Namalnet wrote:
> It is difficult to say that there is no year 0. If we are to look at the
> Time Line it should appear as
>
> <(2000BC)--------------------(1BC)0(1AD)---------------------(2000AD)>
>
> >From a mathamatical perspective, there should be a 0 between BC (Negative
> numbers) and AD (Positive numbers). If such is the case, then 0 can be taken
> as 0AD or 0BC (Both mening the same). Thus year 2000 is 2000 Years after
> 1/1/0000 and is the new millinium.
>
> I have not come across any historic record to prove the above right or
> wrong. But if anyone has any information, please let me know.
One thing I think we shouldn't lose of sight is the fact that when
we talk about canlendars we are always changing our own perspectives.
In this case it is not the target that moves, it is us.
In the past there wasn't a year 0. Nor there could be because in the
past the zero was not known. Your construct
<BC>---0---<AD> is quite sensible in our times but incomprehensible
in the past when mankind started counting years.
When the calender most westerns use was invented
the basic idea was still just count the years ellapsed since
a certain event (most of the time this event was the birth
of a certain king or queen or, more common yet, the
begining of the reign thereof.)
Although your reasoning is sound and quite acceptable
to most of us, this was not so in the past. You've never
heard of anything the happened in the year zero, have you?
There is 1 AD, 1 BC. Clearly this seems strange to
us but we must remember the Romans did not have
negative numbers nor did they know the existence
of the zero. They could only count starting from one
e going onward. No zero. Since they did not know
negative numbers (or at least could not represent
them with their numbering system), they could
count "positively" backwards, like "1 before something",
"2 before something" but they certainly could not
say "minus one", "minus two"...
When I say the target is fixed but we are moving,
I mean to say that if we change our perspective
everything else changes so what has just been
said about calendar is not good anymore.
When we discuss if 2000 is the end of the millemium
or not, several antecedent conditions are supposed.
Of course, we are talking about the Gregorian Calender,
as per the reformation of 1582. We are accepting
that christ was born in year 1, December 25th.
Now, if we recreate the calender, if we reformulate
it introducing our present knowledge, everything changes.
And so it does if we adopt calender developed in China,
old Russia, Americas, Mesopotamia etc.
Now, just for the sake of it, let's assume what you say is
OK:
> From a mathamatical perspective, there should be a 0 between BC (Negative
> numbers) and AD (Positive numbers). If such is the case, then 0 can be taken
> as 0AD or 0BC (Both mening the same). Thus year 2000 is 2000 Years after
> 1/1/0000 and is the new millenium.
Even in this case 2000 is NOT the new millenium. It is still the last year
of the "old" millenium:
0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10--11...100...1000...1001
| | |
| |
+--------End of millenium
|
+---------------end of century
+------------------------end
of decade
For the same reason that when start measuring a line we put the
0 of the stick where we want to start measuring from. Then
10 is 10 and 100 is 100, and 1000 is 1000, that is, the "last"
of the "tens" the last of the "hundreds" and the last of the "thousands".
Say 1000 mm is the last milimeter of the first meter and 1001 mm is
the first milimeter of the second meter. 2000 still belongs to
the second meter, not to the third.
- fernando
--
Fernando Cabral Padrao iX Sistemas Abertos
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pix.com.br
Fone Direto: +55 61 329-0206 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PABX: +55 61 329-0202 Fax: +55 61 326-3082
15º 45' 04.9" S 47º 49' 58.6" W
19º 37' 57.0" S 45º 17' 13.6" W
