• Kalash@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    My primaryschool maths teacher taught us roman numerals and one of the tasks we got was to write out the current year in roman numerals.

    I came up with MCMXCVIII … to which he smugly replied that it’s wrong and the romans were a lot more clever and it’s just IIMM (take 2 off 2000).

    Years later I learned that he was quite wrong about that and my answer is in fact the only correct one.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      TFW your school insists you learn something utterly pointless and then the teacher teaches it completely wrong.

    • radix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      IIMM just looks so silly. If that were allowed, then why would the Super Bowl roman numerals be so long in the 1900s?

      (I don’t even watch football.)

    • blackbrook
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is a modern normative convention but there was never an official standard, and the Roman’s usage actually had a lot of variation. Your teacher may have been right that some Romans actually wrote IIMM, but he certainly wasn’t right to claim you were wrong.