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
I think this would be a great thing to not do.

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

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

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

user:
pass:
register,


             

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an 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 17 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 17 2002
   

       Were Togas "One Size Fits All"?
—thumbwax, Mar 17 2002
   

       cmall
—mihali, 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