I very often hear how "stupid" the Roman number system (I, II, III, IIII/IV, V, VI, etc...) was, and I'm often prepared to agree, except for low numbers, where it can look very beautiful for titles and stuff.
However, I'm wondering if the reason I find it "stupid" is just that I grew up with the "Arabic" (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) system, and thus I'm just not used to the Roman one, or if the Roman one truly is inferior.
It seems strange to me that the clever and wise Romans, who build all those amazing buildings and temples and things, would have come up with such a silly and impractical number system. It doesn't add up to me, somehow.
Could it be that it did work for the kind of math they needed for their, by today's standards, primitive contraptions, but it would have "fallen apart" as soon as they had reached a certain point where more and more intricate machines are built and bigger and more numbers need to be crunched constantly?
But if such had happened, I'm sure they would have either changed the number system or realized that it can be used perfectly fine with very large numbers, and in fact is much easier to work with thanks to this or that smart method.
I never see Roman numbers in any kind of complex math context. It's 100% Arabic numbers, including for the internals of database software and stuff like that.