Kevin Conod wrote:
>
> These are all rather elaborate explanations . . . couldn't just be that
> "" was used instead of "IV" simply because it is so easy to confuse "IV"
> with "VI"?
In this case, what about IX and XI?
> After all, in the heyday of the sundial as a timepiece, most of
> the
Mike Cowham wrote:
>
> My father, an old clock man, used to tell me that the was used in
> place of IV because if not, it did not balance with VIII on the opposite
> side of the dial. Try it, and I think that you will agree that it looks
> strange and unbalanced. Just look how symmetrical
Apologies everyone,
As you've probably realised I sent the wrong file as
'Inwards.GIF'. You got the half-finished backup with only the V items
reversed.
Herewith isInwardNU.gifwhich has IX X XI and XII correctly
oriented so that ALL of the numerals read from the
Steve Lelievre wrote:
> This is off-topic, but why are they called Arabic numerals? Presumably
> because the system of positional significance is Arabic in origin?
The system of decimal positional numeration is not Arabic in origin: for
centuries, the Arabo-islamic scientists have always stated
At 14:13 08/05/2001 +0100, Chris Lusby Taylor wrote:
>>
>Other non-UK enthusiasts should mark 2003 in their diaries, when the
>conference will be in Oxford and we will make extra efforts to get
>international attendees and even more top-class academic speakers
