From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On 2026/2/7 12:43:10, Philip Herlihy wrote:   
   > In article <10m4gn8$2sgi$1@dont-email.me>, daniel47@nomail.afraid.org   
   > says...   
   >> But how much multiplication occurred in Roman Times?? Counting, sure,   
   >> one plus another one .... plus another one ....... plus another one,   
   >> sure, but Multiplication .... not so much!!   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Interesting comment.  It simply had to be wrong - trade and military   
   > logistics would be impossible without multiplication (e.g. how to feed   
   > an army of 10,000 for a three week campaign?).  I put a query into an AI   
      
   I was waiting for someone else to make this obvious point!   
      
   > research tool (Gemini) and this is what it came back with:   
   >   
   > The short answer is yes, they did a lot of multiplication?they had to   
   > manage a global empire, after all?but they almost certainly didn't do it   
   > "on paper" using the numerals themselves.If you?ve ever tried to   
   > multiply XVIII by LXIV, you know it?s a recipe for a headache. Roman   
   > numerals are an additive system, not a positional (place-value) system   
   > like the one we use today. Because they lacked a zero and fixed columns   
   > for ones, tens, and hundreds, the standard "long multiplication" we   
   > learn in school is impossible with their notation.   
   >   
   > Here is how the Romans actually tackled the math.   
   >   
   > 1. The Roman Abacus (The "Calculator")The most significant evidence we   
   []   
      
   > 2. Duplation and Mediation (The "Egyptian" Method)There is strong   
   []   
      
   > 3. Finger Counting (Dactylonomy)The Romans were famous for a highly   
   []   
   >   
   > The Verdict   
   >   
   > The evidence suggests that Roman numerals were for recording results,   
   > not for performing the operations. Think of Roman numerals like a   
      
   []   
   ISTR reading/hearing (don't know where) that they also _didn't_ use the   
   pre-subtract notation - i. e. 4 was IIII, not IV; that was a later   
   invention (though obviously by someone still using "Roman" numerals).   
   I've seen a suggestion that it was actually invented by a clockmaker who   
   made a mistake when applying the numbers (put IV next to V on the wrong   
   side, rather than where VI should be); I'm dubious about that idea (and   
   no idea where I heard it either). It _is_ noticeable that a lot of   
   clocks _do_ use IIII rather than IV, though.   
      
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.   
   - Oscar Wilde   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)