RNC: Roman Numeral Converter
How to Use
- Type or paste the number on the input. It can be Roman numerals or Arabic (standard or international) numerals. We will see the output instantly.
- For standard numerals input, RNC only accepts positive integer.
- Roman numerals use uppercase I, V, X, L, C, D, and M. Make sure to activate Caps-Lock (capital letters lock) or type it with uppercase letter.
Zero
There is no zero (0) number in Roman numerals system.
But there's the word nulla.
RNC will return the initial of the word, which is N, if we put 0 on the input box.
But, because N isn't an actual Roman numeral, hence, if we type N on the input box, it will return error.
Negative Number
There is no negative number for Roman numerals system.
Fractions
There is fraction concept in Roman Numerals.
But because nowadays we never (ever) use it (Roman fraction), therefore RNC is not included with it.
The Sequence
The system consists of these uppercase letters: I, V, X, L, C, D, and M.
- I: 1
- V: 5
- X: 10
- L: 50
- C: 100
- D: 500
- M: 1000
Lowercase was gradually developed later on in medieval period (around 5th - 15th century AD) — specifically for alphabet, Greek letters, and Cyrillic (Greek based). But never for others like Abjad, Logographic, Abugida, etc. The original gangster of this numeral system, ancient Roman, had only one type of letter case.
We call it uppercase, they might call it... (awkward silence)... because the concept was unknown.
Pattern Examples
- I: 1
- II: 2
- III: 3
- IV: 4
- V: 5
- VI: 6
- VII: 7
- VIII: 8
- IX: 9
- X: 10
- XI: 11
- XXII: 22
- XXXV: 35
- XLIV: 44
- LIII: 53
- CD: 400
- CDL: 450
- ML: 1050
- and so on...
Pattern Arithmetic
Subtraction
The smaller numeral is used as subtractor of the larger one if it is placed in front (left side) of the larger numeral.
small•large pattern.
IV ➡️ I is the small part, V is the large one ➡️ small•large pattern ➡️ means (large - small) ➡️ IV = 5 - 1 = 4 ➡️ IV = 4
For value below 10, the foundation, the concept applies to 4 (IV) and 9 (IX) — and their multiples, like 40 (XL) and 900 (CM). Above 10 (and multiples of 10), similar method applies, but we need to expand it first.
For instance, 19 ➡️ 10 + 9 ➡️ X • IX ➡️ XIX
Another example, 1014 ➡️ 1000 + 10 + 4 ➡️ M • X • IV ➡️ MXIV
Addition
The smaller or equal numeral is used as adder when it is placed behind (right side) the larger (or equal) numeral.
large•small pattern.
VI ➡️ V is the large part, I is the small one ➡️ large•small pattern ➡️ means (large + small) ➡️ VI = 5 + 1 = 6 ➡️ VI = 6
equal•equal pattern.
XX ➡️ both are X (equal) ➡️ equal•equal pattern ➡️ means (equal + equal) ➡️ XX = 10 + 10 = 20 ➡️ XX = 20
For value below 5, the concept applies to 2 (II) and 3 (III) — and their multiples. Between 5 to 10, 6 (VI), 7 (VII), and 8 (VIII) — and their multiples. Above 10 (and multiples of 10), similar method applies: expansion and grouping the values.
Examples
Let's try to read this, MMXXV = 2025.
MMXXV ➡️ MM + XXV = (1000 + 1000) + 25 = 2000 + 25 = 2025.
It's used in literature and whatnots in entertainment and academia to confuse common folks 😂 Let's see another examples.
MCMLIX ➡️ M + CM + L + IX = 1000 + (1000 - 100) + 50 + 9 = 1000 + 900 + 50 + 9 = 1959.
1877 ➡️ 1000 + 800 + 70 + 7 ➡️ 1000 + (500 + 100 + 100 + 100) + (50 + 10 + 10) + (5 + 1 + 1) ➡️ M • (D • C • C • C) • (L • X • X) • (V • I • I) ➡️ MDCCCLXXVII.
The expansion and grouping are done from left to right, from the largest to the smallest value.
Using this system, we apply the predefinition (I, V, X, L, C, D, and M) and the rules above instead of reinventing.
For instance, 10 is already defined as X. Hence, we do not write VV, or IXI, or other than X to represent 10. Because... 10 is already defined as X.
Or, 500 is predefined as D . Thus, we do not write DM (1000 - 500 = 500 ❓🙋♂️) to represent 500 because of the similar reason.
Closing
About the confusing common folks bit, it was a jest. It is related to Roman's influence throughout the history of Europe.
Because they (the ancient Romans) supposedly were not dealing with bloated numeric value like nowadays, thus the largest digit is 1,000 (M) — one thousand. So, today's 10,000,000 (ten million), most likely will be converted to Roman numerals as 10,000 M's.
That is how civil engineering works, people. No written documentation on how many bricks and stones and whatnots for one puny project. This road from Rome to that mountain we cannot see from here? Easy. Ah, the old days, when people could memorise everything so calmly. In that sense, an ancient Roman infrastructure project manager should be intensely... awkward by any standard nowadays.
Let me access the project "Aqueduct in that spot in that bonkers region near Portugal". Accessing that bonkers region near Portugal. No Portugal found. What is Portugal? Accessing different term... — in under 100 ms. Blimey, wrong project. 🤔 I need to make a function to auto-generate unique project ID from now on. Writing routines.. Rejected. Uncaught syntax error at line near buttocks. What is unique? 🤔 I need to define unique. Rejected. No number after 3,999. Oh, well. That looks sturdy enough.
From sifting through documents, ancient Romans capped their numerals to 3,999. Which is...❓ Because... At least they once deployed troops larger than 4,000 in one calm Sunday stroll — from the tale of course, considering the circumstances in it, the setup. Not to mention the metallurgy department, weaponry council, ration (meal) division, chickens, carrots, tents... But no, no written anything "found". It was simply unwritten perhaps, or lost, or... well.. ⁉️🙋♂️
Quite interesting how military strategists did not properly document the details of their orders.
Let's imagine it:
(Legatus Legionis Mikaelus Jaksonus) You battalion chaps, go in 4.
(Praefectus Castrorum Hulkus Hoganus) Understood, sir. Pardon me for being blunt, sir. 4 what, sir?
(Legatus Legionis Mikaelus Jaksonus) 4 stupidities performed by your shoulders.
(Praefectus Castrorum Hulkus Hoganus) Understood, sir.
See, it's all about coding it properly with words, eye blinks, body gesture, and such — no need to write it down. Memorising and selective documentation were indeed common in the ancient times.
... And the Romans... WON. 💥 Countless battles. ⁉️🙋♂️ Bureaucracy? Hi, bureaucracy, they left you out.
How in the name of Microsoft Excel does that compute? It does compute if we put the first and last conditions, bridging information is optional — which means, static definitions, no computation ever is performed.
This numeral system was one feature from the Roman legacy that obliterated the diverged societies and unified them under one command back then — supposedly. They were told as a highly efficient and straightforward society, the best — referencing the epic.
But they only had until M for numeral system ❓🙋♂️ Taxes? Oh, Karen from Finance perhaps used Greek numeral system. Bob from Accounting probably spoke in tongues.
Prior to the baffling Romans was the society under King Nimrod (Mesopotamia) — mayhap this was the second cosmic reset I suppose. The filtered, short documentation of Tower of Babel — one language, one world, trying to break out from the "confinement" (unbelieveblus gigantus petrius dishus), headbutting Heaven.
The first cosmic reset was the utterly massive flood (documented in many cultures). Well, they were the "first version" — unleashed from the divine laboratory, inevitable unspeakable chaos erupted.
Deducing from the tales and pattern and, of course, how we in the modern world actually function, there is the gate mechanism in this realm — which was gradually placed as a divine (defined ⬅️ see?) hotfix perhaps — through a revelation of one concept technique.
For example:
There's a sign says, Do not push this button.
If there were no sign, we would not even know that is a button's dwelling place.
💡 From that moment on, we have the options to respond to that sign. And certainly, free will is the freedom to choose from what is known. Once defined and revealed, then the options magically fight each other. ✅
It is embedded within our thoughts. It is proven and it exists, and certainly it is fascinating.
Simplified mechanism looks as such:
O = obedience
C = curiosity
Total = 100
C (curiosity) ≥ 20
O + C = 100, C ≥ 20
Therefore, O ≤ 80
Meaning... We cannot be all, 100%, obedient to one command, it's just is. Well, actually, to be honest, we can, as individuals. It's the very core of us, being paradoxically flexible to accept the rigidness 😂
For few of us, we could be conditioned to be obedient 100% — no question — the elites, as in elite force. But then, there is that called population, the collective. An encapsulation is needed to handle the numbers, we know that as hierarchy. The variables in each scope are massive and unpredictable. Majestic, one might say. Thus... grouping, more layers of logic to generalise the randomness within the spectacular amount of variables, more layers, and so on. It's called mathematical modelling, that generaliser, from bajillion samples. It has patterns for certain. Living patterns, hence still... unpredictable.. but within manageability threshold.
Hey... How are you? 👍 Let's continue. You realise you could simply close your tab, aye? Indeed.
The curiosity can be minimised with intense indoctrinations, fictions glorified as common facts, strict hierarchies, and such proper manipulative conditioning, but there is the threshold 🤷
The "threshold" is actually cleverly employed as I noticed — noticing is my hobby.
From logic's perspective, manipulation is logical, neutral — but we have emotions — we are built with both. We consist of the intricate network layers of them.
To me, there's nothing wrong with it, I merely observed. It's grandeur 🏆 and it works, until it doesn't. 🤣🤦
One might say, Cellphone was built to ruin people's life! 😤🤬
Correct! There's nothing wrong with it. It's quite true. But that is only one deduction out of its many features and standpoints. To ruin life, to connect people, to keep the currency flowing, to baffle repair shop people, to be as proper poisonous sediments in the ocean and land, and so forth.
Truth and fact have quite a wobbly relationship. Mm, how do you do? How do you do? Hey, that's... another question, not an answer. But it's common, thus, it's... normal. Ah.
But... when we bring that "how do you do" bit into the realm of logic, it will easily go loopy to infinite like a champion... Of its own version of the arena. Define infinite, please. Uh, this bajillion plus 1? Why are you questioning me back for? Because I am. Perfect.
Also, as I noticed — as to honour them — people behind the curtain in entertainment — especially from Hollywood — are indeed the today's unsung structured and coordinated elite force — technically speaking. They embody the mesmerisingly tight command, unless they don't.
So, hey... 🤣
A good healthy amusement is always good.
A toast 🍻 Cheers!
SALUTATIO LECTORI MEI COMMENTARIOLI BREVIS.
