why have most clocks and watches in roman numerals got 1111 for 4 and not 1V?
457015
In roman numerals I = 1 and V 5  the use of 1111 =4 because iv  represented the god Jove. The subtractive method of using iv came from more modern uses of the latin variations.  Also using 1111 on the clock creates a visual affect with the v111 on the other side and 1111 is easier to read sideways or upside down.   Check out 'roman numerals.com'
155266
"Q: WHEN YOU SEE AN AD WITH A CLOCK IN IT THE HANDS ARE ALWAYS\nPOSITIONED AT 10:10?\n\nA: WE CALLED TIMEX FOR YOUR ANSWER AND IT SAYS THE HANDS ON A CLOCK\nARE PLACED AT TEN-TEN BECAUSE IT'S A CREATIVE STANDARD INDUSTRY.\n\nTIMEX SAYS THE HANDS ON TIMEPIECES ARE PLACED AT TEN-TEN SO THE\nCOMPANY LOGO ON THE FACE WILL BE FRAMED AND NOT BLOCKED BY THE HANDS.\nTIMEX SAYS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD USED TO BE EIGHT-TWENTY BUT THAT\nLOOKED TOO MUCH LIKE A FROWN AND CREATED AN UNHAPPY LOOK.\n\nTIMEX SAYS IN ITS ADS, THE CLOCK HANDS ARE PLACED AT TEN-NINE AND\nTHIRTY SIX SECONDS, EXACTLY."
141325
LOL.. love the first answer...'L' in Roman Numerals stands for '50'.
337819
The direction that a clock goes is entirely dependent on how it is made.  You can easily put the numbers in the opposite direction above the equator and have it work, so which side of the equator it's made on doesn't really matter.
5316
If it were plus, instead of times, the answer would be 1.\nAs it is, I don't recognize it.  Perhaps my math is a bit rusty...
49545
Possibly.  Every human has a different polarity in their body. Usually it is only a few milivolts difference between the right and left hand.  The average is abou 5 milivolts.  A simple electrical gauge will show this.  When someone has a greater polarity discrepincy they are producing "more" power and this can affect certain watches that are run on electricity.  This would have no bearing on wind up watches or very old watches since they were run on gears.  Newer watches can pose a problem for a very few individuals.
347299
Well, the way the question is posed, there isn't enough information to give you an answer, but there are several ways to look at the problem.\n\nFirst, if each letter is a specific value, then we would need to see more than the one equation to attempt to determine the value for each letter, because with just one equation, there are literally limitless answers, as long as the values of the five letters come out to 619062.\n\nIf you are talking about the Roman numeral system, where different letters have different values, then you are looking at the following:\n\nI = 1\nV = 5\nX = 10\nL = 50\nC = 100\nD = 500\nM = 1000\n\nSo in your example, the only two letters that have Roman value would be C and M.  If you wanted to express 619062 in Roman numerals, it would look as follows: _DC_ M _XX_ LXII (the DC and XX are underlined to indicate that their values are multiplied by 1000, so D would be 500,000).  In the example, "_DC_" is 600,000, "M _XX_" (or variably, "_IXX_") is 19,000 (20,000 - 1,000), and "LXII" is 62, so you have 600,000 + 19,000 + 62 = 619,062.
806066
My clock as numbers 1 - 24? Yours must be a smaller clock.
1007041
The roman numeral for seven (VII) can be made by cutting the Roman numeral for twelve (XII) in half hortizontally.\n\n-unpredicktaboh-
582455
MCMXLV\n\nM = 1000\nC = 100\nL = 50\nX = 10\nV = 5\n\nThe roman convention is:\nstart with the largest number that can be represented standalone. then the next number that can be formed by a minimun number of subtractions\nHence \nM = 1000\nCM = 900\nXC = 40\nV = 5\n\nRead more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals
1096569
The modular (and clock) arithmetic answers are correct, but I think they miss the point a bit, since in any modular arithmetic you still have 2+2 = 4 mod n. Let's suppose we are using the natural numbers with the usual addition.\n\nThe recurring decimal answers are just stupid, 1 = 0.9999... recurring (as shown in fact by the first answer here), so all of these answers are either irrelevant or wrong.\n\nThe '2' is just a symbol arguments possibly have some merit, but you should be careful. In Indianna in 1872 (or thereabouts) it was ruled by State legislature, that the value of pi is 4. Obviously this creates problems, if you go to Indianna you won't find many buildings that were designed in 1872. (Their mistake of course was that they didn't alter the representation of all the other numbers they where using accordingly).\n\nI'm not really a logician so I don't know the answer to this off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that we don't have a satisfying answer here (sorry if we have but I missed it). \n\nPerhaps a good place to start looking for a serious discussion on this kind of topic would be to understand what a Peano system is (wiki it, I'm not explaining that here, 'tis an axiomatic description of the natural numbers). I've also heard that Bertrand Russell gave a proof that 1+1 =2 in Principa Mathematica, although I haven't read that and I don't know precisely where you can find it.
469511
To quote dilbert: "Early Civilisations never had a concept of zero" (hey, you wanted it thorough right?) And they started the number system at one. .... Hmm, pretty much the panel cuts out... \nRemember, the ones and zeros are really the positive and negative polaritys on a magnetic disk. That is the key to your computer informations. Do not take a magnet to your computer.
527661
there has to be some difference...if the minute had would be shorter than it would make it difficult to check with accuracy that it was on which minute at any moment...and the accuracy of hour hand is also clear due to minute hand...thats why it is so..
777237
The best way to explain this is as follows: 19 + 1= 21st century. so, 20+1= 22\nAlways add one because 0 to 99 is one century basically. \n\nMore info for you.. I listed the link below for you as well.\n\nThis page is about centuries as units of time. For other meanings of the term, see Century (disambiguation). For a list of centuries, see Centuries.\nA century (From the Latin cent, one hundred) is one hundred consecutive years.\n\n\nIn all dating systems, centuries are essentially numbered ordinally. Thus, the first century of a time frame is "The First Century" and not "Century 0".\n\nThere is considerable disagreement about whether to count the centennial year (i.e. 2000) as the first or last year of a century. This confusion is documented for every centennial year from 1500 onward, and almost certainly arises from the introduction of Hindu-Arabic numerals and the concept of zero to Western Europe in the twelfth century.\nThe oldest dating systems were regnal, and considered the date as an ordinal, not a cardinal number. Thus, one speaks of the first year of the reign of King John for example. Obviously, the century problem does not arise in such systems. Somewhat later, systems arose dating from the founding of a dynasty, city or religion, and these continued ordinal, rather than cardinal, counting. Thus Ab Urbe Condita counts the Year 1 as the founding of Rome; Anno Domini as the first full year of Jesus Christ's life; the Islamic calendar as the year of the Hejira, so it is also latinized as Anno Hejira.\n\nIn the Gregorian calendar, the calendar that is currently used for most purposes nearly everywhere in the world, the first year is that of the traditionally accepted year of Jesus' birth. There is no "year zero". Accordingly, the first century includes the years 1-100 anno Domini, the first millennium (or period of ten centuries) is the years 1-1000 anno Domini, and so on.\n\nMore modern systems of dating (such as that of astronomical year numbering, used by astronomers) begin with a year zero. In these cardinal dating systems, it is perfectly logical to use 0 to 99 as the first century, and to regard 2000 as the first year of the twenty-first century. \n\nLL.
73869
1,100 \n And here's the answer in romen numerals:\n\nMC\n\nWhoop-a-de-Doo!
790243
I'm not really sure I understand your question correctly, but computers work using only two digits, 0 and 1 (sometimes referred to as 'off' and 'on', like a light bulb).  As a result of that, pretty much everything that happens inside a computer is based on 2 (= even) numbers.
1034204
I think the term for these prefixes is ordinal.  Depending on the capabilities of your word-processing software, printer, preference of your professor, etc., you can write them beside the number (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) or you can super-script them (I assume that's what you mean by "exponentially").  I've never seen them used with roman numerals.