Tim Coleman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 1999 at 08:14:40PM +0000, W.H.Scholten wrote:
> > Joseph Carter wrote:
> > >
> > > *WHACK* 21st century starts in 2001.
> > >
> >
> > No it doesn't and here's why:
> >
> > Whether or not the start of our era was put at the year 1 or 0 doesn't
> > matter as this date (ref. Christ) is off by about 4 years anyway, so we
> > can just put the start of the AD era at 0 (which will not change
> > anything )
>
> So what you're saying is that the start of *your* new millenium is on
> January 1st.
No. If someone says 2+2=5 do you accept that? I don't.
> Personally, my new millenium starts on March 12th, 2007.
Hmm. You miss the point entirely.
> [...]
> > Note also that the AD timekeeping was installed after the fact so noone
> > 'experienced' the years upto the new date system as 'AD' years. This
> > makes it especially irrelevant to insist that 1 was the first year and
> > that a century ends at the end of year x00 (as 'counting from 1' for
> > time is bad, as I said above, bad, but worse, nobody actually did
> > that!).
>
> It most certainly does not. If the AD years had started at zero, this
> would be the year 1998, and it would still be another year until the
> year 2000.
No. Think about this before you make such statements please. This would
NOT be the year 1998 as I don't shift the years, just put the start at 0
(if you still don't get it, reread my first post again, carefully)
> Anyhow, this is a silly discussion.
Hmm. What's silly is people not questioning stupid/bad conventions. In
any event, what I made clear is that it's possible (and preferable)
without any consequences (no year shift!) to put the start of AD at 0
and thus end a millenium at the end of x999.
> Tim
clubneon:
> Just like 1 indexed arrays. ;P
You probably have rulers start at 1 then ;-) I prefer my rulers to start
at 0 though :)
Wouter
