# BC/AD vs. BCE/CE **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2013, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055 "2013-09-05T07:02:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/61 "2013-09-09T20:46:16Z")
> [@Vaevictis](#): > > What I’ve never been able to understand is how BCE/CE is supposed to be less Christian-centric. What is more arrogant than taking a Christian dating system and asserting that it is common to everyone? It kinda is, though. Here is the [homepage](http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/) of a Japanese newspaper–published in Japan, in Japanese. And, if you search carefully, it’s got the date “2013年9月10日”. Here’s a [site](http://www.people.com.cn/) from the People’s Republic of China–same thing (even the same ideograms–“2013年9月10日”–due to the way the Chinese and–partially–Japanese writing systems work). And here’s a [Hebrew-language newspaper](http://www.haaretz.co.il/), published in Israel–stuck in the middle of all the Hebrew that I can’t read, I see “9.9.2013”. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/62 "2013-09-09T20:52:07Z")
And [here’s one in Arabic](http://www.alkhaleej.ae/), from the United Arab Emirates–in Arabic–but up at the top is says “2013/09/10”. (I would guess that it’s also got the date in the “year of the Hegira” system on there somewhere, but the point is, “September 9, 2013” or “10 September 2013” or “2013/09/10” is now a common reference point for dating systems on this planet.) ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/63 "2013-09-09T22:26:51Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Is there or isn’t there a Year Zero in the system you are arguing for? Yes, there’s a year zero. > [@Malacandra](#): > > And in that case does it matter a hill of beans whether you want to call it “the first year”? It does. For two reasons: (1) It’s not the “first” year in any real sense. It’s rather an arbitrary point in the beginning of a continuum. Time goes back some indeterminate number of years into the past, and some indeterminate years into the future. Any zero point is indeterminate. (2) Picking some year and calling it the “first” year presents an argument for calling it “year one.” Linguistically, one=first, two=second, three=third, and so forth. I believe the arbitrary zero point is just that: the zero point. Not the “first year” or “year one.” ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/64 "2013-09-09T22:55:02Z")
I use CE and BCE to figure out which Christians are the terrible ones who think that’s an attack on their religion ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/65 "2013-09-09T23:12:18Z")
> [@Vaevictis](#): > > It seems most of the college level world history textbooks use it. Hmmm…back when I was in school it seemed mostly confined to biology texts, but times could be changing I guess. Grabbing two recentish surveys that are on my to read pile - Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World by John Haldane ( 1999 ) uses BC/AD, but Sasanian Persia, _The Rise and Fall of an Empire_ by Touraj Daryee ( 2009 ) uses BCE/CE. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/66 "2013-09-10T01:45:32Z")
I’d be wary of calling anything [Year Zero](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_%28political_notion%29). ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/67 "2013-09-10T02:18:20Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:45, topic:668055”] Why do we have to have two sets of years (one running forward and one running backward) anyway? What we ought to do is define a year zero and have a single calendar where the years are named with positive and negative numbers. The year 2000 and the year -2000 would be 4000 years apart. Perfect. [/QUOTE] How is that any different from what we have, except for your inexplicable insertion of a Year Zero? (When you draw a number line, is 0 a range instead of a point?) ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/68 "2013-09-10T02:21:09Z")
Ah, I see your problem. [quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:56, topic:668055”] I approve of ISO 8601. There isn’t a “first year.” There’s merely an arbitrary point on the calendar, and we use one numbering system for years before that and one for years after that. Making that point “zero” means that we go to a single numbering system and gets rid of AD, BC, CE, and BCE entirely. It’s just numbers. And numbers have a zero. [/QUOTE] BCE and CE _are_ - and + years, already, counting from a zero _point_. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/69 "2013-09-10T03:19:58Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Ah, I see your problem. > > BCE and CE _are_ - and + years, already, counting from a zero _point_. You’re missing something. +1 isn’t a “range” either. On a proper number line, you count … -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 … If our years counted with such a system, we’d not only eliminate the unnecessary division into two separate systems (BC/BCE and AD/CE), but the math would work right. In our current system, the year 1 AD happened immediately after 1 BC, so 1 AD minus 1 BC equals one year. In a proper system, there’d be a year 0 in between, so +1 minus -1 would be two years, as mathematical logic dictates. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/70 "2013-09-10T16:24:09Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:69, topic:668055”] You’re missing something. +1 isn’t a “range” either. On a proper number line, you count … -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 … [/quote] Yes, a proper number line, counting off the integer points. But the years are not points; they are spans of time, with end-points marking them off from adjacent years. 1 CE is not the +1 point, it is the span of time between the 0 point and the +1 point. What interval on the number line corresponds to your Year Zero? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/71 "2013-09-10T18:19:10Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Yes, a proper number line, counting off the integer points. But the years are not points; they are spans of time, with end-points marking them off from adjacent years. If I tell you the temperature was 3 degrees below zero yesterday but is now 5 degrees, you know it’s warmed by 8 degrees. But BC/AD years don’t work that way. From July 4th, 3 BC to July 4th, 5 AD is seven years. (I’ll stipulate this is only a very minor annoyance rather than a “big deal.”) BTW, C programming has the opposite problem: TWO zeros, where one might be preferred: printf("%d %d %d %d %d %d ", (int)-2.5, (int)-1.5, (int)-0.5, (int) 0.5, (int) 1.5, (int) 2.5);outputs-2 -1 0 0 1 2 (I find this annoying enough that I don’t even let the compiler convert my negative numbers to integers. 🆒 ) ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/72 "2013-09-10T19:43:44Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Yes, a proper number line, counting off the integer points. But the years are not points; they are spans of time, with end-points marking them off from adjacent years. > > 1 CE is not the +1 point, it is the span of time between the 0 point and the +1 point. What interval on the number line corresponds to your Year Zero? It occupies the entire year between -1 and +1, thus fixing all of the math problems that I’ve pointed out, and that **septimus** just pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/73 "2013-09-10T21:34:30Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > 1 CE is not the +1 point, it is the span of time between the 0 point and the +1 point. What interval on the number line corresponds to your Year Zero? Well, when a baby is born, the period between the date of birth and the first birthday tends to be measured in hours, days, weeks, and months with no year reckoned until the first birthday has been attained. That is an effective year 0 and it works quite well for calculating ages of persons. (Of course, people do not negatively age outside science fiction, so we have no need to calculate human ages prior to the birth date and never require negative numbers for such calculations.) Now, I understand that, based on a similar reckoning, with the calendar focused on the event of a particular date, you have identified one possible problem, because reckoning backward from that event/date would also require a year -0, which would really screw up every date calculation so far attempted. However, since the reckoning of years on a continuum with a specific year as the midpoint is intended to make it easier to calculate “Years Ago” regardless of the launch date, then using a year zero makes quite a bit of sense, as years in such reckonings are, indeed, treated as points on a number line. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/74 "2013-09-11T14:20:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, when a baby is born, the period between the date of birth and the first birthday tends to be measured in hours, days, weeks, and months with no year reckoned until the first birthday has been attained. That is an effective year 0 and it works quite well for calculating ages of persons. That is not a Year Zero. That is moving through the person’s first year, along the interval between the 0 point and the +1 point. When (in Western, not universal, convention) we say a child is “one year old,” we really mean she is _past_ the +1 point. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/75 "2013-09-11T14:26:22Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Yes, a proper number line, counting off the integer points. But the years are not points; they are spans of time, with end-points marking them off from adjacent years. > > 1 CE is not the +1 point, it is the span of time between the 0 point and the +1 point. What interval on the number line corresponds to your Year Zero? [quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:72, topic:668055”] It occupies the entire year between -1 and +1, thus fixing all of the math problems that I’ve pointed out, and that **septimus** just pointed out. [/QUOTE] The interval between -1 and +1 on a number line is _two_. In terms of years, this is (for example) the interval between the first moment of the first day of 1 BCE, and the last moment of the last day of 1 CE. A two-year span of time with no Year Zero. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/76 "2013-09-11T15:32:04Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > The interval between -1 and +1 on a number line is _two_. In terms of years, this is (for example) the interval between the first moment of the first day of 1 BCE, and the last moment of the last day of 1 CE. A two-year span of time with no Year Zero. I disposed of this in my recent post by specifying the dates July 4. When measuring the distance between two BC years you use _same_ date, e.g. first of year to first of year. Same with two AD years. Your deliberate “kluge” treating AD and BC years differently to avoid Year Zero has no merit. There may be good reasons to reject having Year Zero, _but the arithmetic will not work like an ordinary number line._ ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/77 "2013-09-11T15:37:02Z")
Measuring the span of time between two specific dates is not measuring between the years in which those dates occur. Years are intervals, not points in time. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/78 "2013-09-11T16:02:23Z")
Look, I’m not the one who introduced the analogy of the number line, but I am the one who has used it correctly. If **Gary** would like to withdraw it and take a different tack, that’s fine. But he can’t treat whole years as discrete points. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/79 "2013-09-11T16:09:29Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Look, I’m not the one who introduced the analogy of the number line, but I am the one who has used it correctly. If **Gary** would like to withdraw it and take a different tack, that’s fine. But he can’t treat whole years as discrete points. Sure he can. What stops him? That you are fixated on the duration of a year is not his problem. Between 0 and 1 there are numerous fractional points, yet we still use number lines to calculate various things. (And your claim that a baby’s first year in not “zero” relies on usage in English, not on facts. Now you are going to further confuse the issue with muddled semantics. 😛 ) ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055/80 "2013-09-11T16:26:58Z")
Of course he can _do_ what he likes, but he can’t expect to be very convincing with a muddled analogy. I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying about the baby age. In Western convention we count completed years for human lives but refer to years-in-progress for the calendar, but neither of them involves a year _designated_ Zero. The baby’s first year is the baby’s first year. People talking about the span of time call it the “first year,” as you did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bc-ad-vs-bce-ce/668055.md?page=5)