In our system, based on tens, we add a zero to the end of a number to increase its value by ten. So 1 x ten becomes 10 and 10 times ten becomes 100 etc. We use zeros within numbers to indicate that there are no numbers in that column, so 102 means there is 1 x 100, no x 10s and 2 x units. The Romans had a different system were they used different symbols to denote tens, hundreds and thousands etc. So in Roman numerals 1 x ten is X and X times ten is C. The Romans simply missed out numerals which weren't needed so 102 in Roman numerals was CII (100 + 2). As they didn't add a zero to the end of numbers or use one within numbers they had no need to invent a symbol to represent zero. During the Middle Ages monks, who still wrote in Latin and still used Roman numerals, introduced the numeral N to represent zero (based on the Latin word Nulae, meaning nothing)
Chat with our AI personalities
Zero does not exist in roman numerals
Zero cannot be represented in Roman Numerals.
Roman numerals do not include a symbol for zero, so zero cannot be rendered in Roman numberals.
The Romans did not have the concept of zero-- there is no Roman numeral for zero. This lack made it virtually impossible to do arithmetic with Roman numerals and that is why we use Arabic numerals nowadays.
Because zero is not needed in Roman numerals as the positional place value of these numerals are self evident.