Oh, it most certainly does not either.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
generally speaking and translated it does.
how do i figure?
well if you start counting on ‘1’ the first number you add to that is between the range 1 - 2, unlike if you start counting on ‘0’ then the first number you count is represented by the range 0 - 1.
bj0rn - bj1rn
Coldfire fills the bathtub and takes out his finest razor blade while soaping up his wrists
bj0rn, L-E-T I-T G-O or I will kill myself here and now. What will it take for you to drop this matter ? Name a price, we’ll all pitch in and cover the cost. Promise.
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
Trees. We can pay you in trees, bj(zero)rn. I know that little chunk of lava you call home doesn’t have any trees.
Easy one-step assembly instructions.
Pour Beer A in Uncle B.
If you pay bj0rn according to his system, then we can give him 0 dollars and he’ll feel like he’s ahead.
Shad
So let’s give him 0 trees then !
Are we all agreed ?
Coldfire
“You know how complex women are”
- Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
The point everyone is trying to make to the bj(zero)rn is (read carefully, bj(zero)rn):
The 1900s are 1900-1999
The 20th century is 1901-2000
These are TWO DIFFERENT WAYS TO DESCRIBE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF YEARS. Both sets overlap and both are 100 years long, but “the 1900s” and “the twentieth century” do not mean the same thing."
A. The 1900s are all the years in which the first two digits are 19. (1800s are all the years in which the first two digits are 18. 1700s are all the years in which the first two digits are 17. The 1930s are all the years in which the first three digits are 193. The 40s are all the years in which the first digit is 4. The '40s are all the years in which the second to last digit is 4.). Reread from A. to this sentence until you understand.
B. The 20th century are the hundred years beginning 20 century after the year designated (long after the fact) as A.D. 1 (or 1 CE). (1st century 1-100, 2nd century 101-200, 3rd century 201-300, 4th century 301-400) Reread from B. to this sentence until you understand.
I plan to celebrate both the end of the 1900s and the end of the 20th century/2nd millennium. Why waste a chance to celebrate?
sigh…
kat, thanks but i did and still do understand what you are saying. but the problem seems to be that you and others refuse to understand what i am saying.
i have never said this statement of yours is wrong, all i have ever done is point out that if the 1900’s are the years 1900 through 1999 then the first 100’s of our calendar would have been 0 through 99, which isnt possible because the year ‘0’ never existed in our calendar. therefore when we speak of the 1900’s in our arabic numeral system it means that there is one hundred/decade/etc… which is one year shorter than every other hundred/decade/etc…(i.e. 1 through 99 or 1 through 9)
just to point it out again, it does not matter WHEN our calendar was made! what matters is how it was made and how it is used. currently we use it in our numeral system (arabic) so shouldnt we adapt our calendar to that system? granted of course that we HAVE already adapted it to our system in all regards but one. that is what this thread is about.
now please do not misunderstand what i am saying(again).
as for you sods with the smart comments, i sure wish you could do other smart things 
bj0rn
No, the 100s were the years 100-199, the years that start with 1. You were supposed to read the sentences after A. until you understood them.
Unless you are trying to say: ‘The first 100 years of our calendar are 0-99 (or 1-99).’ but in either case you are wrong, because there is no year 0 (which you seem to have grasped) and 1-99 is not 100 years; it is only 99. You cannot call something a century if it only has 99 years.
May I summarize? Thanks. The argument so far seems to be:
A ‘Century’ is a block of 100 years, the first of which has the last two digits of 01, the last as 00. The nineteenth century is the years 1801 - 1900, 20th is 1901 to 2000.
The 1900’s is a block of years where the first two digits of each year is 19: 1900 to 1999.
So far, everyone is happy with this. The problem apparently is that the first century is 100 years starting at 0001 and ending after 0100. The ‘zeroes’ is 99 years starting at 0001 and ending at 0099 and it’s this discrepency that bothers bj0rn. Instead of arbitrarily adding a zero or redefining the actual process of counting, may I suggest that we just recognize this as an anomoly and accept it as such? Makes life a lot simpler.
Kat:
Exactly, but you can call 1-99 the ‘zeroes’ even though it isn’t 100 years - I have no trouble at all with this.
*bj0rn:
we have two facts here, please take notice:
- roman inclusive:
2000 years have passed when the year 2000 ends and 2001 begins
- this is the way our calendar counts
- arabic numeral:
2000 years have passed when the year 1999 ends and 2000 begins
- this is the way we count today.
obviously theese two systems have difficulties “communicating” so we should only be using one of them. and i ask you, which one should we be using?*
Gawd!!
It doesn’t matter if you use Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, or stick and stones to count! Because Romans didn’t use “0” doesn’t mean that their counts are one off of Arabic numeral counts:
Counting my fingers in Roman: I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Countion my fingers in Arabic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Notice how I didn’t start my Arabic counting with 0? That’s how the other 5,999,999,999 people on this planet count besides you
bj0rn - the town clown
OK, now this one I believe.
Except that’s not what the bj(zeron)rn is saying he appears to be saying that 0-99 (or, lacking a year 0, 1-99) are the 100s: “if the 1900’s are the years 1900 through 1999 then the first 100’s of our calendar would have been 0 through 99, which isnt possible because the year ‘0’ never existed in our calendar” --bj(zero)rn.
And he is saying that 1-99, a period of 99 years, is a century: “it means that there is one hundred/decade/etc… which is one year shorter than every other hundred/decade/etc…(i.e. 1 through 99 or 1 through 9)” --bj(zero)rn
He doesn’t seem to understand that calling a group of years anything does not make that group of years a century, or a decade, or a millennium. I could call the years 1372-1419 “the naval fluff years”, but that does not make it a century. Heck, I could call them “the 1900s” if I really wanted to, but that doesn’t make that period a century either.
Your Official Cat Goddess since 10/20/99.
“I get along well with everybody.” --I.M.F.
nope kat, supernerd got it right, you got it wrong. although ‘zeroes’ where his invention.
yeah yeah…first 100 years of our calendar, thats what i meant. we do it differently here in iceland, that where this confusion comes from, sorry.
HURRAY!!! you bloody well got it now! so the first “0’s” of our time are the years from 1 through 100 right? that would mean the 100’s had to be the years 101 through 200 wouldnt it?
yes, thats what is bloody well bothering me! im glad somebody understands me eh… 
nope! its simply broken, thats what it is. that is one thing that doesnt make my life simpler.
you forgot that before you start counting you have ‘0’ fingers in arabic. so the first finger fills up the space between ‘0’ and ‘1’. in roman your first finger would fill up the space between I and II.
see the differeance with the clock for example. the am/pm thingy comes from romans. time is also measured by a 24 hour day, like this: the time is 23:59:59, a second after that the time is 00:00:00. something not possible in roman inclusive now is it?
no, they do it like this: 12 am, 1 pm etc…(how the bloody well did they count the minutes and seconds? 12:60:59 > 1 > 1:1:1??)
so its ok to have one of those “hundreds” only 99 years? or one of those *decades only 9 years? or one of those *millenniums only 999 years? perhaps you are willing to accept that, but i sure as hell am not.
bj0rn - *insert appropriate words
*AWB:
Counting my fingers in Roman: I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Countion my fingers in Arabic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
bjorn:
you forgot that before you start counting you have ‘0’ fingers in arabic. so the first finger fills up the space between ‘0’ and ‘1’. in roman your first finger would fill up the space between I and II.
You’re saying that Romans didn’t have a zero; that is true. But they did understand the concept of it, i.e., of nothing. When they counted one of anything (years, sheep, slave girls), it was from _____ to I, not I to II like you say.
Ultimately, this is natural number math we’re dealing with here. (“Natural” comes from the way humans [Romans, Arabs, Zoroastrians, etc.] naturally count.) You seem to be pulling in the concept of a number line, which is not of use in a discrete process like counting.
[ul][li]Natural numbers are the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. These are also called positive integers.[/li][li]Whole numbers (which is what you’re somewhat incorporating) are the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.[/li][li]Negative integers are -1, -2, -3, etc.[/li][li]Integers are 0, +/- 1, +/- 2, +/- 3, etc.[/ul][/li]
I’ll leave the discussion of real (rational/irrational)and complex numbers for another time.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm - Rush
*AWB:
Counting my fingers in Roman: I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Countion my fingers in Arabic: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
bjorn:
you forgot that before you start counting you have ‘0’ fingers in arabic. so the first finger fills up the space between ‘0’ and ‘1’. in roman your first finger would fill up the space between I and II.*
AWB II: You’re saying that Romans didn’t have a zero; that is true. But they did understand the concept of it, i.e., of nothing. When they counted one of anything (years, sheep, slave girls), it was from _____ to I, not I to II like you say.
Ultimately, this is natural number math we’re dealing with here. (“Natural” comes from the way humans [Romans, Arabs, Zoroastrians, etc.] naturally count.) You seem to be pulling in the concept of a number line, which is not of use in a discrete process like counting.
[ul][li]Natural numbers are the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. These are also called positive integers.[/li][li]Whole numbers (which is what you’re somewhat incorporating) are the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.[/li][li]Negative integers are -1, -2, -3, etc.[/li][li]Integers are 0, +/- 1, +/- 2, +/- 3, etc.[/ul][/li]
I’ll leave the discussion of real (rational/irrational)and complex numbers for another time.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm - Rush
count the years of your life will you.
bj0rn
bj0rn: count the years of your life will you.
OK, here goes. Neglecting time of day I was born:
[ul][li]1[sup]st[/sup] year: October 28, 1964 - October 27, 1965. I was age 0.[/li][li]2[sup]nd[/sup] year: October 28, 1965 - October 27, 1966. I was age 1.[/li][li]3[sup]rd[/sup] year: October 28, 1966 - October 27, 1967. I was age 2.[/li][li]4[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1967 - October 27, 1968. I was age 3.[/li][li]5[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1968 - October 27, 1969. I was age 4.[/li][li]6[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1969 - October 27, 1970. I was age 5.[/li][li]7[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1970 - October 27, 1971. I was age 6.[/li][li]8[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1971 - October 27, 1972. I was age 7.[/li][li]9[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1972 - October 27, 1973. I was age 8.[/li][li]10[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1973 - October 27, 1974. I was age 9.[/li][li]11[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1974 - October 27, 1975. I was age 10.[/li][li]12[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1975 - October 27, 1976. I was age 11.[/li][li]13[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1976 - October 27, 1977. I was age 12.[/li][li]14[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1977 - October 27, 1978. I was age 13.[/li][li]15[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1978 - October 27, 1979. I was age 14.[/li][li]16[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1979 - October 27, 1980. I was age 15.[/li][li]17[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1980 - October 27, 1981. I was age 16.[/li][li]18[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1981 - October 27, 1982. I was age 17.[/li][li]19[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1982 - October 27, 1983. I was age 18.[/li][li]20[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1983 - October 27, 1984. I was age 19.[/li][li]21[sup]st[/sup] year: October 28, 1984 - October 27, 1985. I was age 20.[/li][li]22[sup]nd[/sup] year: October 28, 1985 - October 27, 1986. I was age 21.[/li][li]23[sup]rd[/sup] year: October 28, 1986 - October 27, 1987. I was age 22.[/li][li]24[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1987 - October 27, 1988. I was age 23.[/li][li]25[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1988 - October 27, 1989. I was age 24.[/li][li]26[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1989 - October 27, 1990. I was age 25.[/li][li]27[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1990 - October 27, 1991. I was age 26.[/li][li]28[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1991 - October 27, 1992. I was age 27.[/li][li]29[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1992 - October 27, 1993. I was age 28.[/li][li]30[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1993 - October 27, 1994. I was age 29.[/li][li]31[sup]st[/sup] year: October 28, 1994 - October 27, 1995. I was age 20.[/li][li]32[sup]nd[/sup] year: October 28, 1995 - October 27, 1996. I was age 31.[/li][li]33[sup]rd[/sup] year: October 28, 1996 - October 27, 1997. I was age 32.[/li][li]34[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1997 - October 27, 1998. I was age 33.[/li][li]35[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1998 - October 27, 1999. I was age 34.[/li][li]36[sup]th[/sup] year: October 28, 1999 - October 27, 2000. I am age 35.[/ul][/li]
So, what was the point of this exercise? That my cardinal age is off from the ordinal count of my born years by one. That’s simple to explain.
Anyone’s age is a cardinal measurement of the time after we are born. We coloquially truncate this to the year. (To be exact, I am 35.16814663023679417122040072859745 years old.)
Ordinal counts always start with “1[sup]st[/sup]”, because they use natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4). There is no “0[sup]th[/sup]”. This is a non-term; it means nothing.
The CE (current era, AD) year numbers are ordinal. We are in the 1999[sup]th[/sup] year, but only 1998 whole years have past since the beginning of CE.
Everybody got to elevate from the norm - Rush
What about the 0th Law of Robotics, “A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm”?
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Okay, let me try one more time: the first Century is the years 0001 through 0100: exactly one hundred years, there is no question as to the definition of this, and each formal century that follows assumes this pattern (xx01 through xx00). Same with millenia, except they’re 1000 years instead.
This has nothing at all to do with the fact that us humans prefer to group according to the first one or two digits, this seems much more natural to us somehow. So, we tend to refer to the '1900’s as the years from 1900 to 1999. So far so good. The price we pay for ignoring the proper century definition is that the first group (the ‘zeroes’: thank you) is about 1% shorter than it should be. Everything works just fine after that.
bj0rn (early on) said:
To which I say: so? Who (besides bj0rn and a few other misguided souls) cares? It’s a human invention that is ever so slightly flawed. Wouldn’t be the first time we got it almost right and I’m betting it won’t be the last either.
I do remember the navel fluff years with great fondness, though. Ah, the parties we had …
And, of course: the century should be xx01 through yy00; where yy := xx + 1. This system will only be reliable for another 7999 years or so, though.