Roman numeral number 4

[Vimto]

On a clock face that has Roman numerals, eg.No 6 is represnted as V1, No 5 as V and so on. Why is the representation for No 4 always expressd as 1111.? Look on mantle clocks ;grandfather clocks ; church clocks and even watches it's always the same. There must be a reason when 1V would be perfectly reasonable.

[Quizmonster]

To balance the four-element version of the number 8 (VIII) in a similar position on the other side of the dial. A two-element IV would be too narrow, as it were.

[Quizmonster]

Having said the above, I believe the clock face - commonly if erroneously referred to as Big Ben and probably the most famous such face in the world - on the tower of Westminster Palace actually has the four as IV.

[Vimto]

Yes quizmonster, I see what you mean, but 1V would only be two less than V111. V11 is two symbols more than V and yet this seems to be OK. You may well be right but I'm not completely convinced. Anybody else ?

[Quizmonster]

Perhaps the point about 5 and 7, Vimto, is that there is no alternative to V for 5. There are some who believe that IIII was the original form for 4 in Roman days, so at least clock-face designers had a choice as to which to use.

[Vimto]

I have just seen your post about Big Ben.Does it really? I do believe you this time. I must look at the news tonight. By the way quizmonster, how did you know? did you just know?

[Vimto]

Now I know this is silly but I'm having fun. How about for five----- 1V1 .

[mibn2cweus]

Both IIII or IV correctly denote four so it's simply a matter of preference. Some find �IIII� gives greater symmetry to the clock face (not me). Some find "IIII" makes arithmetic easier.

King Louis XIV of France despised the Roman God Jupiter represented by "IV" and that is why he insisted on clock makers using "IIII" (I made that up).

Google "why iiii not iv".

[mibn2cweus]

BIG BEN

[kempie]

The markings on the clockface of "Big Ben" (sic) are barely discernible anyway.

http://underscorebleach.net/albums/london/big_ben.jpg

Luckily we can tell the time by the orientation of the hands rather than specific marks upon the clockface.

[Quizmonster]

They're discernible enough to see they are not IIII, but IV for 4, Kempie. See Mibn's link above.

[kempie]

My point being that a person with normal eyesight viewing the clock from ground level and with no knowledge of Roman Numerals is unlikely to be able to reproduce the markings on a piece of paper.

The Xs do not look like Xs and the Vs look like IIs.

[mibn2cweus]

Maybe 1 broke off. *^* (Made you look!)

[Quizmonster]

The markings are stylised, of course, but all the 'ones' are rods with an arrow-head at each end, whilst the 'vees' have an arrow-head at the top end of each leg and a more rounded effect at the bottom. This is seen most clearly at the six, which is upside-down, of course, as the numbers progress - oddly enough! - in a clockwise direction. Even with poor eyesight, I'd imagine one could see the 4 was not IIII from the ground. But what the hey! The 'Big Ben' clock has IV, not IIII, for 4.

[kempie]

My observations in this thread were not to dispute the IV versus IIII status of the "Big Ben" clockface but to merely highlight how indistinct the individual characters are, a distinction that I maintain cannot be made from ground level by the casual observer.

[Skids]

vimto, its an i not a 1. i, ii, iii, iv not 1, 11, 111, 1v.

[Vimto]

Thanks skids for pointing out the error of my ways regarding the exact form of the numerals. My examples were merely representative and everyone, I think, knew what I meant judging by the length of this string or is it strand? or maybe thread? I've no doubt you will let me know. In the meantime I will follow your advice and make sure all the symbols have dots over the one's!