Hacker News Reader

Comment by flipp3r | Hacker News Reader

> 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 watch

Well, damn, it's IIII. However my watch does use IX over VIIII, what's up with that?

View on HN

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-...

[1] https://www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/encyclopaedia/glossary-of...

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com