Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!pyramid!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!pat
From: pat@leadsv.UUCP (Pat Wimmer)
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Arithmetic with Roman numerals
Message-ID: <1184@leadsv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Nov-86 14:49:15 EST
Article-I.D.: leadsv.1184
Posted: Mon Nov  3 14:49:15 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Nov-86 22:15:22 EST
References: <782@zeus.UUCP> <487@jumbo.DEC.COM>
Distribution: net
Organization: LMSC-LEADS, Sunnyvale, Ca.
Lines: 22
Keywords: Roman numerals, arithmetic, Arabic numerals

In article <487@jumbo.DEC.COM>, stolfi@jumbo.DEC.COM (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> 
> The real problems with Roman numerals are the lack of a symbol for
> zero and the varying width of digits (which makes it hard to align
> corresponding digits); the finite supply of letters (which puts a bound
> on the representable numbers); and its general verbosity.  Of course,
> the Romans also lacked many mathematical concepts that we have since
> incorporated into our number system, such as decimal fractions and
> negative numbers.  
> 
I read this yarn some time back, so please forgive me if I am a bit hazy on
the details.  The point LS de Camp was trying to make were the very ones you
bring up, wasn't it?  Wasn't the Roman attempt at accounting absurdly
unwieldy, extremely prone to error, and user hostile when trying to retrieve
data?  The sheer effort involved in using such a system should not be
lightly dismissed.

As to the lack of zero, negative numbers, and decimal fractions, these
preclude the development of modern mathematics.  Can you imagine trying to
do calculus with Roman Numerals, and the above limitations?  What about
complex numbers, without which elementry physics, not to mention elementry
electricity is impossible.