The year 1999 is:[ul][li]The last year of the 1990’s[/li][li]The last year of the 1900’s[/li][li]The last year of the 1000’s[/ul][/li]
The year 2000 is:[ul][li]The last year of the 200[sup]th[/sup] Decade AD[/li][li]The last year of the 20[sup]th[/sup] Century AD[/li][li]The last year of the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Millennium AD[/ul][/li] Don’t get the first list mixed with the last!
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
You are correct AWB- the year 2000 is just an end of this millenium. The year 2001 is the beginning of the new one. This is why this year I have a Last Year of the Millenium party, and next year I will have The New Millenium party. Actually, every year I have a party… but since everyone’s being fancy with these names, I have to be accurate. People are too selective I say…
./^_/^\
< o | o >
.<_ | _>
…\U/ - Wolf of Were has spoken…
that simply isnt possible. using that same logic the year 999 would have been:
The last year of the 990’s
The last year of the 900’s
The last year of the 1000’s
even though there were only 998 years since the jesus was “born”.
logic being:
the calendar started on 1, therefore the first decade has passed the moment year 10 is over (10 - 11), the first century the moment year 100 is over (100 - 101) and the first millenium the moment 1000 is over (1000 - 1001). so the year 1999 couldnt possibly be the last year of the 1990’s, the last year of the 1900’s or the last year of the 1000’s because then 999 also should have been the last year of the 1000’s which it wasnt.
bj0rn - i suggest we correct that error and add the year ‘0’ instead of 1 b.c. and 1 b.c. instead of 2 b.c. etc…
Stop messin’ with our minds already bj0rn, we’ve proved you wrong on two other threads already.
Your reasoning is faulty. The point you make are incorrect. Forget about the “Year 0”. Mathematically, AWB’s list is watertight, foolproof and 100% A-OK correctemundo.
Look, People. What with all the screwing around that various institutions have done with the calendar in the last couple of thousand years, the millennium happened/will happen sometime between March 1, 1996 and january 1, 2003. Sometimes you just go with the general consensus because:
1.It’s as good as any other guess.
2.You get tired of hearing the word *anal!*whispered when you walk by.
3.That’s when the parties are!
If you want to sit at home and cry out,“I’m right! I’m right!”, go right ahead. If you need me, I’ll be at the party, sipping some single-malt, kissing some other deluded fool, and yelling at the top of my voice,“Happy New Millennium!!”
Coldfire: Stop messin’ with our minds already bj0rn, we’ve proved you wrong on two other threads already.
Your reasoning is faulty. The point you make are incorrect. Forget about the “Year 0”. Mathematically, AWB’s list is watertight, foolproof and 100% A-OK correctemundo.
Thank you, Coldfire, my new best friend!
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
*bj0rn: that simply isnt possible. using that same logic the year 999 would have been:
The last year of the 990’s
The last year of the 900’s
The last year of the 1000’s
even though there were only 998 years since the jesus was “born”.
logic being:
the calendar started on 1, therefore the first decade has passed the moment year 10 is over (10 - 11), the first century the moment year 100 is over (100 - 101) and the first millenium the moment 1000 is over (1000 - 1001). so the year 1999 couldnt possibly be the last year of the 1990’s, the last year of the 1900’s or the last year of the 1000’s because then 999 also should have been the last year of the 1000’s which it wasnt.*
This has so much illogic in it, if I were Vulcan I would have an aneurism.
I said that 1999 AD was the last year of the 1000’s (i.e., the years that start with the digit 1), not 999 AD. It’s tough to make a parallel label, since the thousands digit wasn’t used from 1-999 AD. Perhaps the pre-1000’s. Note that I’m not saying this was a millennium.
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
You know, I think this whole thing is just completely dopey. Our calendar didn’t start at 1, it started at circa 400, when that fellow Dionysis Exigius(however it’s spelled), tried to count backwards. It’s completely arbitrary anyhow. If you count years, you have to pass over 0, 00, and 000. Call it millenium if you wish, say it’s next year, who cares? You choose, be an idiot(2000), or be anal(2001). It is man’s core nature to find fault with others. So hurry up, times a wasting, pick you side, and jeer at the others.
*Call it millenium if you wish, say it’s next year, who cares? You choose, be an idiot(2000), or be anal(2001). It is man’s core nature to find fault with others. *
What if we compromise and say June 30-July 1 is the threshhold of the millennia?
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
isnt it illogical that you do not understand logic ;).
the first thousand years of our calendar:
1 - 1001
the second thousand years of our calendar:
1001 - 2001
so obviously 1999 isnt the last year of the ‘1000’! not unless the first ‘1000’ was 998 years!
if you are going to count, do it correctly. i say we counted wrong in the first place and should correct that, if that is corrected then it would be true that 1999 is the last year of the ‘1000’. but currently it isnt.
no you didnt, you couldnt provide logic enough to thwart my statements and facts. simply because what i said was on one hand, “the truth” and on the other hand “a suggestion provided to correct a modern mathematical error(it wasnt wrong, but it is now)”.
I think it’s fair to say that most people on this board are smart. Why do you then keep insisting you are right about something when ALL OTHER members say you’re wrong ?
I’m not saying you’re stupid bj0rn, because I don’t think you are. But you are one stubborn mother, I’ll give you that.
I’m not going to try and find the logic in your last post: at first glance, it’s complete nonsense. I’m sure re-reading it won’t change that.
But go ahead, convince the relevant Icelandic authorities to change the calendar to YOUR system. I’m sure the rest of the world won’t mind. Or notice, for that matter…
*bj0rn:
the first thousand years of our calendar:
1 - 1001
the second thousand years of our calendar:
1001 - 2001
so obviously 1999 isnt the last year of the ‘1000’! not unless the first ‘1000’ was 998 years!
if you are going to count, do it correctly. i say we counted wrong in the first place and should correct that, if that is corrected then it would be true that 1999 is the last year of the ‘1000’. but currently it isnt.*
You’re not making any sense at all here. E.g.:
[list=1][li]“the first thousand years of our calendar: 1 - 1001” the first thousand years of our calendar was actually 1001 years?[/li][li]“the second thousand years of our calendar:1001 - 2001” the year 1001 was both in the first thousand and second thousand years AD? And the second thousand also had 1001 years?[/li][li]“so obviously 1999 isnt the last year of the ‘1000’! not unless the first ‘1000’ was 998 years!” I had said “The year 1999 is … The last year of the 1000’s”. And as I explained later, that means the years that start with the digit “1”! In case you haven’t read the newspapers recently, the next calendar year starts with a “2”.[/li]
We use the Arabic Numeral system, sometimes called the Hindu-Arabic Numeral system. It uses ten (this many: IIIIIIIIII) as it’s base. When the count in any one column exceeds nine (9 or this many: IIIIIIIII), it is changed to zero (0), and the column to the left is incremented.
This year, the three least significant digits (representing powers of ten lesser in value, that is) are all at nine. So the 9 in the 10[sup]0[/sup] column (the rightmost one) will be changed to zero (0) and the next one to the left (10[sup]1[/sup] column)will be incremented. It too will be changed to zero, and then the 9 in the 10[sup]2[/sup] column will be incremented.
Still following?
Since it’s a 9, it will be changed to a zero (0), and the 10[sup]3[/sup] column will be incremented. It will go from a 1 to a 2.
[li]“if you are going to count, do it correctly.” All I ask is that you do the same. Try it, you might like it.[/list=1][/li]
(Gawd it felt good to get all that sarcasm off my chest!)
I looked in the mirror today/My eyes just didn’t seem so bright
I’ve lost a few more hairs/I think I’m going bald - Rush
how do you figure 1-1001 to be 1001 years?
its the same as saying 0-1000. its the same as saying 1000 -(minus) 1000 = 0. again its the same as saying 1001 -(minus) 1001 = 0.
again, subtract 1000 from this (2001 - 1000 = 1001, do that again 1001 - 1001 = 1, which is 1 AD)
doesnt matter since there hasnt been 1000 years since this milleninum started until the year 2000 - 2001.
ah thank you for pointing that out for us. this really helps me.
get this right this time will you! our calendar isnt using the arabic numeral system. it was made in the roman numeral (which didnt include ‘0’). because of the roman method of inclusive numeration the first year of our calendar is ‘1’ and is named 1 AD.
now on the other hand we dont count like that, and why isnt the calendar “modified” to represent our way of counting. since we are counting the days of our lifes.
