Re: Grammar for roman numerals

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
8 Apr 2007 09:51:48 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: Grammar for roman numerals martin@gkc.org.uk (Martin Ward) (2007-03-30)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2007-04-01)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-01)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals alex.habar.nam@gmail.com (whiskey) (2007-04-06)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals dickey@saltmine.radix.net (Thomas Dickey) (2007-04-06)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2007-04-06)
Re: Grammar for roman numerals DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 Apr 2007 09:51:48 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-03-095 07-03-118 07-04-017 07-04-021
Keywords: parse
Posted-Date: 08 Apr 2007 09:51:48 EDT

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:


> constructs like MIM (for 1999) and IC (for 99), which were never used
> otherwise than mistakenly, contradict to very positional representation.
> Which makes me think that the system was positional at least in the minds
> of Romans.


It might be necessary to distinguish between the usage in calculations,
and the usage in documents. In documents a shorthand notation might have
been used, whereas I dont know how Romans did their calculations. Known
is the spelling of numbers, and there of course we find your assumed
positional system.


A grammar for the shorthand notation even may be context sensitive, also
in an cultural/educational sense, where the most elaborated form was
used by people which had to cast numbers into stone...


DoDi


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.