On 8/29/07, WeBMartians <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a disagreement between astronomers and historians about how to count > the years preceding year one; astronomers count the BC > years astronomically. Thus, the year before the year 1 is the year 0, and the > year preceding the latter is the year -1 (2 BC, 1 BC, > and one are, astronomically, -1, 0, and 1, respectively). The year which the > historians call 585 BC is actually the year -584. The > astronomical counting of the negative years is the only one suitable for > arithmetical purpose. For example, in the historical > practice of counting, the rule of divisibility by 4 revealing the Julian > leap-years is no longer valid; these years are, 1 BC, 5 BC, > 9 BC, 13 BC... In the astronomical sequence, however, these leap-years are > called 0, -4, -8, -12..., and the rule of divisibility by > four subsists. In this system we can speak, for instance, of the solar > eclipse of -1203-08-28 (twenty-eighth day of August in the > year 1204 BC), although at that remote time the Roman Empire was not yet > founded and the month of August was still to be conceived!
I must have missed something. But the calendar changed somewhere around 1500, which means the leap year calculations can't simply be done in any way like this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar#New_Year.27s_Day (my personal favorite) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_reform#Julian.2FGregorian_reforms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar#From_Julian_to_Gregorian > Also, the (politically?) correct way to specify BC is "Before Common Era", > while AD (Anno Domini) is now CE (Common Era). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era Yes, I would hope not to see AD/BC standardized somewhere.
