Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'

h a l f b a k e r y
You could have thought of that.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: Browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

User:
Pass:
Login
Create account.


                 

Bigger than S
Replace the S used to designate "small" clothing sizes with an appropriate Roman numeral to make it fit the M, L, XL series better.
 
(+4, -4)
  [vote for,
against]


XL (extralarge) = 40
& L (large) = 50
& M (medium) = 1000
Why use S to mean 'small'?

Sorry, it's lame.


reensure, Mar 16 2002

Roman Numeral Converter http://www.novaroma...romana/numbers.html
Handy, dandy, and all that. [jester, Mar 19 2002]

[link]






       Interesting...according to this system, the clothing size is inversely proportional to the number. My Roman numeral familiarity is a bit rusty, I'm not sure there is a number bigger than M (excepting MM, etc.) Also brings up issues for former XS, as well as XM.

nick_n_uit, Mar 16 2002
  

       Were Togas "One Size Fits All"?

thumbwax, Mar 16 2002
  

       cmall

mihali, Mar 17 2002
  

       The full set of numerals was I,V,X,L,C,D,M.   

       Putting a line above V was the Roman standard for 5,000, a line above X for ten thousand, and so on.

UnaBubba, Mar 17 2002
  

       Following this admittedly short numeric trend, the value of the "S" could be 38750.   

       Reasoning: 50 is 125% of the preceding number (40), and 1000 is 2000% of the preceding number (50), an increase of 1875% between the two deltas. Thererefore, assuming the rate of increase of the delta values is constant, the next increase would be by 3875% of 1000, or 38750.   

       Therefore, "small" clothing should be labeled "MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMDCCL" instead.

jester, Mar 19 2002
  

       I'm not quite sure what to think of your reasoning [brettjs], and I think your 38,750 is a bit high. Just plot what is given and derive a polynomial, assuming the change from size to size is one step. Setting xl=1, l=2, m=3, so s=4, plug 4 back into the poly equation you derived and your result should be around 2,890 (MMDCCCXC I think). Based on the poly eq of 470x^2 -1400x + 970. Better results from higher order polys, but I'll leave that to you.   

       If I don't stop now I'll reveal the link between Roman numerals, Fibonacci numbers, fractals, Phi, the Egyption pyramids and world peace...

dag, Mar 19 2002
  
      
[annotate]
  


 
back: main index
 business 
 computer 
 culture 
 fashion 
 food 
 halfbakery 
 home 
 other 
 product 
 public 
 science 
 sport 
 vehicle