1,2

This sequence is consistent with the Roman numerals as expressed in the Schildberger link. 4 (usually IV now) could be included in a variant of this sequence as IIII is sometimes used (especially on clock faces). To make this or similar sequences well-defined for numbers larger than 3999, it must be decided whether and how to handle the apostrophus (backward-C), the vinculum (bar), the frame, or even other multiplier notations used at various times in representations of larger Roman numerals. Recalling the "Y2K crisis", will there be a(n even milder) "Y4M crisis"? In particular, is 4000 to be represented as MMMM, (I)(I)(I)(I) (where parentheses are used to represent C and the apostrophus), MV (with vinculum over the V), IV (with vinculum over both I and V) or IIII with vinculum over all four I's? If there is no general agreement, could Roman civilization be at risk (once again)?

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1981 ed., Vol. 11, "Mathematics, History of", p. 647.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged), 1976 ed., "Cardinal Numbers Table" and footnotes, p. 1549.

P. Lewis, ROMAN NUMERALS AND DATES

Gerard Schildberger, The first 3999 numbers in Roman numerals

Eric Weisstein's World of Mathematics, Link to a section of The World of Mathematics.

I, II, III, V, X, XIX, XX, XXX, L, C, CXC, CC, CCC, D, M, MCM, MM, MMM

Cf. A006968 (Roman numerals main entry), A002113 (Palindromic Arabic numerals).

Sequence in context: A030032 A002661 A065053 this_sequence A166874 A046630 A064236

Adjacent sequences: A078712 A078713 A078714 this_sequence A078716 A078717 A078718

base,easy,nonn

Rick L. Shepherd (rshepherd2(AT)hotmail.com), Dec 19 2002