Version+1

 For many years has existed a controversy among how to write the number four in the Romans, and this way with (I think you should eliminate this word)  __more__ many numbers, the certain is that nobody has a certainty of the accuracy of which the correct form is: IV or IIII. Will it be that we should believe to the Roman rules or the preference of the Romans in the antiquity? The Roman rules tell us that none letter should be written more of three followed times, when the letter you begins to repeat for fourth time, we should be subtracted it to the following symbol. For example: 1=I, 2=II, 3=III, 4=IV, 5=V. That  Let us specify the case of the number four, would be written IIII, but as the rule says that we should not repeat any symbol more than 3 times, then for that reason we write it in  this way: IV, subtracting 5-1 to obtain 4. While the numeric traditional system of the Romans is derived of the etruscos that were based on the method of the addition to obtain the value of each number. For example: I+I=II, I+II=III, I+III=IIII, V+II=VII, V+IIII=VIIII. Particularly I agree with which in the clocks is used the symbol IIII because the IV is (you should eliminate this word) __are__  more difficult of reading with the inclination of the clock, it is also more comfortable so that the watchmakers can elaborate their pieces with more easiness, they would be 20 symbols for I, 4 symbols for V and 4 symbols for X, in the other way would be inexact pieces. Hi Aracelis... Nice try... There are some mistakes, but I did not correct them so that your classmates do it.
 * __Number four in the clock __**

Arjhoan Jimenez