numerals

Our collective IQ improved a lot when we dropped roman numerals in favor of arabic/hindi numerals.

We have ten numerals because, when the numerals were developed, we were already using ten-based counting.

I think this phrasing is less confusing when it refers to labels rather than actual numerals.

How many people are fast at computing fifth roots without recourse to computational tools such as Hindu-Arabic numerals?

For some reason this is the first explanation of Roman numerals used in chord progression that made sense to me.

Enabling old-style numerals (lowercase numbers) [in LaTeX] is easy enough, right up until you want to only enable them in some parts your book.

Arabic, which is of course normally right-to-left, uses left-to-right ordering for numerals.

In many cases it would be faster to use roman numerals.

In every human society, we had ten fingers for hundreds of thousands of years before developing a system of ten numerals.

We use Arabic numerals, and Arabic languages are written right-to-left.

Even if its weird, its nothing like French numerals.

How many people know how to multiply two numbers expressed in Roman numeral format without reference to an algorism (not a typo!) or other methods based on Hindu-Arabic numerals?

In the US, every address or "delivery point" can be represented by 11 numerals: zip+4+2.

And actually some students might have taken issue with the ten fingers/ten numerals idea, since "zero" as a numeral screws that up.

If there's a Windows 9 it might eventually turn into Roman numerals, so then you've got Windows IX, which could turn into Winix or Wix, or in a particularly bad case "Windows Icks".

> “object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing.” - Rob Pike Which is weird because Pike's Rule 4 is one of the fundamental principles of OO design.

For instance, by doing all math in Roman Numerals.