> the Romans greatly preferred the simpler IIII to IV, XXXX to XL, and so on. (The IIII-for-4 notation survives today on the faces of clocks.)looks at watchWell, damn, it's IIII. However my watch does use IX over VIIII, what's up with that?

 There's a theory[0][1] that it's mostly down to aesthetics. It looks visually more pleasing that way when split into three groups of four numbers:`````` I, II, III, IIII (consisting of I only) V, VI, VII, VIII (consisting of I and V) IX, X, XI, XII (consisting of I and X) `````` [0] http://mathtourist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/iiii-versus-iv-on-...
 Personally, I find distinguishing III and IIII quite hard in several fonts. However, the difference between [II and III] and [III and IV] is easier to read.
 There are a few theories detailed here:http://mentalfloss.com/article/24578/why-do-some-clocks-use-...The reason I always heard is about ease of casting: it requires a more complex mold if 4 is written as IV instead of IIII.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Search: