Difference between revisions of "Talk:2637: Roman Numerals"
(not "archaic") |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:It's not overly long if someone spent the time writing it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC) | :It's not overly long if someone spent the time writing it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC) | ||
::I wondered too when first reading but like it geeky like that. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.15|172.68.50.15]] 05:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC) | ::I wondered too when first reading but like it geeky like that. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.15|172.68.50.15]] 05:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I, in a rather faint and not really concerned way, object to the use of the phrase 'archaic' with regard to Roman Numerals. That would imply that they aren't in use at all, whereas when I look around me I can see a number of examples of current usage of Roman Numerals, e.g. Clock Faces, Chapter Numbering (some books) and the most important, the 'Manufacture Date' of a televisual programme from the BBC shown at the bottom of the end-credits. I believe a better phrase may be 'venerable' or 'historical' or 'unmodern'. | ||
| + | [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.5|172.70.162.5]] 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:46, 25 June 2022
Immediately came to this site as soon as the comic popped up 172.70.114.43 22:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
For anyone wondering about the alt text: "CheCk out thIs InnoVatIVe strIng enCoDIng IVe been DeVeLopIng! It's VIrtuaCy perfeCt! ...hang on, what's a "virtuacy"?" Roman numerals are in uppercase. : 162.158.90.209 23:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't see this comment, but I decoded it above. Feel free to update with your text, which includes the casing.
- It should be virtually - LL is 50 50, C is 100. 172.70.110.121 00:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- By the way, this encoding is not that innovative: back when Roman numbers still meant something to people they were oftentimes hidden inside inscriptions on churches and monuments. If you ever stand in front of a church and wonder why certain letters in a sentence of an inscription are capitalized seemingly at random, this may be the reason. --172.70.250.231 06:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Relevant OEIS entry: https://oeis.org/A093788 162.158.129.117 23:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I immediately got the comic, when I saw it, but (though I admire the effort put in) the explanation that seems to have been given is... overly long, IMO. I have no wish to invalidate all the thought put into it, but I really feel it says too much. Even by my standards (I'm often a waffler, as I 'improve' the accuracy and all-inclusiveness of such text). But don't want to rain on the existing author(s) parade, myself, so just sayin'... 162.158.159.15 02:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's not overly long if someone spent the time writing it. -- Hkmaly (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wondered too when first reading but like it geeky like that. --172.68.50.15 05:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I, in a rather faint and not really concerned way, object to the use of the phrase 'archaic' with regard to Roman Numerals. That would imply that they aren't in use at all, whereas when I look around me I can see a number of examples of current usage of Roman Numerals, e.g. Clock Faces, Chapter Numbering (some books) and the most important, the 'Manufacture Date' of a televisual programme from the BBC shown at the bottom of the end-credits. I believe a better phrase may be 'venerable' or 'historical' or 'unmodern'. 172.70.162.5 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
