ROMANS fudging their math?

OK Roman collecting friends. How often did they get their Roman numerals wrong? Was this to better fit the flan or were they indulging a little too much in the rites of Bacchus? My students would get a poor grade for this when we study other ways of numbering such as Base 2 and Roman numerals:
Tiberius AE As
Rome Mint 35-36 AD
Obverse: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST IMP VIII, laureate head left
Reverse: PONTIF MAXIM TRIBVN POTEST XXXVII, S - C, vertical rudder in front of large banded globe, small globe lower right
References: RIC 58 Scarce
Size: 28mm, 9.93g

The attribution notes a different number so I am not sure of this. I know someone could fill me in on what is happening here? Someone probably posted this issue before and I just missed the story. (Or maybe this is an example of buying an authentic pre-columbian Aztec carving and getting home and noticing the tiny words- "Hecho En Mexico") Also it doesn't match RIC 58 or RIC 52 in Wildwinds, haven't checked CNG or acsearch yet.
Found it on CNG- as RIC I- 64

Reverse says XXXIIX instead of XXXVIII?
POST YOUR EXAMPLES OF BAD MATH!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thirty Twelve. Neat. Kind of line Eleventeen.

 

I have read of many variations in numbering on Roman coins versus how I was taught the Roman numbering system went. I believe the Romans did not have the hard and fast rules that we were taught regarding numbering. There are simply way too many instances of the Romans themselves violating them. I wonder if such "rules" were made up long after the fall of the Roman empire by others.

 

Interesting, there must be a scholarly history concerning this out there somewhere. Weren't the Romans also master historians? At least from their point of view.

 

Interesting post @Mike Margolis and nice Tiberius As. The emperor looks almost cheerful in that portrait. I'm not the best one to be commenting on proper usage of Roman numerals. My slightly dyslexic brain frequently has me writing down confirmation numbers and phone numbers in reverse order.

 

You are right! Deacon Ray. Cheerful, facing left and steering the globe of the entire world empire. What could go wrong? Life is good.

 

Yes. The coin in question does not violate the general rule: Smaller numbers to the left are subtracted from the larger number to the right. Repeated numbers are added together. Smaller numbers are added to a larger number to the left.

 

I hate to see kids taught that because the Romans did not do something the way their text book simplified it that the Romans were wrong. Whlle IIX is not as common as VIII, it is not an error.

There is a book that is considerable overkill but recommended for anyone who likes numbers:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001U98T12/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

Was it a variation? Or was it something else? You decide.

 

X =10
IX = X - I = 10-1 = 9
IIX = X - II = 10-2 = 8

XXX = 30

XXXIIX = XXX + IIX = 30 + 8 = 38

I don’t see the bad math here...

It is like writing 2 as 4/2, or 5 as 7-3+1, or 33/2 as 16 1/2. It is all right, just different notation

 

You are reading this upside down, Sallent. The number reads clockwise, XXXIIX. It is 30 + (10-2) = 38.

 

The Greeks would probably faint at seeing what their alphabet has come to...

 

Greek numerals were even more cumbersome than Roman numerals. Each letter of the alphabet stood for a number: alpha=1, beta+2, etc. (plus a couple of odd letters that were no longer used as letters). Iota+10, kappa=20, mu=40, hence their appearance on Byzantine coins of 10, 20, and 40 nummi. Rho=100, sigma=200, tau=300, etc. Neither system used zero. Place meant almost nothing to the Greek system. Try doing your college algebra with that! Yet Romans managed to build empires, roads, bridges, aqueducts and magnificent buildings and monuments. Greeks did geometry, calculated roots and powers, and formulated complex theorems. One Greek, Eratosthenes (c. 276-194 BC) calculated the earth's diameter at about 24,662 miles (less than 300 miles short), figured the earth's tilt, drew lines of latitude and longitude, and invented leap day. All of this with no computers other than their heads, pens, and a little papyrus.

 

I see Greek numerals as more sensical than what we use today since there was a different figure for each column you did not need to keep columns straight to add the figures. There was no need for zeros just to hold spaces. It did mean you had to learn a few more math facts like B times K equals M but a lot of this is getting used to things from the start. Think how different math would be today if cartoon characters with only three fingers and a thumb had invented counting and places us in base eight instead of ten. I get a kick out of Americans who can't figure out how so many people in China could possibly learn that impossible language. On the other hand, I am quite good with Greek letters but advanced math leaves me cold.

I had an interesting talk with my grandson's computer teacher yesterday. He says that there are those in the school that want to allow computer programming classes that now satisfy some math requirements for graduation to count instead as a foreign language. No one knows what to do about computers. Keeping up with advances in any field requires having enough of an open mind to realize that saying l+l in binary (l0), in base ten (2), in Roman numerals (ll)or in Greek (K) all have different answers for a reason.

 

Neat coin to have in your collection Mike Margolis, I bought one a few years back and always wondered about the inscription on the reverse. Really hard to get the remaining black patina of Tiberius's nose though.

 

In Roman numerals, 14 is written this way: XIV. I've seen a coin of famous French king Louis 14th. It was engraved that way: XIIII. I mean in nearly 3 centuries, numerals writing changed that way. So how about ancient coins ? That coin up is no bad math.

 

Math hurts my feelings.

Erin

 

Well I am sure you are aware @dougsmit that we teach certain rules in math so that in a Base ten number system as we use mostly today for algebra, problem solving, engineering etc. a break in some of the simple rules of notation could become a seriously grave error later in building a bridge or landing a spacecraft on another planet. Here are posted two pages from that great book you linked to which speak of the Roman form of number notation/numerals. It explains the exact same rules we teach children in the classroom and also gives the explanation of the origin and the why of how they usually anyway would just have one symbol of lesser value in front of the next symbol to mean that much less than the number. The book also explains how poor the Roman Numeral system was for any advanced math and why they would usually use the abacus for advanced calculations.
BTW- I do not use textbooks in my class but I do use ancient coins occasionally in my teaching since we study the Latin roots of English as well as other math systems of notation and calculation. I will take your criticism and use it in a positive way along with the coin in the OP to help explain to students how the rules have sometimes been broken or not held to that strictly. How in an archaic system such as these Roman numerals it may not be of much consequence since they were not often used for advanced calculation but maybe show them if we broke a simple rule in base ten or even base two of computer code what the severe consequences might be.
Page images from THE UNIVERSAL HISTORY OF NUMBERS by George Ifrah- Wiley publishers
Apologies if this post stirred up any harsh sentiments because I accused the ancient Romans of bad math. It was really meant only in jest. It seems it does get people posting though.

 

Note how twenty four (XXIIII) is inscribed on the Reverse of the following As of Tiberius:


RIC Vol. I, TIBERIUS, As, Rome,
No. 44 (AD 21-22)

 

Yes but the specific rule is that ONLY ONE smaller number goes to the left to be subtracted. That is in the page of the book that Doug recommends on the history of numbers. They explain why the number is used that way. It's origin is most likely from notch notation in sheepherding according to the book.