because not all people know what roman numeral is and it's quiet hard to learn it.
No, the Roman Numerals are a based less number system.
Roman numerals are used as numbers. For example, the roman numeral for the number one is an I. The system can be used for any number.
Spend a day using only roman numerals instead of Arabic numerals. The disadvantages will become painfully obvious.
The number 23 in Roman numerals is XXIII. The number 00 has no equivalent in Roman numerals as the had no symbol to represent 0, they didn't need one in their system. The number 2300 in Roman numerals would be MMCCC
LVI is already in Roman numerals, but written in the current number system, it's 56.
No, the Roman Numerals are a based less number system.
Roman Numerals
Roman numerals are used as numbers. For example, the roman numeral for the number one is an I. The system can be used for any number.
Spend a day using only roman numerals instead of Arabic numerals. The disadvantages will become painfully obvious.
Roman numerals is one of them
The number 23 in Roman numerals is XXIII. The number 00 has no equivalent in Roman numerals as the had no symbol to represent 0, they didn't need one in their system. The number 2300 in Roman numerals would be MMCCC
LVI is already in Roman numerals, but written in the current number system, it's 56.
It was the only number system when it was invented
LXVII in the decimal number system is 67.
"Mmmmmmmmmm" is not a valid representation of a number in Roman numerals. The Roman numeral system does not have a direct representation for numbers above 3,999.
They are easier to use then the Roman numerals. And the Roman number system did not contain a zero. This made it difficult for them to develop many mathematical concepts.
The number one is I in roman numerals.