Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

I can’t see any logic in the manufacturing theory. V is already on the clock many times so they’re making them, and IIII is more material and parts.

View on HN

the point is that you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times and get what you need for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII

this is not for modern manufacturing of millions, it's for one at a time clockmaking in a little shop, for which it's a pretty efficient way to accomplish the task and doesn't require keeping an inventory

Wouldn't that also work with IXIVIII on the die? How do you print IX with yours?

An improvement would be IXIVIII actually, then all combinations can be located in that string.

> How do you print IX with yours?

You rotate XI 180 degrees.

In most serif typefaces, one of the glyphs is significantly thicker than the other, and they don't meet exactly at 50% height. If one rotates the letter X 180 degrees, it would look out of place.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Capitali...

there is no XI in XVIIIII though

ah nvadr spells it out:

VIIIIX

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39722131

No, because you need a 5th V for IV. Adding a V is more overhead than adding a I, and will give you 3 V's you have no use for.

Oh that’s clever!

> you can have a single die that cuts XVIIIII, and use it iv times

To be a bit more explicit, you use the the die four (4) times, and get 4 Xs, 4 Vs, and 4*IIIII = 20 Is, which is exactly right for I II III IIII V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII. Using IV would mean a 5 Vs, but only 4 Xs, and 17 Is, so you couldn't cut a full set with a single die without using a much larger die (= more work making and using the die) or having extra pieces (= wasted material) left over.

I guess it depends on how hard it is to make a V vs. an I. For all we know, V's are more expensive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com