical, explanation?

I've heard it is to avoid confusing IV with VI. I don't buy it, though. After all, to tell time in an analog clock you look at the position of the hands. That's why many watches lack numbers.

[Chumley]

In school I was taught that when using Roman numerals you will only find 3 of any given character in a row NEVER 4. For example

4 would be IV NOT IIII

Doing some cursory research online confirmed my belief that 4 should be expressed as IV yet I have seen many clocks use IIII. So, is this just a mistake due to the ignorance of the clock maker or is there a different, perhaps historical, explanation?

I was told that this was for visual symmetry, so IIII would be balanced with VIII. I used Google to see what else I could find, and I found a FAQ page with a few theories on this:

http://www.ubr.com/Clocks/faq/iiii.html

[Drew1776]

I was told that this was for visual symmetry, so IIII would be balanced with VIII. I used Google to see what else I could find, and I found a FAQ page with a few theories on this:

http://www.ubr.com/Clocks/faq/iiii.html

Thanks alot. That page was great!

[KendallJ]

There is a reference to Romans having public clocks. Call me stupid, but didn't the Romans have sun dials? Was there such a thing as a clock face, when clocks were not yet invented?

[Robert J. Kolker]

In school I was taught that when using Roman numerals you will only find 3 of any given character in a row NEVER 4. For example

4 would be IV NOT IIII

Doing some cursory research online confirmed my belief that 4 should be expressed as IV yet I have seen many clocks use IIII. So, is this just a mistake due to the ignorance of the clock maker or is there a different, perhaps historical, explanation?

The point of writing IV for IIII and IX for VIIII, XL, XC, CM etc. is to shorten the amount written. Roman numerals is only a minor advancement over writing integers as a fully enumerated set of strokes. Roman Numerals are not handy for addition and subtraction and are total opaque for multiplication and division

The Greeks and the Hebrews used a similar method of dragooning their alphabet into numerical duties.

The only notations that are any good for arithmetic are some form of positional (exponentially based) notation.

Bob Kolker