what is the roman equivalent of no.9999?
480763
9999 = MMMMMMMMMCMXCIX\n\nExplaining:\n\nsince 1000=M\nand 100=C\nalso 10=X as you mentioned\nand  1=I\nThen 9999=9*1000(that is 9 M's)\n          +900 (that is 1000-100=CM)\n          +90 (that is 100-10=XC)\n          +9 (that is 10-1=IX)\n\nNote:In Roman Numerals; symbol represnts small No. to the rigt of Larger one is to be added while to the left of it is to be subtracted (Example: I=1 V=5 then 6=VI while 4=IV).
1116625
In the UK we tend to say Nought rather than Zero so 8 5 4 9 0 1 7 6 3 2 would be in alphabetical order this side of the pond.\n\nIn France it would be cinq deux huit neuf quatre sept six trois un 5 2 8 9 4 7 6 3 1\n\nIn German it would be acht drei eins funf neun sechs sieben vier zwei 8 2 1 5 9 6 7 4 2\n\nRe the last-but-one contributor\n\nV100 = 10 and 10 + 0 = 10 \nV9801 = 99 and 98 + 01 = 99\nV998001 = 999 and 998 + 001 = 999\nV99980001 = 9999 and 9998 + 0001 = 9999\nV9999800001 = 99999 and 99998 + 00001 = 99999 etc\n\nso not unique but one member of an infinite set of numbers with this property.
356300
infinity because you could say any number  bigger than 100000000000000000000000000000000000 is infinity
73869
1,100 \n And here's the answer in romen numerals:\n\nMC\n\nWhoop-a-de-Doo!
816947
999 / 89 = 11.2247191\n\ndid you know that Google can act like a calculator?\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=999+%2F+89&btnG=Search
1167089
1, 897, 865, 342.00009\n\nExactly.
956676
Hmm, it should not be difficult - just press caps lock and write the appropriate letters e.g 10 is X; 11 - XI etc - the numerals are combinations of  7 letters - I, V,X, C,D, L, M\nhttp://www.gtcocalcomp.com/erc/interwritebackgrounds/roman_numerals_complete.jpg
738951
It is 1, just like 0.3333... *is* exactly 1/3 and 0.6666... *is* exactly 2/3 and 0.9999.... *is* exactly 3/3 = 1.\n\nIt's not *close* it just *is*, exactly equivalent.\n\nThere is no trick to it... ask any mathematician and they will confirm that 0.9999.... repeating is just another way of representing 1.0.\n\n1/9 = 0.1111...\n2/9 = 0.2222...\n3/9 = 0.3333... (1/3)\n4/9 = 0.4444...\n5/9 = 0.5555...\n6/9 = 0.6666... (2/3)\n7/9 = 0.7777...\n8/9 = 0.8888...\n9/9 = 0.9999... (1)\n\nor use this proof:\n\nx = 0.9999...\n10x = 9.9999...\n10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...\n9x = 9\nx = 1\n\nTo say that 0.9999.... doesn't equal 1 because it might eventually end and be different than one is like saying 0.0 repeating might not equal zero.\n\nCheck Wikipedia or any of the math forums to see that 0.9999... is confirmed to be 1, despite what our intuitive logic might say otherwise.
10443
I assume you mean "0001 A.D.", in which the "A.D." stands for "Anno Domini", which is short for "Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi" ("In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ").  There is no "zero" year in the measuring system which denotes years as "A.D." or "B.C.".  Thus, the year before 1 A.D. is 1 B.C.
1025493
It's rational and it's 2.\n\nI think you answered your own question, 1.9999... is a repeating decimal, so it is a rational. \n\nI think some of the confusion comes from the fact that some repeating decimals, like .33333..., come out of repeated long division. But there isn't any long division that will give you 1.99999...\n\nThe thing to remember is that either you accept that 1.9999... represents a number, or you don't. And if you accept that it represents a number, then 2 is the only value it can take that won't break all of your rules of arithmetic.
82291
As in 3*100,000,000 or as in 300,000,000?
677484
That depends how you want to define it. Strictly speaking the answer is "a hundred". A hundred is the correct term though most people say "one hundred".\n\nAnd if you don't like that answer the next correct answer is "one hundred And one".\n\nThousand is completely wrong. Excluding even centuries every number from one hundred and one onwards uses the vowel "A". For example try writing "three hundred and twenty-three" without using the "A" key on your keyboard.
256248
as Romans used abacus for reckoning, they didn't use a notation including comma to fix the integer position (actually their numeral system was not positional, although the instrument they used was).\nI guess they considered the integer of any quantity referring to the appropriate measure unit: (to give a rough exemple out of this context, you can always say 1453 centimeters instead of 14.53 meters).\nIt is also to be considered that not all things had to be written, or written permanently, at that time, and moreover, not everyone knew everything.\nIt is thus possible that there were techniques or ways of representing numbers which were known only by few.\n\nBut the above are all conjectures of my own, nothing documented (save for the fact that Romans used abacus)
477961
MEE!!!! times 999,999,999,999,999,999,999
819313
hi...\n\naccording to roman numerals..c=100\nand  d=500\n\nand k=1000 in simple english\n\nso it says  1842  ,100,500 at 1000\nor it can mean 1842 degree celsius at kelvin\n\nthis is what i can understand
61510
In cannot be written!\n\nThe largest Roman numberal represents 1,000,000.\nYou would have to string together 283,468,456,832,465,783 of them in the representation of you number.\n\nIf you could write the characters as small as 1 mm wide, the number would be 283,468,456,832,465 meters wide which is 283,468,456,832 kilometers which is roughly 50 times the mean diameter of the orbit of the planet Pluto.
738607
the number '194'\n\n=)