A Question For Old_Geezer

[chakka35]

Old_Geezer, are you going to answer the question I asked in the last post to the question Dates in History below?

[THECORBYLOON]

When the current system for numbering the years was first used, the reckoning began at 1 rather than zero. That means when the year 2000 arrived, a lot of folk said it was the start of a new millennium but it was in fact the beginning of the 2,000th year and the new millennium started on January 1st 2001. Year zero is the missing year.

[chakka35]

You are quite right about why many people celebrated the millennium a year early on January 1 2000, but that was nothing to do with a so-called 'missing year'. There was no AD 0, as a bit of commonsense would have told them. The idea is absurd.

Counting Starts AT zero but not WITH zero: the first number in any sort of a count-up is 1 not zero.

[dotty.]

unless you are inputting your memorable data to access your lloyds tsb online account, they use a-z and 0-9

[jno]

have you begun a whole thread just to tell an ABer that his ideas are absurd?

Perhaps you could just let it lie and start the new year afresh.

[chakka35]

jno, no, I didn't. I wanted to know what Old_Geezer meant. A perfectly worthy and polite attitude to a fellow ABer's mysterious claim. Still waiting.

Sorry you can't contribute more positively.

[jno]

children have a year zero: they're not one till they're one. So do astronomers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering

[chakka35]

jno, a child's first twelve months is his first year, not his 0th year. He goes through his first week, his first month, his first six-months and then completes his first year, at which point his age becomes one - i.e. he has completed his first year. Any 0th year is a phantom.

But look, Old_Geezer might not have been talking about the fictitious year AD 0. For me to assume that may be doing him a great injustice by insulting his intelligence.

So there is no point in continuing this unless and until he replies.

[jno]

you said you were sorry I hadn't contributed positively. So I did so, pointing to astronomers' use of zero.

Now you say the debate is pointless. So I'll stop. I've done my best, though.

[ZedBloke]

we seem to bet getting into a semantics game here. There are no missing days/years etc only the naming of them. So BC 1 goes to AD 1, there is not a year 0 but Ad 1 is in fact AD 0 until the year is complete (same with a childs first year), ie at midnight on day one it is 0 years 0 months and 1 day. Take that reasoning to any level of granularity up or down and the principle remains the same. The millennium was celebrated a year early but not by mistake, those in the "date business", ie astronomers, programmers etc knew perfectly well but chose to indulge the masses because of the arrival of the digit 2 in the thousands column.

[chakka35]

Yes, ZedBloke, I'm sorry that all of this has to be explained yet again. It is also true that the British government knew full well that the new millennium didn't start until Jan 1 2001, but decided on the earlier date because 'that's what the people want'. I know because the Dept of CMS told me so in a letter.

But it was 'what the people want' because so many people made a mistake - either assuming that there was an AD 0 or by reckoning that a century was complete at the end of its 99th year and a double millennium at the end of its 1999th. All very weird.

Anyway, as I say, let Old_Geezer tell us what he was talking about. We may be maligning him by assuming that he's one of the miscalculators.

[Mosaic]

?

[bibblebub]

It's quite obvious to me that most people were celebrating the change from the millennium of years of the numerical form 1xxx to the new millennium of form 2xxx. No need to bring religion into it.

[ZedBloke]

no it wasn't what the people want, it's what's best so that all the people can understand. Most associate the arival of a 2 in the thousands column with the millenium. I think the authorities just thought it would be easier.

[Mosaic]

Nope, still lost.

[chakka35]

An interesting philosophy, ZedBloke. If people can't understand the very simple truth you give them a lie that they're happier with. Wherelse can we use this ecentric idea?

But please, for the umpteenth time let's wait from Old_Geezer who may not have been talking about this long-resolved matter at all.

[chakka35]

For 'from' read 'for'

[Baldric]

chakka, can you supply a link to the post by old geezer which started this debate please?

[chakka35]

Baldric, seven posts below this one Mrs Sippy asks about 'Dates in History' on Fri 28th Dec. Old_Geezer talks about a missing year or words like that.