Is it just me? Centuries not matching decades.. And no year 0.

Gotta say I'm a bit shocked that I didn't know this.. The naughties started on 01/01/2000 but this century and millennium started on 01/01/2001. And I always thought the calender went 1BC-0-1AD but that's wrong too. It seems BC and AD refer to an imaginary space in time since they fall onto each other. 1BC-1AD.

Feel like a tit telling an 11 year old student today that he was wrong for saying it.

stoneill

The Mayans had it all worked out.

Captain Farrell

And you're allowed to be a teacher?

wazky

Is today still Wednesday then?

I would have thought that 0AD began on 25/12/0000 and the 1AD would have kicked off on the 1st of January.

AnonoBoy

I thought I'd wandered into the marijuana legalisation thread there for a minute.

kneemos

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gotta say I'm a bit shocked that I didn't know this.. The naughties started on 01/01/2000 but this century and millennium started on 01/01/2001. And I always thought the calender went 1BC-0-1AD but that's wrong too. It seems BC and AD refer to an imaginary space in time since they fall onto each other. 1BC-1AD.

Feel like a tit telling an 11 year old student today that he was wrong for saying it.

If it's measured in years you would need a complete year to start the clock.

sbsquarepants

I think your confusion stems from the fact that there is no year zero, which makes total sense when you think of it.(Also it didn't end well when the Khmer Rouge had one, so probably just as well:D)
When you start to count anything you start at 1, not 0. Therefore the first item in the second group of 1000 items, be they years, bananas or notches on your bed post, starts at 1001, first item in the 3rd group of 1000 starts at 2001 and so on.

Savoir.Faire

It was an utter outrage that the Julian Calendar was dropped in favour of the Gregorian. It really makes life difficult for a dilettante in early and medieval history.

Captain Farrell

Captain Farrell wrote: »

And you're allowed to be a teacher?

Apparently so. I could be forgiven considering the entire world celebrated the new millennium on the 1/1/2000.

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote: »

When you start to count anything you start at 1, not 0.

We count our lives starting with 0.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Deleted User wrote: »

We count our lives starting with 0.

no we don't.. the first year is year 1. the first birthday is the conclusion of the first year

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

no we don't.. the first year is year 1. the first birthday is the conclusion of the first year

So how old are we when we pop out? That the logic I used when I figured there was a year 0. Never been told otherwise.

Jimoslimos

Deleted User wrote: »

We count our lives starting with 0.

Think of it like a football match (or any time-limited sporting event). An incident, such as a goal scored, after 20 seconds is said to have occurred in the 1st minute, not the zeroth.

So if your age is 33, then you are 33 years old but you're in your 34th year.

wazky

Deleted User wrote: »

So how old are we when we pop out?

9 months unless your premature.

seamus

Since time measurement is arbitrary anyway, this is debateable.

The standard for date/time definition in data interchange in computers includes a year zero.

A year zero is in fact more logical since you're talking about counting of years. Counting always starts at zero (because you don't have 1 year until the end of the first year).

The calendar format that we use isn't actually a counter, but a reference. So today is not 30 days since the start of October, it is the 30th day of October. 30 days have not elapsed until midnight tonight.
This is the same basis on which people say that there is no "year zero" in the Gregorian calendar, because this is the 2013th year, not that 2013 years have elapsed.

In any case, this isn't even the 2013th year, as we haven't been using this calendar for 2012 years. Mistakes and errors have been made in translation, and since the actual length of time since the alleged birth of Christ is unknown, this year is effectively arbitrarily numbered 2013 from some unknown date in the past.

So the debate about whether a year 1 exists or not is moot since we arbitrarily decided that one year was 1582 and we've been referencing our dates from that point ever since.

In a logical brain it makes more sense that there would be a year zero. So don't feel bad about simply assuming the most obvious thing is the reality.

Systemic Risk

Easy mistake to make since we all celebrated the new millenium 00:00:01 on 01/01/2000.

If going by the Gregorian system BC AD etc. then we should have celebrated it on the 01/01/2001 being the good Christians that we are.

Its more scientific to go by 01/01/2000 as the start of the new millennium and using a calendar system that goes -infinity,...-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3...infinity.

However based on the system commonly in use in Ireland, particularly in a catholic primary school system (I'm guessing based on the age of the child you teach), the child was 100% correct.

Jimoslimos

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Think of it like a football match (or any time-limited sporting event). An incident, such as a goal scored, after 20 seconds is said to have occurred in the 1st minute, not the zeroth.

So if your age is 33, then you are 33 years old but you're in your 34th year.

Yea, I completely agree.. That's logical. The calender system is different and that's what I didn't know.

The calender system we have means that that goal after 20 seconds would be said to have occurred in the "2nd minute".

5starpool

Deleted User wrote: »

Apparently so. I could be forgiven considering the entire world celebrated the new millennium on the 1/1/2000.

Not the entire world. I think Finland at least celebrated it a year later.

I don't think most people though are or will be hung up by a technicality nearly 14 years ago. I think the impact of the first digit of the year incrementing for the first time in 1000 years was the main reason it was more logical to hold bigger celebrations that year rather than the next. There was a lot of articles and stories back then about that fact that the millennium wasn't technically until the following year though.

marcbrophy

This is as annoying as trying to explain to people that an event like wrestlemania 5 has been 4 years since the original, not 5!

I remember trying to tell people on 1/1/00 that the new millenium was still a year away, but would they listen? Like fook they would :pac:

Systemic Risk

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think your confusion stems from the fact that there is no year zero, which makes total sense when you think of it.(Also it didn't end well when the Khmer Rouge had one, so probably just as well:D)
When you start to count anything you start at 1, not 0. Therefore the first item in the second group of 1000 items, be they years, bananas or notches on your bed post, starts at 1001, first item in the 3rd group of 1000 starts at 2001 and so on.

Time is usually measured from 0. If I calculating future growth using an exponential function then this moment t=0. If I am looking at a time series of observation of a process from the point which the process began then the initial observation is always t=0 not t=1.

Tombo2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Gotta say I'm a bit shocked that I didn't know this.. The naughties started on 01/01/2000 but this century and millennium started on 01/01/2001. And I always thought the calender went 1BC-0-1AD but that's wrong too. It seems BC and AD refer to an imaginary space in time since they fall onto each other. 1BC-1AD.

Feel like a tit telling an 11 year old student today that he was wrong for saying it.

Reminds me of the time that Dan Quayle corrected the 10 year old for spelling Potato wrong.......why its Potatoe, you silly.....

At least you didnt do it on national TV when running a vice presidential campaign.

Absoluvely

Deleted User wrote: »

The calender system we have means that that goal after 20 seconds would be said to have occurred in the "2nd minute".

That would only be the case if the calendar system we have referred to the current year as "the 2013th year" rather than "the year 2013", which it doesn't.

seamus

Absoluvely wrote: »

That would only be the case if the calendar system we have referred to the current year as "the 2013th year" rather than "the year 2013", which it doesn't.

Technically it does, we've just removed the part which causes it to make sense.

The outdated "A.D." suffix for "Anno Domini" meaning, "In the year of our lord", makes it a bit clearer what the reference is.

"In the year of our lord, 2013", is fairly clearly saying, "The 2013th year"

The modern suffix is C.E., meaning "Common Era", which used in conjunction with the year, is clearly saying "2013 [of the] Common Era", again showing that the year is a reference, not a counter.

You're right though in that we now rarely see any suffix on the date any more, which could confuse it.

Add into that the problem that we mix references with counters - We write the date as a reference, but the time as a counter - it's not surprising that people will get confused and assume there was a year zero. There's an hour zero, so why not a year zero?

Our current calendar system is a bit of a mess, requiring tweaks and adjustments all over the place, it would be nice to make something more refined with a proper astronomical basis.

Absoluvely

Deleted User wrote: »

The calender system we have means that that goal after 20 seconds would be said to have occurred in the "2nd minute".

Absoluvely wrote: »

That would only be the case if the calendar system we have referred to the current year as "the 2013th year" rather than "the year 2013", which it doesn't.

seamus wrote: »

Technically it does, we've just removed the part which causes it to make sense.

The outdated "A.D." suffix for "Anno Domini" meaning, "In the year of our lord", makes it a bit clearer what the reference is.

"In the year of our lord, 2013", is fairly clearly saying, "The 2013th year"

Right.

In that case I should have said "That would only be the case if <the calendar system we have> referred to the current year as "the 2014th year" rather than "the 2013th year", which it doesn't".

Right?

[-0-]

Time does not exist.

josip

sbsquarepants wrote: »

When you start to count anything you start at 1, not 0.

Dude, do you even code?

[-0-] wrote: »

Time does not exist.

Yeah, I read that too that time is an illusion caused by us being on the inside of our quantum bubble, rather than an observer on the outside where our universe would seem to stand still. Deep. Shlt.

jimgoose

Oh, around here you think time goes that way, yeah? If there is no actual "Year Zero" then referring to this transition point between BC and AD is rather misleading. It should henceforth be called NULL.

Denisovan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Gotta say I'm a bit shocked that I didn't know this.. The naughties started on 01/01/2000 but this century and millennium started on 01/01/2001. And I always thought the calender went 1BC-0-1AD but that's wrong too. It seems BC and AD refer to an imaginary space in time since they fall onto each other. 1BC-1AD.

Feel like a tit telling an 11 year old student today that he was wrong for saying it.

It's the zeros, not the naughties.

sbsquarepants

[-0-] wrote: »

Time does not exist.

Block universe - it's time Jim, but not as we know it:D

josip wrote: »

Dude, do you even code?

Nope, I starts my counting with 1, it's how I was raised and it's how i'll die. :pac:

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems BC and AD refer to an imaginary space in time since they fall onto each other. 1BC-1AD.

Generally speaking the term BC has been replaced by BCE.

josip

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Nope, I starts my counting with 1, it's how I was raised and it's how i'll die. :pac:

Possibly. If you iterate the desired number of times, but starting at 1 rather than 0 it's quite likely that you'll get an ArrayIndexOutOfBounds exception or non-Java equivalent. A badly coded exception handler written by a wet grad on a short term contract, won't handle it properly and the Dreamliner will gradually nose down, increasing speed until it's unflyable and the wings are ripped off. You will experience a fantastic feeling of weightlessness for the sqroot(10,000/4.9) seconds it takes you to impact the ground at sqroot(19.6*10,000) metres per second. That weightlessness feeling will end with a G-force feeling the likes of which you've never experienced before and definitely will never experience again. It will be quick
And all because someone thought it would be a good idea to start counting at 1...

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

So how old are we when we pop out? That the logic I used when I figured there was a year 0. Never been told otherwise.

Seconds old

jimgoose

josip wrote: »

Possibly. If you iterate the desired number of times, but starting at 1 rather than 0 it's quite likely that you'll get an ArrayIndexOutOfBounds exception or non-Java equivalent. A badly coded exception handler written by a wet grad on a short term contract, won't handle it properly and the Dreamliner will gradually nose down, increasing speed until it's unflyable and the wings are ripped off. You will experience a fantastic feeling of weightlessness for the sqroot(10,000/4.9) seconds it takes you to impact the ground at sqroot(19.6*10,000) metres per second. That weightlessness feeling will end with a G-force feeling the likes of which you've never experienced before and definitely will never experience again. It will be quick
And all because someone thought it would be a good idea to start counting at 1...

Correct-and-right. The Roman Empire's demise was down to a single whopper of a SIGSEGV due to their lacking a numeral representation for '0', and instead kludging away with this Nulla malarkey.

TherapyBoy

seamus wrote: »

Our current calendar system is a bit of a mess, requiring tweaks and adjustments all over the place, it would be nice to make something more refined with a proper astronomical basis.

Captain log: star date 46379.1

Absoluvely

seamus wrote: »

Our current calendar system is a bit of a mess, requiring tweaks and adjustments all over the place, it would be nice to make something more refined with a proper astronomical basis.

I'm not so sure.

The lengths of time that cyclic astronomical events take change with each cycle.

If our calendar units were pegged to astronomical units, the marathon world record would be easier to break during "longer hours" than "shorter hours".

seamus

Well, I don't mean it like that, though you are right in that there's nothing "static" we can use to peg our days against because over eons things will change. But for the foreseeable future (i.e. the entirety of man's existence) we know that a year will be 365.25xxxx days.

So why not simply make the base unit of time - the second - slightly longer, such that every year is exactly 365 days long?

At an individual level the difference in the second will be imperceptible and the accuracy of most timepieces largely unaffected, since most watches and clocks need to be set every now and again anyway. The only thing it would really require is for atomic clocks to be reprogrammed to take account of the more "exact" minute

In terms of world records, the current world record marathon pace would register about 5 seconds slower under this new regime. So, relatively significant, but definitely beatable

Citroen2cv

wazky wrote: »

Is today still Wednesday then?

No its Thursday.

MadsL

Deleted User wrote: »

So how old are we when we pop out? That the logic I used when I figured there was a year 0. Never been told otherwise.

Some Asian cultures celebrate the 2nd birthday of a child a year after they were born, the time spent in the womb counting as the first year.

marcbrophy

Your 2nd birthday IS when you are 1 year old.
Your first being your day of birth :pac:

Edit:
People actually celebrate when you turn 1 as the 1st anniversary of your birthday. But it's actually your 2nd birthday

Absoluvely

seamus wrote: »

So why not simply make the base unit of time - the second - slightly longer, such that every year is exactly 365 days long?

You mean having exactly 60*60*24*365 seconds in every astronomical year?

Then wouldn't the "day-night cycle" and the "A.M-P.M. cycle" go out of phase (and come back into phase coincide every 4 years)?

Because at the start of each astronomical year, the earth is turned (on its own axis) approximately 90° from where it was at the start of the previous astronomical year.

josip

Maybe if we just pushed the Earth a little bit further out from the sun to get rid of that pesky 0.25?
How about every day, wherever you are at midday, you jump up and down?

Absoluvely

josip wrote: »

Maybe if we just pushed the Earth a little bit further out from the sun to get rid of that pesky 0.25?

We'd have to bring the Earth a little bit closer to the sun actually.
Decrease year length by 0.25 days by decreasing orbit radius by a li'l bit.
That's assuming you're not also increasing the Earth's linear speed.

An Coilean

Jimoslimos wrote: »

So if your age is 33, then you are 33 years old but you're in your 34th year.

This issue actually come up in the constitution, the English version says you have to be 35 to run for president, but the Irish version says you have to have 35th year passed(Ie 36)

An Coilean

Generally speaking the term BC has been replaced by BCE.

Not really, its far more common to hear someone saying BC than BCE.

Stojkovic

Jesus was born in 4BCE !!!!!!!

An Coilean

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Nope, I starts my counting with 1, it's how I was raised and it's how i'll die. :pac:

My car does 46 roods to the Hogshead and thats the way i likes it. - Grandpa Simpson.

Blisterman

BC years were invented in retrospect anyway, so I think they should just go back and make a year 0, and shift every prior date back a year, so 5 BC becomes 4BC etc.

It'd make working out which century it is a lot more straightforward.

jimgoose

Blisterman wrote: »

BC years were invented in retrospect anyway, so I think they should just go back and make a year 0, and shift every prior date back a year, so 5 BC becomes 4BC etc.

It'd make working out which century it is a lot more straightforward.

Aye. Proper pain in the arse that, first thing in the morning trying to decide between pantaloons and Chinos!

Blisterman

Also it doesn't make a lot of sense that when Jesus was a week old, it was already the second year after Christ.

MadsL

Blisterman wrote: »

Also it doesn't make a lot of sense that when Jesus was a week old, it was already the second year after Christ.

That's why "scientists" came up with BCE. Before Common Era. It weeds out the plebs who are not "scientists"