Expanding the Roman Numerals

I like numbers! Do you...? Gee, tough crowd.
➤ SOCIALS
Twitter: / syst128
Discord: / discord
➤ VIDEO CREDITS
(No other videos used.)
➤ MUSIC CREDITS
Various songs from Namco Museum Encore, composed by Bandai Namco Entertainment
Graff - Rain Eater

[@kephrekhtheunbroken7510]

Fun fact: sometimes, the romans just added 4 together, so stuff like 14 was written as XIIII instead of XIV, but not always. If you bend this a little you could go slightly higher.

[@JayTemple]

Somewhere in the past few years, I learned that the IV (and IX, etc.) notation didn't come about until the 19th century or so.

[@TheDankBoi69]

Well I think that explains why the 4 in clocks with Roman numerals is written as IIII instead of IV 22/11/22 EDIT: yeah but most clocks STILL display 4 as IIII even if they're made past the 19th century and in my opinion I find this annoying

[@mathguy37]

IIII was wondering if they were going to mention that

[@GetRidOfHandles]

I II III IIII IIIII IIIIIIIIII

[@PopeLando]

@@JayTemple No, although small numbers like 4, 9 and 14 used IIII, the Romans did use the subtractive system, eg XXIX for 29 days in January, April, June etc on their calendars. Edit: I recently saw an old but post-medieval example, the ceiling of St Peter's in the Vatican, which bears the date MDXC for 1590. So it was ancient and also it was used before the 1800s.

[@psimaster]

This felt like a downward spiral and I love it

[@haipingcao2212_.]

xv

[@XorbityXorbGlowbe]

@@haipingcao2212_. indeed, 15

[@liam.28]

welcome to googology

[@tylorcorslan1134]

This video was a trip

[@alphachiu]

is vx just v?

[@IONATVS]

While it is normal nowadays to hear “you can only string a max of 3 Ms, Cs, Xs, or Is together” when discussing Roman Numerals, this is a modern *convention* that exists purely to give each number a “canonical” form like Hindu-Arabic numerals do. When they were actually used regularly in daily life, no such convention existed, IIII and IV were just as valid ways to “spell” the number 4, and IM was just as valid as CMXCIX, the current “standard” way to spell 999 in Roman Numerals. Thus, even sticking purely to the seven universally accepted characters, you can *technically* write any positive whole number, no matter how large, by simply using Ms as tally marks. It’s a brute-force method, but would be allowed. Of course, real people needed to use Roman numerals for real things back in the day, and even back then they had strategies to extend the numbers in a more…useable way for larger whole numbers and simple fractions. The most common being adding S for 1/2 and • for 1/12 fractions (which covers the most common fractions people use in daily life, though 1/5 and 1/7 still had to use another strategy, usually stating the fraction as a ratio) and the two different strategies for extending the system upwards to easier to write multiple thousands (and no, you’re not the first person to come up with using multiple lines to extend it to millions and billions, just by the time regular people were working with numbers above a few million, Hindu-Arabic numerals had firmly replaced Roman ones in most fields, so it was a nonissue. And fields that had used those kinds of numbers for a long time (government accounting, grain shipments, and military inventories being the main ones), they just worked in accounting units that were large in-and-of-themselves to avoid using such large numbers (eg “V Legions of MMMMMM men each” instead of “30000 men” or “M pounds of sterling silver” instead of “240,000 pence,” where pence were a currency seen in daily life, but pounds sterling, while eventually being debased to the point the modern British Pound is comparable to a dollar, was originally worth exactly what it says on the tin, a pound of silver, which would be over $300 today, and basically only existed in noble account books as a way to deal with large numbers).

[@BogusTheGreatKid]

LXIX = 69 but XIXL = 31, dunno why its not 96

[@BogusTheGreatKid]

XIVL is XXXVI

[@BogusTheGreatKid]

In shorter

[@cycrothelargeplanet]

​@@BogusTheGreatKidBecause that's not how roman numerals work?

[@BogusTheGreatKid]

@@cycrothelargeplanet Oh so you like math? Name every Roman Numeral.

[@tripleoof8159]

I absolutely love your videos, it's always so interesting! From Vibri to anything math. Keep it up!

[@brinleyhamer729]

X|X|X = 10*10^10,000,000,000 THAS INSANE

[@felipevasconcelos6736]

8:57 That looks nothing like fractions. In Roman numerals, fractions are represented much like integers, with their own symbols, though only additively without the 3-symbol limit. The symbol for a twelfth is · (a dot) and for half its S. These are the main ones, but there’s also Σ or Є for half a twelfth, and a few obscure ones that don’t even show up on my device. I don’t think most Romans were very concerned with small or precise fractions, as the other fractions appear to be only used by apothecaries. Edit: timestamp

[@Swagpion]

8:54

[@felipevasconcelos6736]

@@Swagpion thanks!

[@windowsmercurySP10]

4 quinagintillion

[@jan_Eten]

Σ is 1/24, Ƨ(backwards s) is 1/72, Ƨ wiþ a line is 1/144, Ɔ(backwards c) is 1/48, and Э is 1/288

[@tookiecar1]

@@jan_Eten WHY DID YOU INCLUDE THE THORN😭😭😭

[@Xcyiterr]

I am absolutely smitten with both the adorably unique animation style and the sheer aura of smugness that this video emanates instant sub love the glace

[@KarlsGB]

I like how he says that he can't stack 50 lines on top of each other because vertical space and then he proceeds to stack 50 fractions on top of each other

[@theamazinghippopotomonstro9942]

😂😂

[@LaurencePaulUy]

⁠

[@cheeseburgermonkey7104]

The art you've created is super cute and cool, also this was a really good video for a first impression on me. You've gained another subscriber!

[@slushiiwoman]

Yo? Okay, I'm going to be completely real with you here, I am probably the biggest nerd when it comes to large numbers, even if I don't really delve to much into the true abyss of large numbers. And, this idea is just, simply beautiful. I love every single bit about it. If we could, d'you mind if we could have a chat, and maybe extend this entire system? I already know of a couple ways this system could be made even better, and to- Well, make it easier to write out. If we could, my robotic heart would be more than happy. Anyways, lovely video my dude, I hope to see more!

[@-minushyphen1two379]

How about extending it to the rationals with continued fractions? I just don’t know how negative numbers would be represented without just using the convenient modern -.

[@slushiiwoman]

@@-minushyphen1two379 Actually, thinking about rational numbers, I feel as if it would be a cool idea if scientific notation was included when representing them. As, since the idea of "Power Towers" was indirectly alluded to in the video (by the idea of having a smaller number being on top of a line to represent how many lines should be topped to the larger number on the bottom), it would only make sense to continue that notion for the sake of consistency (and elagance). How I'd imagine it would work is, Say you want to represent the number 133.7 as a roman numeral. Then, you'd represent that as, NI | I | CXXXIII | DCC | N in this case would be used to denote that you are meant to divide whatever is below the line (or in this case, in-between the lines) by 1,000 Sure, it's a little messy. However, that's because I couldn't be bothered actually having lines with numbers on top of them. But, you get my point. Still, it's a little clunky. However, as of right now, I can't really think of anything else to substitute with. So, this'll do for now. Anyways, thanks for responding to my comment! I do enjoy nerding about this kind of stuff. And ye, baiiii-

[@superlevigaming8521]

What if you go even bigger than hyper-extended roman numerals, using lines UNDER the number? For example, M with a line under it is a giant tower of a thousand lines with M's over them.

[@Unofficial2048tiles]

@@superlevigaming8521 maybe like um II _ = X _ _ X X

[@superlevigaming8521]

@@Unofficial2048tiles I was thinking something more like this: X _ X _ X _ X = X _ IV

[@Moralsiz]

Your videos are always interesting and entertaining

[@Ed1414One]

The Romans actually came up with a system for fraction and it did not look like arabic numeral fractions but instead s for 1/2 or 6/12 and a dot was 1/12

[@atanvardecunambiel8917]

To a lesser extent, T was used for 4/12 (a third) and Q for 3/12 (a quarter)

[@mathismt1222]

@@atanvardecunambiel8917 i didnt know that i only knew the dots

[@SuperWindows78]

@@atanvardecunambiel8917 ah maybe that’s how quarter and third got their name

[@tfan2222]

@@SuperWindows78 Third is an English word, not romance. So, no. Quarter *is* however, and is synonymous with fourth.

[@stephenweigel]

Another application of Roman numerals is labeling chords in western music theory! Capital letters are major, while lower case are minor, and each chord has functional significance.

[@wyattstevens8574]

Lc could be diminished too! (vii in major, ii in minor)

[@lawrencfgsdfg]

sick video, and criminally underrated channel!

[@sullivanbell2397]

I had an idea similar to this. Start with X, X line, X line line, X line line line, then what's next? X. LINE. >. that's right, we're going meta. 😎 you can take that sideways number and put more sideways numbers on top of that, until you've gone all the way around the circle 360°, and eventually you get this crazy quadruple-X throwing star lookin' thing.

[@stardy8131]

that intro is god damn awesome, and the rest of the video was very good too

[@azadanzans5359]

This is amazing. Roman numerals are so impractical, but I kinda of loved the chaotic nature of them, but this just takes it to a new level. Great video, I'd love to even extend it further, which should be easily possible.

[@vii-ka]

The recursive stacking of number bar number bar number etc brings up the same problem mentioned earlier in the video: lack of vertical space. Is there some way to solve this, too?

[@myrjavi]

simple naive solution: bracket of another roman numeral on the side to denote how many expansions? X [ IV [ __ IV it would repeat IV_IV_IV... X times...

[@TheDoubleTea]

Maybe, to show repetition of one bar stacks, we could have something like IV - - X which equals X - X - X - X. And then we could have three bars being two bars repetitions and four bars being three bars repetitions and so on and so on. Eventually that would bring the same problem, but right now there is no practical use for numbers so big, so it doesn’t really matter. But I’ll continue anyways. To denote the number of horizontal bars, we could have vertical bars, so X | X Would be two tens with ten bars between. Do you know how vertical bars control the amount of horizontal bars? Well, after classifying horizontal bars as (1) and vertical bars as (2), we can make (x) control the amount of (x-1). This basically means from here on out, we can make brackets inside brackets, and make a different bracket to control that, like (4(4(4(4)4)4)4) can be {4}. Then we can have [] controlling {} and then to control the “level” of brackets, we can have more numbers, like X(X)X being ten copies of IX(X)IX inside itself, along with other numbers to make the recursive iterations actual numbers. At this point, we are waaaaaaayyyyy past Graham’s Number and way past numbers used on any basis, so I’ll leave the rest of the notations for googologists to solve. (Googologists are people who study large numbers. Not large numbers as in a million, large numbers that are bigger than Googol, many many bigger than Graham’s Number.)

[@Lemony123]

Fraction had the same problem, but it not even feel like a problem.

[@sponge1234ify]

Basically the same "solution" as fractions: If you need larger than one stack, vertical space should be around the least of your problems, so we ignore it. But bracketing could also work, better than the division ( ~:~ ) symbol, at least.

[@superlevigaming8521]

@@TheDoubleTea "...there is no practical use for numbers so big, so it doesn’t really matter." Well actually, a number like XVI _ IV is 4*1000^16, which grows similar to scientific notation. This means that the limit of hyper-expanded roman numerals only grows as fast as tetration, which is nowhere near the magnitude of Graham's number, which is actually a very important number.

[@Sb129]

I absolutely love this concept~

[@v88box21]

Looks pretty nice.

[@the_vine_queen]

This is honestly a really cool concept! It's reminiscent of the exponent system in Arabic numerals, but it actually takes us further since each line is one thousand instead of just ten. Anyways, I really like this, and I am tempted to turn in actual homework using entirely extended roman numerals.

[@anwaruwid]

You need a century to make sure how to count in roman numerals 😂 I like ours (Arabic) numerals

[@PerfectionReincarnated]

I actually like this system, Thanks mate!

[@RudyHH2]

me too mate

[@PilotMiaoumi]

This is so weird and i love it

[@penguincute3564]

Very good idea I really approve and appreciate it!

[@YouYou-ir4zu]

amazing video, subscribed

[@Stistreal]

This video is very well made

[@MrMirville]

This system you are hinting at was actually in use : what motivated the use of roman numerals was the use of the abacus. Slices of three digits were covered with vertical numerals.

[@katie-ampersand]

"yea i'm going there" i love that you know that you are insane and need help. this is my favorite video

[@amojc3573]

If I remember correctly, there was a QI episode which showed that several units of (I)(I)(I)(I)(I)... chained together and written on a gravestone represented several million victims of a war.

[@SingGuang742]

Interesting idea, I also have the same thought as you while I’m looking for number that exceed 4e+06 (4 million) in Roman numerals. Since we are writing bunch of bars, I’ll shorten down the bars count into exponential places, such as: V^2 = V with 2 bars = 5 million X^3 = X with 3 bars = 10 billion And so on

[@diaryofanasdkid9752]

Theoretically you could just add more lines forever

[@amitakler4710]

Im so glad i was on youtube in 2:48 am. on the 25.05.2023 ,Thursday Amidiatly subbed

[@thescratchguy428]

A googol is equal to: Scientific: 1.00e100 Engineering: 10.00e99 Letters: 10.00ag Standard: 10.00 DTg Emoji: 10.00😠🌈 Mixed scientific: 1.00e100 Mixed engineering: 10.00e99 Logarithm: e100.00 Mixed Logarithm (Sci): e100.00 Brackets: e]]{.]) Infinity: 0.3244∞ Roman: ⅠⅩ∷↑ⅩⅤ· Dots: ⠨⣿⠚⠹⣲⡎ Zalgo: 1̶̍.̚̚5̶͓ Hex: FD11C3A9 Imperial: 19 small minims Clock: 🕕🕖🕓 Prime: (2⁴×5⁴)^(5²) Bar:  Shi: 侍施逝 Blobs:  Blind: ALL: 1̶̍.̚̚5̶͓ Community notations: Greek Letters: 10.00 Ι Omega: ω[25](β₂₆₅) Omega (Short): ω[25](β₂₆₅) Precise Prime: (2×31×3114028594973)⁷ Japanese: 1.00×10の100乗 Tritetrated: 3.8305↑↑3 Flags: 10.00🇧🇸 YesNo: YES Evil: 1.00e100 Emojier: 1.0🎃e💯🎄🎃 Chinese: 一點〇〇〇万极极 Elemental: 3.55 × 48 H Binary: 1.01e101001100 Hexadecimal: 1.25e53 Haha Funny: 242755 Nice: 54.38 Long scale: 10000,00 SxDc Infix engineering: 10₉₉0 Reverse infix engineering: ₁₀99₀ Infix short scale: ₁₀DTg₀ Infix long scale: ₁₀.₀₀₀SxDc₀ English: ten duotrigintillion Fours: 4^(4!÷4+4×4×(4!÷4+4)) Blobs (Text): :bigblobsleep-154: Blobs (Short Text): :blobsleep-1685:

[@Wasabialt]

Underrated channel

[@SHIN2024_official]

8:57 "YoU lOoNeY! tHaT iS wHaT a FrAcTiOn LoOkS lIkE!"

[@Thegoodgamerpro72jdq]

bruh this is the best crossover in history

[@EPMTUNES]

What a beautiful video!

[@EquaTechnologies]

This is absurd and I love it

[@Warsaquoack]

You are going to become big one day, I just know it

[@nathanstoysandmore]

i like your white lines on grey background style! it reminds me of Vib-Ribbon

[@realCann]

im loving this

[@ElFrighet]

At the point 6:22, the 2 lines or the *1000000, can be also represented as the letter but it has a line on top and 2 vertical lines at sides, like a draw of a house without the roof. Anyways really interesting

[@YeahEsCereal]

I like how we can understand even tho even tho it’s some lines

[@xE3x]

Exponential Towers... hmm. You could very much well expand this further making something similar to Knuth's up-arrow notation.

[@WilliamWizer]

OBJECTION!!! that tower at the end has the same problem as having multiple lines. it requires you to write vertically. best way could be to use conway chained arrow notation. or some sort of variation. that allows you to reach numbers so big you can't call them big.

[@user-he2bo4zg9c]

Or use [_] for vinculum and [_]_ for Roman Expansion.

[@WilliametcCook]

HERNN is an awesome acronym, I'm considering using it for that alone

[@animaniacsfan2]

Near the end, you rediscovered "hereditary base notation" for base 1000. Hereditary base-n notation is where you write a number m = a_k*n^k + a_{k-1}*n^(k-1) + ... + a_0*n^0 (just like you normally would in base-n), remove the 0 coefficients, and repeat the same process on the exponents, recursively, until all exponents become 0. In your case, the Roman numeral under each bar is a value of a_k, and the exponent k is above the bar. In fact, hereditary base-n notation is related to Goodstein sequences, which are mathematical sequences whose length grows *way* faster than exponential, even faster than tetrational or other hyper-operators. In fact, Goodstein sequences grow so fast that the "standard" axioms of arithmetic can't prove that the process to generate them always works; you need stronger axioms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodstein%27s_theorem#Hereditary_base-n_notation

[@syndere6755]

Might I suggest changing things slightly, by making the upper numerals be on a separate plain attached with an underline to an overline. That way, and stacking of numerals can be moved to horizontal space or vertical space

[@_Guigui]

we have successfully avoided the year 4K bug, as well as the 4M, 4B, and so on

[@pr0hobo]

this is very similar to certain versions of myriad notation in Greek numerals.

[@tmarshman1200]

Great video!

[@Lena_M]

I LOVE NUMBERS!!! (cute art too :3)

[@tylerlarsen1842]

Roman numeral power towers, awesome!

[@antoncabotta5364]

You could represent the amount of numbers in the tower with another roman numeral like you did with the lines, that would give you an equivalent of exponentiation for roman numerals. Then comes tetration, which is the same thing for towers of powers.

[@MoustiluigiRandom]

Excellent.

[@matthudelson3409]

How about adding a line below (let's agree to not add lines above and below simultaneously, shall we?) to represent division by 1000? Another oddball effect is with the small numbers above the line, you have an instant rudimentary path to log base 10, except for the large roman numeral beneath the lines.

[@ND62511]

On the topic of numbers in different languages: I’m currently studying Japanese, and while more common to just use the Arabic numeral symbols, there is a set of symbols corresponding to numbers in Japanese. 一 = 1 ニ = 2 三 = 3 四 = 4 五 = 5 六 = 6 七 = 7 八 = 8 九 = 9 十 = 10 百 = 100 千 = 1,000 一万 = 10,000 Now, 一万 is interesting because it has the 一 (1) symbol in it; that’s because the 万 symbol is odd as it doesn’t _really_ represent 10,000, but rather more of a vague idea of multiplying something by 10,000. In order to get numbers outside these, you just arrange the symbols of the digits next to the appropriate power of 10. So… 五千百二 = 5,102 四百七十一 = 471 九千一 = 9,001 Very interesting to see how other cultures’ number systems work. Some are quite similar to what’s most common while others are quite disconnected.

[@EHMM]

That's chinese..

[@aofrog]

@@EHMM Not exactly, it can be either one.

[@haru-bun]

@@EHMM you see, in chinese, 九千一 means 9,100

[@atanvardecunambiel8917]

@@EHMM Kanji are just hanzi the Japanese yoinked. There are hanzi/kanji beyond wàn/man, each one a myriad times the previous one.

[@alexwang982]

@@atanvardecunambiel8917 亿 and 兆

[@ZoroniteTech]

I coincidentally invented the same system not too long ago. I did however extend it further Having 2 lines with a numeral above it signifies that there is a "numeral-line-numeral" stack that many numerals high. this can be done with 3 lines where it is a stack of "numeral - 2 lines - numeral" and so on and then you get to having too many lines again

[@memerboi69.0]

just make the number of lines another numeral

[@B00bik]

That feels like base 1000positional system with extra steps

[@chanyy6838]

11:11 one hundred and sixty four 31414-illion

[@lythd]

i like how it ends up mapping into decimal because its based on thousands, neat

[@Cessated]

if extended further could make a decent googological notation

[@RudyHH2]

n - - n will be n - n ... - n with n ns

[@Cessated]

@@RudyHH2 I was more thinking n|n instead of the notation you use, but still good, and same definition

[@RudyHH2]

@@Cessated k i wil use n|n

[@Memeened]

I did EHERNN

[@BryndanMeyerholtTheRealDeal]

There was proto writing, like the hieroglyphs and other ancient scripts, long ago.

[@Memeened]

I extended it to my version expanded hyper extended Roman numeral notation, (E.H.E.R.N.N). Note: not to be confused with extended Roman numeral notation. Basically instead of writing a large stack of Roman expansion, you can put 2 lines on top of each other and put the Roman numeral on top, that Roman numeral shows how many layers there are. If you want it more precise then put a comma in front of that and write the Roman numeral on the layers. Then the Roman numeral on the bottom can be put in parentheses to indicate that it is a regular Roman numeral that is not in extended Roman numeral notation. For example, X|X|X|X|C can be written as IV,X||C). And don’t ask me why it is horizontal

[@le9038]

How to create the worlds biggest roman number in HERNN In Psudocode: While(true): print(X) print(--) run until it's big enough

[@2Lettername]

Amazing

[@MrLajko]

he inveted roman numeral powers

[@frostplays155]

as with all math beyond what they teach you in algebra 2, i can feel the insanity begin to come forth as the explanation continues

[@andreibaciu7518]

since a bar on top means x1000 and a bar is just a sideways I; you can put a sideways V to signify x5000 (or any numeral to signify it times 1000 times the entire number) and since that bar on top is a numeral in of itself you can add a bar to itself, or more precisely to its right (or left depending on which way the V points towards) and have _it_ be multiplied by a factor of a thousand and since that is a numeral in of itself you can repeat this cycle again, and have an ever growing spiral of multiplication

[@Unpug]

Amazing video

[@_kubi]

heyyyy this is pretty goood

[@michaeloginsky1930]

expanding more roman numerals please

[@pallavij520]

The Roman numerals are I V X L C D M

[@z-ro1641]

I think we can use - like we you , for numbers for example 10,001 can be X-I but we might need a letter for 0 but it can be either O, N, Z or just a space

[@TheDankBoi69]

If there is a number "n" above the number "a", then the formula is a•10³ⁿ. Easy.

[@j.n.-fr5uh]

i appreciate the effort you went through to visualize this nonsense

[@pallavij520]

8:58 U Suni!Thats what a fraction looks like

[@aepos_]

interesting to say the least, very interesting, very very

[@zahrz44]

8:57 You looney! That’s what a fraction looks like! *makes the numeral on top on the line smaller*

[@gamergoogol2048]

i'm watching this in MMXXIV and i extended this

[@qtc178]

I thought of my own similar expansion for Roman numerals when typing them. What I do is put any Roman numeral from 1 to 3,999 between parentheses. For example, (CXXV)=125,000. For larger numbers, I would simply put a Roman numeral in between two opening parentheses and again in between two closing parentheses. For example, (IX(M)IX)=one nonillion.

[@readheadgirl]

Fun Fact: There's An Extension Of Vinculum That Uses Two Vertical Lines And An Overline (Or Just A Box), Which Multiplies A Number By One Hundred Thousand. There's Also A Way To Write Fractions In Roman Numerals. A Dot Is 1/12, Two Dots Are 2/12, Three Dots Are 3/12, Etc. S Was Used To Symbolize 6/12, Or 1/2. Then It Continues. S And One Dot Is 7/12, S And Two Dots Are. 8/12, And Finally 12/12, Or 1/1 Is I, Because 12/12 Is Equal To 1. So You Could Theoretically Add S⁙ To The End If The Whole Equation To Make It Even Bigger!

[@adsbegon8405]

You just unlocked... The Scientific Notation!!!

[@adsbegon8405]

Also, instead of using the horizontal fraction you could use the diagonal fraction ( / ) to signify if its a fraction. And you could use a half line or a line with another small perpendicular line in it to signify the power of a different number such as 4 or 3.

[@someonestolemyname]

It looks like Newton's notation for calculus, quite often used in Physics to denote time derivatives but not often larger than 2.

[@Caysen52TheSecond]

In Roblox slap battles : combat there’s Roman numerals for certain gloves such as reaper (combat) and reaper: pure darkness such as rpd going to 665 (DCLXV) and then 666 is just run in a bunch of different fonts and then reaper (combat) upto 16,666 but 6666 says “how did i reach this far?” Allowing you to walk on water.

[@shaevor5680]

I was expecting that after stacking a bunch of horizontal lines, you would interpret the lines as the letter I rotated by 90 degrees, so I was thinking you'd be ending up having one roman numeral rotated by 90 degrees on top of another, and then if you repeat this process, you end up with some kind of spiral xD

[@Dolph1nVR]

11:15 3.1415 are the digits of piπ 31415927 (the 5 would be 6 though because of averaging)

[@senorqupal4701]

If the classical Romans stuck around for 2000 years more they might have discovered tetration, which exactly what the video is all about.

[@littlefloss._.]

Nice!

[@BryndanMeyerholtTheRealDeal]

IV was historically written as IIII

[@901craft5]

great video

[@pallavib1515]

9:00 THAT IS A FRACTION!

[@cythism8106]

Tetration in Roman numerals. How practical.

[@CreatorofSecks]

Honestly, might be useful for having large numbers that are precise, without taking up too much space

[@astralnekomimi]

Just saying, numerals beyond M probably had existed, since units over 1,000 were used somewhat regularly in Roman society, for example military divisions. It's just likely that the common man wouldn't need such high numerals regularly, given that modern uses of big numbers either didn't exist back then, or existed but only a small fraction of Romans would need them, so they were never standardized, hence why there aren't any in the "modern" Roman system, since they're based on whatever got standardized. Also, IX is more common than IV (IV often got represented as IIII), so if we take that into consideration even vanilla Roman numerals can reach a little higher (MMMMCMXCIX, 4,999) without breaking the system. But, with this hyperextended variant, M is only ever needed to be subtracted from or to end a number anyway, so not a huge deal.

[@S1WinnerYel]

6:15 I already knew what was gonna happen

[@randomperson5579]

if we're using the same ? over base over and over we could represent it as ? line, line base number. but after this rule runs into the same problem as before. I say we just introduce conway chains if you wanna go even higher.

[@makedondimitrovski2136]

Idea:if you put two lines instead of one the numeral on the top should be the number of times the stacked numeral has repeated

[@explosify5035]

but what about tetration or pentation? what if for some reason I wanted to write 10↑10? or 10↑↑10? what about grahms number or tree 3

[@55Xakk]

This is brilliant and all, But how to you wright Infinity or 0?

[@SovietUnionCCCP]

8:58 “THAT'S WHAT A FRACTION LOOKS LIKE”

[@Ulissescars]

Is your intro's song Dom and Roland - Soundwall VIP?