On 22 Nov 1994 10:48:54 GMT, N S Walker wrote: >Humperdink (cmt@kepler.unh.edu) wrote: >: On Fri, 11 Nov 1994 MDREYES@VM.TEMPLE.EDU wrote: > >: > In article <39ussj$o5k@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au> >: > s3026557@titanic.mpce.mq.edu.au (Duncan Anker) writes: >: > >Remco Blaakmeer (s9406255@mail.student.utwente.nl) wrote: >: > >: Paul Shandi wrote: >: > >: >Hey, what about Roman Numerals? Check this out: >: > >: >I = 1 >: > >: >V = 5 >: > >: >X = 10 >: > >: >L = 50 >: > >: >C = 100 >: > >: > >: > >: >Add 'em up: 1+5+10+50+100 = 666 ! >: > >: > >: > >: >Regards, Paul (Paul@labyrinth.apana.org.au) >: > >: > >: > >: Doing this, you should add ALL the Roman Numerals. You >: > >: forgot: >: > > >: > >: D = 500 >: > >: M = 1000 >: > > >: > >: Now you get 6666, which doesn't make any sense in this >: > >: case, so forget about the Roman Numerals having anything >: > >: to do with the number 666. >: > > >: > >No, you get 1666. Your maths is as bad as his :-) >: > > >: > >: > No, you get 2166. Now who's the one with the bad math? >: > >: > Micah ;') > >: Did I miss some new math law to cause this Micah? > >666+500+100=2166 >Where's the problem with that? > >And I should know - my computer told me ;-) > >Neil > Your computer is right, but you are wrong when adding 666+500+100. First of all, it's not 666 but 166 and second, you forgot one '0' in 1000. 166+500+1000=1666 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Name: Remco Blaakmeer | No matter what goes wrong, | | University: Twente University | there is always somebody | | Department: Applied Physics | who knew it would. | | Telephone: (+31)(0)53-307406 | | | E-Mail: j.r.blaakmeer@student.utwente.nl | | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------