User talk:SweetPotatoGolem

Noticed your change to the text of Roman Numerals - I must admit the existing text dates from well before my first edit to this article and has never made a lot of sense to me - I suspect your change is actually more accurate! But are you sure this is what your source actually says? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure. The final claim in my paragraph ("Numerals larger than CCCIↃↃↃ do not occur.") is supported by N3218, which says "So numerals higher than 100,000 shown in the CIↃ style do not occur" in its description of ↇ and ↈ on page 5. That paragraph also states that those symbols are formed from IↃↃↃ and CCCIↃↃↃ, respectively.

An additional source already cited on the page, Dictionary of Latin Abbreviations by A. Capelli, shows examples of CIↃ for 1,000 and CCIↃↃ for 10,000 on page 413; CCCIↃↃↃ for 100,000 on page 414; and IↃ for 500, IↃↃ for 5,000, and IↃↃↃ for 50,000 on page 415; along with various ligated versions of these sequences. Furthermore, Capelli gives CCIↃↃIↃↃ as 15,000 on page 414, contradicting the previous table which said this form would be CCIↃↃↃↃ.

The Westerkirk image on the page shows CIↃIↃ for 1,600, again contradicting the table which claimed 1,600 would be CIↃↃ.

Finally, the scanned page currently included in this section comes from Numerorum mysteria by Petrus Bungus, and it shows examples of CIↃ for 1,000, IↃↃ for 5,000, and CCIↃↃ for 10,000, as well as these sequences used in subtractive notation (namely CIↃ CCIↃↃ for 9,000 and CCIↃↃ CIↃ IↃↃ for 14,000).

I hope that that's ample evidence. SweetPotatoGolem (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries (at least none from me). As I said in my initial reaction- I strongly suspected you were right - the old existing text always struck me as rather illogical, anyway. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]