31 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasAll number lines include the number 0 - so there was indeed a "year zero". So all centuries end with the year x99, and all decades end in year x9.
Or so say people. In fact the first day of the next decennium starts at January 1st 2011.
Never mind, I'm going to a new dec party anyway. The next year I'm the one throwing a new dec party! This time the right time!
31 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesBut there were no year zero. The day followed the December 31st the year 1 B.C. was the January 1st the year 1 A.D. So the first decennium A.D. was from the year 1 to the year 10, meaning ten years. The second started the jan 1st the year 11 A.D.
All number lines include the number 0 - so there was indeed a "year zero". So all centuries end with the year x99, and all decades end in year x9.
Meaning that those having a New Decennium Party are one year ahead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_years#First_century
or perhaps better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero
31 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasIn mathematics, there is always a zero between -1 and 1 -- otherwise, you'd have absurdities like 1 minus 1 equals -1.
But there were no year zero. The day followed the December 31st the year 1 B.C. was the January 1st the year 1 A.D. So the first decennium A.D. was from the year 1 to the year 10, meaning ten years. The second started the jan 1st the year 11 A.D.
Meaning that those having a New Decennium Party are one year ahead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_years#First_century
or perhaps better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero
So just because the people who made up the calendars decided not to recognize a year zero, that year still existed. The calendars for the BC years are thus all off by one year and this error should be corrected.
In theory, the idea was to start numbering the years from when Jesus was born. When a person is born, we don't declare that they are already 1 year old. We usually say they're so many weeks or months old, but in reality, they're 0 yrs old. So year 0 was the year in which Jesus was 0 years old.
31 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesNot sure I agree with you on this one, Mel.
In mathematics, there is always a zero between -1 and 1 -- otherwise, you'd have absurdities like 1 minus 1 equals -1.
So just because the people who made up the calendars decided not to recognize a year zero, that year still existed. The calendars for the BC years are thus all off by one year and this error should be corrected.
In theory, the idea d, but in reality, they're 0 yrs old. So year 0 was the year in which Jesus was 0 years old.
When you're one year old, that means you've been alive for one year. But, when you're 0 years old, you're in your "Year 1" or first year.
If Jesus really was born on Christmas Day something like 2010 years ago, then the same day on the following week would be January 1, 0001, not Jan. 1, 0000. It was Year 1 in that it was the first year. I don't think there can be a year zero. The sandwich I'm eating for lunch right now is my first sandwich of the meal. It is not the 0th sandwich of the meal, even though I have not consumed one whole sandwich yet. Put another way, it is sandwich one, not sandwich zero.
Another example: Tomorrow will be Day one of my new diet when I'm going to start losing those pesky 15 lbs for the 7000th time. It will not be Day zero, even though I will not have completed a successful day yet.
31 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76It's still unintuitive as there were some days after Christ's birth before January. So you would still be in BC after Christ's birth! 😵
Not sure I agree with you on this one, Mel.
When you're one year old, that means you've been alive for one year. But, when you're 0 years old, you're in your "Year 1" or first year.
If Jesus really was born on Christmas Day something like 2010 years ago, then the same day on the following week would be January 1, 0001, not Jan. 1, 0000. It was Year 1 in t ...[text shortened]... ot the 0th sandwich of the meal, even though I have not consumed one whole sandwich yet.
In the end, any calendar is a convention anyway...
31 Dec 09
Originally posted by PalynkaRumor has it that Jan 1 was his circumcision ("bris," if you will) and that's why they started counting from that date. It was his 8th day.
It's still unintuitive as there were some days after Christ's birth before January. So you would still be in BC after Christ's birth! 😵
Who really knows? It's as good a theory as any, I guess.
31 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76But a person's age isn't the year that they're in - it's the year that they've completed. Why should it be any different for Jesus? On the day that Jesus was born, the calendar was at zero. That first day was zero plus one day. At the end of that year, it was zero plus one year.
Not sure I agree with you on this one, Mel.
When you're one year old, that means you've been alive for one year. But, when you're 0 years old, you're in your "Year 1" or first year.
If Jesus really was born on Christmas Day something like 2010 years ago, then the same day on the following week would be January 1, 0001, not Jan. 1, 0000. It was Year 1 in t ...[text shortened]... e. It will not be Day zero, even though I will not have completed a successful day yet.
Now if you decide that Jesus' age should be determined by the year that he was IN rather than the year that was completed, I guess that could be justified being that lots of people believe Jesus was God. One rule for mere mortals, another rule for those who are considered to be divine beings.
Nevertheless, you would still have the year before Jesus was born. If that first year was year 1 - then the number before 1 is 0 - it's not -1.
Likewise, if you have one sandwich on your plate, and you eat that sandwich, you now have 0 sandwiches on your plate, not -1 sandwiches. You don't suddenly owe someone else a sandwich just because you ate your own.
31 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe calender that we use now, the Gregorian calendar, was adopted in 1582. So in fact there was never a year zero, or a year one, or even a year 1000, at least not in the calendar that we are currently using. You can artibrarily assign decades and centuries to begin and stop wherever you like.
But there were no year zero. The day followed the December 31st the year 1 B.C. was the January 1st the year 1 A.D. So the first decennium A.D. was from the year 1 to the year 10, meaning ten years. The second started the jan 1st the year 11 A.D.
Meaning that those having a New Decennium Party are one year ahead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_years#First_century
or perhaps better
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero
31 Dec 09
I think Fabian Fnas' earlier post was spot on: the day before Jesus birth was the last day of the BC era and the day of Jesus' birth was the first day of the AD era. There is no necessary year zero; the moment of Jesus' birth is the point zero, if there is one. I may be missing something, of course.
31 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt's a matter of phraseology. I say that I'm 33 years old because I've completed 33 years. I'm in Year 34 right now. The calendar is based on what year we're in right now, not based on how many years have already been completed.
But a person's age isn't the year that they're in - it's the year that they've completed. Why should it be any different for Jesus? On the day that Jesus was born, the calendar was at zero. That first day was zero plus one day. At the end of that year, it was zero plus one year.
Now if you decide that Jesus' age should be determined by the year that he ...[text shortened]... andwiches. You don't suddenly owe someone else a sandwich just because you ate your own.
31 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by DrKFIf we accept that the calendar reflects the year Jesus was IN. There is still a year zero.
I think Fabian Fnas' earlier post was spot on: the day before Jesus birth was the last day of the BC era and the day of Jesus' birth was the first day of the AD era. There is no necessary year zero; the moment of Jesus' birth is the point zero, if there is one. I may be missing something, of course.
During year "one", we could think of it as the year during which we were counting down the days from 365 until we could declare that it's "one full year since Jesus was born!!" - which would be the completion of "year 1".
If we go back one year in time, we would be in the year during which we were counting down the days from 365 until we could declare that "Jesus is born!!" (the "zero point" ) - which would be the completion of "year zero".
If we go back two years from Jesus's birth, we would be in the year during which we were counting down the days from 365 until we could declare that it's "one year left until Jesus is born!!" - which would be the completion of "year -1"
31 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesDuring year "one", we could think of it as the year during which we were counting down the days from 365 until we could declare that it's "one full year since Jesus was born!!" - which would be the completion of "year 1".
If we accept that the calendar reflects the year Jesus was IN. There is still a year zero.
During year "one", we could think of it as the year during which we were counting down the days from 365 until we could declare that it's "one full year since Jesus was born!!" - which would be the completion of "year 1".
If we go back one year in time, we wou ...[text shortened]... year left until Jesus is born!!" - which would be the completion of "year -1"
- agreed
but then:
If we go back one year in time, we would be in the year during which we were counting down the days from 365 until we could declare that "Jesus is born!!" (the "zero point" ) - which would be the completion of "year minus one", because at the end of that year it would be 365 days until Jesus is born(as compared to 365 days after Jesus was born being year "plus one".)