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.
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.
Does 9 really work? Wouldn’t it be:
IIIIIIIII -> VIIII -> VIVI 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.
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.
The original doesn’t have an extra check for 9 and it works for Roman->Indioarabic because it’s:
IX ->IVV ->IIIIV ->IIIIIIIIIBut the other way around, you need an extra step for 9. That’s where our misunderstanding comes from.
Ohhh haha that makes sense. Fun!
I noticed my “and so on” is literally a noop here so yeah.