I do not "bother other people with peculiarities which hinders them to start at
0", but (as everybody else) I do distinguish between cardinal numbers
(including 0) and ordinal numbers (starting at "first"). An age is a cardinal
number, and a year number is an ordinal number. You are perfectly free to
disbelieve me when I tell you that learning ordinal fractions is worth your
while. I am no missionary. That ordinal fraction theory "is grossly neglected
since 1986" is no admission nor apology, but merely information.
Den 16:44 fredag den 1. juni 2018 skrev R.E. Boss <[email protected]>:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chat <[email protected]> On Behalf Of PR PackRat
> Sent: vrijdag 1 juni 2018 02:00
(...)
> If it's really true that the current decade starts at the beginning of 2010,
> then
> the first decade of the modern era (A.D., C.E.) has only 9 years in its
> "decade"--1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (because there's no year 0).
> Using your logic, the second decade, of course, would then have 10 years--
> 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. And so on. This was the same logic used by
> those who celebrated the new millenium on 1/1/2000 rather than on
> 1/1/2001.
>
> If all decades actually have 10 years (rather than 9 years for the first one),
> then the end of that first decade (which starts with year 1, not a nonexistent
> year 0) is the end of the 10th year. (Obviously, all 10th years terminate
> with a
> zero because all multiples of 10 terminate with a zero.) Hence, the decade
> previous to the current one ended at the conclusion of the year 2010. The
> current decade (based from the beginning of the modern era) is 2011 to
> 2020.
We use the decimal natural/real number system to indicate years, weeks,
daynumbers (in a month), hours, minutes and seconds.
We use dedicated names for months and weekdays, and we start weeks and
daynumbers with 1, and hours, minutes and seconds with 0 (although midnight is
also denoted by 24 0 0.000).
The dedicated names for months and days and the numbering of months, weeks and
days starting at 1, we thank the Romans, who were unaware of the 0.
(As I am told in Japan the use different dedicated names for any object which
occur in different numbers.)
Only for the numbering of the years we have some disagreement since people were
fiddling around with that number a few(?) times, and under Christian influence
we adopted long ago the AC/BC adjustment (actually, for that you should have
the birthday of Christ to be the first day of the first year).
But since long this is only important for historians or other people who want
to express ancients dates.
So don't tell me that "Christ was 2017 years old in 2018" - probably not,
after all adjustments made - or that "the first decade has only 9 years, since
there is no year 0".
IMO there is definitely a year 0, and whether Christ was born in that year, or
not, I don't care?
Don't bother other people with peculiarities which hinders them to start at 0,
what everyone does in handling other scales: weight, time(<1 day), distance,
frequency, etc.
And if Jacoby has developed a system with an unfamiliar role for the 0 and
which is grossly neglected since 1986, as he admits, he should try to find
better arguments to make his system accepted, than the age of Christ.
R.E. Boss
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
