I like your questions about this and they all seem fair but I kinda wanna encourage you to go ahead and write it yourself; it’s a fun way to convert into Roman numerals that both is and isn’t intuitive at the same time.

[–] rooroo@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

No, cause you do the replacement from large to small, I.e. you’d first check for 10 I to replace with X (none found); then replace 9 with IX (check), then check for 5, 4 and so on.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The original doesn't have an extra check for 9 and it works for Roman->Indioarabic because it's:

IX
->IVV
->IIIIV
->IIIIIIIII

But the other way around, you need an extra step for 9. That's where our misunderstanding comes from.

[–] rooroo@feddit.org 2 points 2 days ago

Ohhh haha that makes sense. Fun!

[–] rooroo@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

I noticed my “and so on” is literally a noop here so yeah.