2637: "Roman Numerals"

[ratammer]

Title text: 100he100k out th1s 1nno5at4e str1ng en100o501ng 15e been 500e5e50op1ng! 1t's 6rtua100y perfe100t! ...hang on, what's a "virtuacy"?

The inconsistencies in the title text must be to annoy us all, right?

[Old Bruce]

I don't see any inconsistency in the title text. There is the typo in the word virtually. Instead of using two 50s he used one 100. Math works out but it makes for a problem in the spelling.
Aside from that I do have a bit of a headache coming on.

[ratammer]

It's not a typo when it's called out! But I was thinking of how "IV" is 4 in one place and 15 in another.

[chridd]

Should be 1'5e. I'V isn't a single roman numeral since ' doesn't have a value.

[Old Bruce]

It's not a typo when it's called out! But I was thinking of how "IV" is 4 in one place and 15 in another.

Just think about how there are most likely similar inconsistencies from people who are using contractions and number substitutions of their own devising. These "innovative" encoding systems are all pretty much designed to confuse instead of communicate.

[Old Bruce]

Should be 1'5e. I'V isn't a single roman numeral since ' doesn't have a value.

Would not 1'5 mean one minute five? Or one foot five?

[jimbobmacdoodle]

Would not 1'5 mean one minute five? Or one foot five?

Certainly not one foot five, since that would be 1'5".

[somitomi]

I've seen measurements missing that little mark for inches (because sloppy writing) and I don't even use imperial units in my everyday life.

[Old Bruce]

Would not 1'5 mean one minute five? Or one foot five?

Certainly not one foot five, since that would be 1'5".

I was thinking of the old money thing from England. One and Six pence, the shilling is implied.