> For "0" I would have made an empty box, out of strings if necessary.
That's 4. Because you used four strings. Oh, you do it with one string? It looks like 1. You do it with N strings? That's N. Oh, you're trying to talk about what's inside? Nothing's inside. That's silly. We both know there's nothing in there. Why are you trying to show me nothing?
Are you trying to multiply by the inside? That doesn't make any sense. Why would you multiply by nothing, or add by nothing? What's the point? No, I don't know what it does. Why should I care about your nonsense?
> For the -2 I would have placed two of the strings in a different location.
Now do "square root of negative nine".
> For the Roman numeral conundrum I would have placed IV and then a line and then a V below that.
Oh, so there's 4 on the top and 5 on the bottom? So, 9 total, right? IX?
That's 4. Because you used four strings. Oh, you do it with one string? It looks like 1. You do it with N strings? That's N. Oh, you're trying to talk about what's inside? Nothing's inside. That's silly. We both know there's nothing in there. Why are you trying to show me nothing?
Are you trying to multiply by the inside? That doesn't make any sense. Why would you multiply by nothing, or add by nothing? What's the point? No, I don't know what it does. Why should I care about your nonsense?
> For the -2 I would have placed two of the strings in a different location.
Now do "square root of negative nine".
> For the Roman numeral conundrum I would have placed IV and then a line and then a V below that.
Oh, so there's 4 on the top and 5 on the bottom? So, 9 total, right? IX?