On 23/09/2013 23:34, Alberto Narduzzi wrote: >> I don't believe though Romans knew negative numbers. Well, they could subtract, couldn't they :)
>> But I'm certainly not an expert on the matter. > > never though about, but if the only matter is DEBT, then just write > positive numbers under the DEBT column, and everybody shall be happy > too, provided they know the meaning of such a column ;-) You just described an alternative indication of a negative number... only instead of a minus sign, you use column position as an indicator ;) To calculate net equity, you'd still have to subtract the debts from the possessions, i.e. deal with the debt as negative numbers. > P.S. Have no clue of roman arithmetics, thou', which looks a little > more weird to implement, or just to think about :-O I would be very careful in definining too many restrictions on what you accept as Roman numerals as the number of fixed rules is rather small and there are a lot of exceptions, especially in later years (i.e. Bart's example of bigger numbers). In other words, the system of Roman numerals was not fixed; it changed over time, it was mostly based on conventions that fell short of actual rules. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
