Can someone translate Roman nurerals into Aribic numerals?
596495
WILL YOU STILL NEED ME?\nWILL YOU STILL FEED ME?\nWHEN I AM 64 (= LXIV)?
174533
try http://www.freefonts.com or http://www.searchfreefonts.com/ or http://www.fonts.com/ or http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/letraset/university-roman/ or http://free-fonts.com/cgi-bin1/fsearch.pl?search=university%20roman or http://google.com ;)
230204
Gematria, a kind of Jewish numerology involving turning letters from the Bible into numbers
569087
see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalLogarithm.html
702105
C=100\nL=50\nX=10\nI=1\nV=5\nWhen Roman numerals show the largest numbers first, it means add them. If there is a smaller number in front of a bigger number, substract the smaller number from the bigger number.\n\nso: XX (200) plus L(50) plus X (10) plus (V-I) (5-1)\n             200 plus 50 plus ten plus 4\n                           264
390137
In general, the number zero did not have its own Roman numeral. Only one instance of a Roman numeral for zero is known. About 725, Bede or one of his colleagues used the letter N, the initial of nullae, in a table of epacts, all written in Roman numerals.\n\nA notation for the value zero is quite distinct from the role of the digit zero in a positional notation system. The lack of a zero digit prevented Roman numerals from developing into a positional notation, and led to their gradual replacement by Hindu-Arabic numerals in the early second millennium.
214372
The closest I could come to numeric letters would be the Roman numerals system.\nThe alphabet and the numeric system we have really do not combine that well.\nThere is to think about though:\n\nGreek numerals are a system of representing numbers using letters of the Greek alphabet. They are also known by the names Milesian numerals, Alexandrian numerals, or alphabetic numerals. In modern Greece, they are still in use for ordinal numbers, and in much the same situations as Roman numerals are in the West; for ordinary (cardinal) numbers, Arabic numerals are used.\n\nThe earliest system of numerals in Greek were the acrophonic Attic numerals, operating much like Roman numerals (which derived from this scheme), with the following formula: Ι = 1, Π = 5, Δ = 10, ΠΔ = 50, Η = 100, ΠΗ = 500, Χ = 1000, ΠΧ = 5000, Μ = 10000 and ΠΜ = 50000.\n\nStarting in the 4th century BC, the Attic numerals were replaced with a quasi-decimal alphabetic system, sometimes called the Ionic numeral system. Each unit (1, 2, ..., 9) was assigned a separate letter, each tens (10, 20, ..., 90) a separate letter, and each hundreds (100, 200, ..., 900) a separate letter. This requires 27 letters, so the 24-letter Greek alphabet was extended by using three obsolete letters: digamma (ϝ, also used are stigma ϛ or στ) for 6, qoppa (ϟ) for 90, and sampi (ϡ) for 900. See Numerals: Stigma, Koppa, Sampi. A trailing acute sign (´) is used to distinguish numerals from letters.\n\nThe alphabetic system operates on the additive principle in which the numeric values of the letters are added together to form the total. For example, 241 is represented as σμα´ (200 + 40 + 1).\n\nTo represent numbers from 1,000 to 999,999 the same letters are reused to serve as thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands. A comma or inverted acute is put in front of thousands to distinguish them from the standard use. For example, 2006 is represented as ,βϛ´ (2000 + 6).\n\nLetter Value Letter Value Letter Value \nα´ 1 ι´ 10 ρ´ 100 \nβ´ 2 κ´ 20 σ´ 200 \nγ´ 3 λ´ 30 τ´ 300 \nδ´ 4 μ´ 40 υ´ 400 \nε´ 5 ν´ 50 φ´ 500 \nϝ´ or ϛ´ or στ´ 6 ξ´ 60 χ´ 600 \nζ´ 7 ο´ 70 ψ´ 700 \nη´ 8 π´ 80 ω´ 800 \nθ´ 9 ϟ´ 90 ϡ´ 900 \n\nIn modern Greece, uppercase letters are preferred, as in Φιλιππος Β΄= Philip II.\n\n[edit]\nHigher numbers\nThe Greeks also used the Myriad to denote 10,000 and the myriad myriad for one hundred million. In his text The Sand Reckoner the natural philosopher Archimedes proposed advanced ways to name very high numbers, such as the number of grains of sand on a beach, and the number of grains of sand on all the beaches on all the worlds in the universe.\n\n[edit]\nHellenistic zero\nHellenistic astronomers extended this into a sexagesimal positional numbering system by limiting each position to a maximum value of 50 + 9 and including a special symbol for zero, which was also used alone like our modern zero, more than as a simple placeholder. However, the positions were usually limited to the fractional part of a number (called minutes, seconds, thirds, fourths, etc.)—they were not used for the integral part of a number. This system was probably adapted from Babylonian numerals by Hipparchus c. 140 BC. It was then used by Ptolemy (c. 140), Theon (c. 380), and Theon's daughter Hypatia (died 415).\n\nThe Greek sexagesimal place holder or zero symbol changed over time. The symbol used on papyri during the second century was a very small circle with an overbar several diameters long, terminated or not at both ends in various ways. Later, the overbar shortened to only one diameter, similar to our modern o macron (ō), which was still being used in late medieval Arabic manuscripts whenever alphabetic numerals were used. But the overbar was omitted in Byzantine manuscripts, leaving a bare ο (omicron). This gradual change from an invented symbol to ο does not support the hypothesis that the l
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.
529117
Hold down the alt key while enterin the following numbers on your numpad: (EDIT: Make sure the numlock is on)\n\nà 133    \nÀ 0192 \nâ 131  \nÂ 0194 \nä 132  \nÄ 142 \næ 145  \nÆ 146 \nç 135  \nÇ 128 \né 130  \nÉ 144 \nè 138  \nÈ 0200 \nê 136  \nÊ 0202 \në 137  \nË 0203 \nî 140  \nÎ 0206 \nï 139  \nÏ 0207 \nñ 164\nô 147  \nÔ 0212 \nœ 0156 \nŒ 0140 \nù 151  \nÙ 0217 \nû 150  \nÛ 0219 \nü 129  \nÜ 154 \n« 174  \n» 175
450396
The closest I came up with is the "defined as" symbol:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols\n\nscroll down to :=
287524
When I Googled for "numeric letter" (with the leading and trailing doublequotes included) and looked at some of the results, there seemed to be two major usages:\n\n1) A character in something like ASCII or Unicode (something more than just A to Z) that represents\na digit (or perhaps a digit or a Roman numeral?)\n\n2) A way of assigning numbers to words by giving\na numeric value to each letter and then adding\nthose up (for example, to see if the sum is 666).\n\nAdditionally, as a converse of (2), I think the\nancient Hebrew and ancient Greek alphabets\nrepresented numbers by stringing together the\nletters of the alphabet according to their\npreassigned numeric values so that the sum\nwas the number in question.\n\n\n(not having the Arabic numerals) by
8695
1 Rhind papyrus 2000 BC 1 3.16045 (= 4(8/9)2)\n Click for note 1\n \n2 Archimedes 250 BC 3 3.1418 (average of the bounds)\n Click for note 2\n \n3 Vitruvius 20 BC 1 3.125 (= 25/8)\n Click for note 3\n \n4 Chang Hong 130 1 3.1622 (= 10)\n Click for note 4\n \n5 Ptolemy 150 3 3.14166\n Click for note 5\n \n6 Wang Fan 250 1 3.155555 (= 142/45)\n Click for note 6\n \n7 Liu Hui 263 5 3.14159\n Click for note 7\n \n8, Zu Chongzhi 480 7 3.141592920 (= 355/113)\n Click for note 8\n \n9 Aryabhata 499 4 3.1416 (= 62832/2000)\n Click for note 9\n \n10 Brahmagupta 640 1 3.1622 (= 10)\n Click for note 10\n \n11 Al-Khwarizmi 800 4 3.1416\n Click for note 11\n \n12 Fibonacci 1220 3 3.141818\n Click for note 12\n \n13 Madhava 1400 11 3.14159265359\n Click for note 13\n \n14 Al-Kashi 1430 14 3.14159265358979\n Click for note 14\n \n15 Otho 1573 6 3.1415929\n Click for note 15\n \n16 Viète 1593 9 3.1415926536\n Click for note 16\n \n17 Romanus 1593 15 3.141592653589793\n Click for note 17\n \n18 Van Ceulen 1596 20 3.14159265358979323846\n Click for note 18\n \n19 Van Ceulen 1596 35 3.1415926535897932384626433832795029\n Click for note 19\n \n20 Newton 1665 16 3.1415926535897932\n Click for note 20\n \n21 Sharp 1699 71 \n Click for note 21\n \n22 Seki Kowa 1700 10\n \n23 Kamata 1730 25\n \n24 Machin 1706 100 \n Click for note 24\n \n25 De Lagny 1719 127 Only 112 correct\n Click for note 25\n \n26 Takebe 1723 41 \n Click for note 26\n \n27 Matsunaga 1739 50 \n Click for note 27\n \n28 von Vega 1794 140 Only 136 correct\n Click for note 28\n \n29 Rutherford 1824 208 Only 152 correct\n Click for note 29\n \n30 Strassnitzky, Dase 1844 200 \n Click for note 30\n \n31 Clausen 1847 248 \n Click for note 31\n \n32 Lehmann 1853 261 \n Click for note 32\n \n33 Rutherford 1853 440 \n Click for note 33\n \n34 Shanks 1874 707 Only 527 correct\n Click for note 34\n \n35 Ferguson 1946 620 \n \nComputer calculations of \n Mathematician Date Places Type of computer \n \n Ferguson Jan 1947 710 Desk calculator\n \n Ferguson, Wrench Sept 1947 808 Desk calculator\n \n Smith, Wrench 1949 1120 Desk calculator\n \n Reitwiesner et al. 1949 2037 ENIAC\n \n Nicholson, Jeenel 1954 3092 NORAC\n \n Felton 1957 7480 PEGASUS\n \n Genuys Jan 1958 10000 IBM 704 \n \n Felton May 1958 10021 PEGASUS\n \n Guilloud 1959 16167 IBM 704\n \n Shanks, Wrench 1961 100265 IBM 7090\n \n Guilloud, Filliatre 1966 250000 IBM 7030\n \n Guilloud, Dichampt 1967 500000 CDC 6600\n \n Guilloud, Bouyer 1973 1001250 CDC 7600\n \n Miyoshi, Kanada 1981 2000036 FACOM M-200\n \n Guilloud 1982 2000050\n \n Tamura 1982 2097144 MELCOM 900II\n \n Tamura, Kanada 1982 4194288 HITACHI M-280H\n \n Tamura, Kanada 1982 8388576 HITACHI M-280H\n \n Kanada, Yoshino, Tamura 1982 16777206 HITACHI M-280H\n \n Ushiro, Kanada Oct 1983 10013395 HITACHI S-810/20\n \n Gosper Oct 1985 17526200 SYMBOLICS 3670\n \n Bailey Jan 1986 29360111 CRAY-2\n \n Kanada, Tamura Sept 1986 33554414 HITACHI S-810/20\n \n Kanada, Tamura Oct 1986 67108839 HITACHI S-810/20\n \n Kanada, Tamura, Kubo Jan 1987 134217700 NEC SX-2\n \n Kanada, Tamura Jan 1988 201326551 HITACHI S-820/80\n \n Chudnovskys May 1989 480000000\n \n Chudnovskys June 1989 525229270\n \n Kanada, Tamura July 1989 536870898\n \n Chudnovskys Aug 1989 1011196691\n \n Kanada, Tamura Nov 1989 1073741799\n \n Chudnovskys Aug 1991 2260000000\n \n Chudnovskys May 1994 4044000000\n \n Kanada, Tamura June 1995 3221225466\n \n Kanada Aug 1995 4294967286\n \n Kanada Oct 1995 6442450938\n \n Kanada, Takahashi Aug 1997 51539600000 HITACHI SR2201 \n \n Kanada, Takahashi Sept 1999 206158430000 HITACHI SR8000
995367
Oh, how dismal it was! They did not have a "decimal" or fraction system, but instead used words. Go here for more information:\n\nhttp://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.roman.html#calc
923039
email me, calcu_lust@yahoo.com, i'll write out a nice solution.\n\nEdit: Go to my website, and aforementioned nice solution is typed out as a .pdf for you to download, with all the correct symbols and such:\nhttp://geocities.com/calcu_lust/yahooans.pdf
646578
There are certainly numerical correalations apparent in scripture. There are also 12 main commandments - Mosaical 10, plus the 2 that Christ gave. There are 12 numbers including the number 12 that have specific prophetic symbology. I have more on this study but no time to type it here..if you are really interested email me and I'll send what I have. Love in Christ, ~J~  <><
742394
You can not use an online translator and have it translated correctly into Latin.  It is just not possible.  The nouns will not be declined and the verbs will not be conjugated.  It needs to be done by a real person for it to be even remotely accurate.  Also, odds are that a translation will not be verbatim in Latin - things do not always translate straight across.
73869
1,100 \n And here's the answer in romen numerals:\n\nMC\n\nWhoop-a-de-Doo!