The Three 0s

Great Debates
1

Everyone is divided about when the millennium actually starts: 2000/2001.
That’s NOT the question here.

I haven’t really taken sides in that argument. I’m not really good with numbers.

The question is: Isn’t the whole “end of the world/armaggedon/Y2K/massive destruction” thing based on the “anceint people’s” fear of the number zero? So that would make 2000 the “panic year,” right?
Or did I just dream this up? Remember, this isn’t about when the new millennium starts. Any comments?

White Wolf

“Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.”

2

No, it’s all based on the fact that any time a seemingly significant number rolls around, some people go crazy. Whether that number is a century or a millenium, people go nuts.

Let’s face it, some people are just plain stupid.

3

I agree with Surgoshan and bet Chinese and Jewish don’t go nuts when their calendars hit 2000, 4000, or 5000 or whatever the Chinese calendar runs to now.

4

It’s kinda like when the Dow Jones hit 10,000.
All those zeros rated headlines.

5

I think it’s because they look like breasts, actually. I mean, in a culture where breasts are taboo, anything resembling them will be celebrated, and when you have a whole lot of them lined up, well, even better!

6

the calendar of christian people has one thing incommon with all the calendars int the history of men, is that the first year is idenified with the number ‘1’. if you look at for example how the “authors” of the calendar wrote it (in latin) Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 1, which means “first year of our lord jesus christ”. because of that the first century didnt end until the year 100 had ended.

in the year 1900 it was globally (where the christian calendar is used) accepted as a fact that the century didnt end until 1900/1901, although emperor Wilhelm(something like that) II didnt agree and decreed that it was supposed to be in the year 1899/1900.

he did have a point though. it wasnt until on the 5th century that the concept and the sign for ‘0’ was invented, but then there wasnt a custum for counting years prior to a certain time. it was all like: in the year augustus 23 and such. it wasnt until the 15th century that people started talking about the year 1 bc and such.

mathematically speaking people symbolize the year 1 bc as ‘0’ and the year 2 bc as ‘-1’. but that is just to make some calculations easier.

the history of the calendar is on the other hand a bit more complicated, it involves the pope in rome and a munk called dionysius.
the pope wanted him to extend some old wossnames, this happened some 1500 years ago and the time on the wossnames dionysius was supposed to extend were identified to diokletianus, a roman emperor from the year 250 or so. that emperor treated christians kind of badly so dionysius didnt see a reason to attribute him with the honor of naming him in the wossnames and changed the wossnames to match “Domini Nostri Jesu Christi”. how he figured out which year that was is kind of a mystery, but it is belived he based his calculations on some historic referances and did some adding and subtracting. it isnt even sure if the first year really meant the first year of jesus life or something else, but that is another matter entirely. it is not even known if dionysius meant to have january the first as the first day of a new year. although that is more likely than any other day. in dionysius days january the first was the first day of a new year, but in the days of diokletianus the 29th of august was the first day of a new year, and since dionysius was extending the wassnames from that time…
well who knows

what we do know now is that ‘0’ exists, and ‘0’ should also be in the calendar. it is but mathmatically right considering how we count the years of our life, and the years of our earth. we are not born 1 year old, we have learned alot since the calendar was made, and to think of how often the calendar has changed during the years we are counting since Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, one year added in the beginning of time should not really matter.

historically speaking a new millenium does not start until 2000/2001, but mathematically and logically speaking its 1999/2000. which will we choose? logic or history?

bj0rn - one year in the history of men has been forgotten, its a year that passed us by while we were sleeping last night. now we celebrate a new millenium january the first 2000.

7

Bj0rn: historically speaking a new millenium does not start until 2000/2001, but mathematically and logically speaking its 1999/2000. which will we choose? logic or history?

Historically, mathematically, and logically, the millenium & century end/start at 2000/2001. It’s the illogical ones that say it’s 1999/2000.

Here’s an analogy to (hopefully) clarify things:

  • A year is 12 months, starting with January (#1) and ending with December (#12). It would be silly to say that the next year begins when month #12 begins, right? We wait until another month #1 starts.

  • A millenium is 1000 years, starting with 1 and ending with 12. It would be silly to say that the next millenium begins when year 1000 begins, right? We wait until another year 1 (that is, 1001)* starts.

8

Oops, ignore that last post. Here’s my real draft:

Bj0rn: historically speaking a new millenium does not start until 2000/2001, but mathematically and logically speaking its 1999/2000. which will we choose? logic or history?

Historically, mathematically, and logically, the millenium & century end/start at 2000/2001. It’s the illogical ones that say it’s 1999/2000.

Here’s an analogy to (hopefully) clarify things:

  • A year is 12 months, starting with January (#1) and ending with December (#12). It would be silly to say that the next year begins when month #12 begins, right? We wait until another month #1 starts.

  • A millenium is 1000 years, starting with 1 and ending with 1000. It would be silly to say that the next millenium begins when year 1000 begins, right? We wait until another year 1 (that is, 1001)* starts.

9

A year is twelve months, no matter when it starts. If something starts April 12 and ends the following April 11, it lasted a year.

A decade is ten years, no matter when it starts. If something started in 1962 and ended in 1972, we couldlegitimately call that “The XYZ Decade”.

A century is 100 years, no matter when it starts. We are currently in "the century of four-digit years which begin with the digits ‘19’ ". That is the century which most people think of when they say “this century”, and it runs from 1900 to 1999 inclusive.

I agree that it would be wrong to refer to these years (1900-1999) as the twentieth century, implying that there were 19 similar centuries prior to it. But it would not be wrong to refer to them as simply “this century”. (Ditto for “this millenium”.)

10

The 1999-2000 event is a significant date, kind of a watch-the-odometer-roll-over for the world, regardless of what it may mean or not mean. I’m looking at it with that sort of lighthearted view. I could not care less whether it marks a millennium of any sort (it does: 2000 years since Jan. 1, 1 B.C.).

A science fiction magazine I read regularly recently had a cute short fantasy. It’s Sept. 29, 2322 or some similar date (the date will be obvious from context). There are no adherents of traditional religions left. At sundown an Elijah-like figure appears in a Chicago police station. He notes that it is the dawn of A.M. 6000. By deft storytelling context, we are given to understand that he is the Messiah (Jewish variety). Finding nobody interested, he just vanishes. Very well done, I thought.

11

From a Dilbert comic strip:

DOGBERT: “I’ve decided to become a doomsday prophet, by predicting the world will end on January 1st, 2000. I choose the year 2000 because it’s a big, round number. It’s biiiiiig and rooooooound --”

DILBERT: “-- Stop that!”

“Love 'em, fear 'em, and leave 'em alone.” – Dr. Spockiavelli

12

what i mean by mathematical and logical:

we DO begin counting with ‘0’, so we havent finished ‘1’ until we say ‘1’!
example: you havent lived one year of your life until you become 1 years old! if you would start counting on ‘1’ you would be born 1 years old and become 2 years old after 1 year.

so the logical conclusion is:
based on the way we count, millennium should be 1999/2000

mathematical conclusion:
based on the way we count, millennium should be 1999/2000. because a man born 1 bc should be 2 years old in the year 1 ad, not 1 years old as it is in history.

bj0rn

13

Except of course for those parts of the world who don’t feel the need to bow to the Christian manner of reckoning years.

“Come on, Phonics Monkey–drum!”

14

Most of the world uses the Common Era for international commerce, regardless of what they may use internally, Phil. I will not argue the point from a “Christian perspective” – we have disagreements on that subject not appropriate to the Y2K questions. My point is that the era that Dionysius Exiguus invented is the one in common international use essentially everywhere and in internal use through approximately 60% of the world’s nations.

BTW, does anyone but me find the term “the 2nd Century A.D.” to be a solecism, in view of what “A.D.” means?

15

bj0rn: what i mean by mathematical and logical:
we DO begin counting with ‘0’, so we havent finished ‘1’ until we say ‘1’!

I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. When I start counting, I start with 1. I never say “0” when counting.

example: you havent lived one year of your life until you become 1 years old! if you would start counting on ‘1’ you would be born 1 years old and become 2 years old after 1 year.

You’re confusing cardinal numbers (age) with ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.).

E.g.:
The 1[sup]st[/sup] year of my life, I was 0 years old (10/28/64 - 10/27/65)
The 2[sup]nd[/sup] year of my life, I was 1 year old (10/28/65 - 10/27/66)

The age numbers indicate how many full years I’ve lived.

Part of the confusion is that our year numbering is actually ordinal. Right now we are in the 1999[sup]th[/sup] year AD. But since 12:00 Midnight January 1, 1 AD, the world has experience 1,998 years,
10 months (though we’re in the 11[sup]th[/sup]),
29 days (though we’re in the 30[sup]th[/sup]),
9 hours (this matches the time because time is measured cardinally),
and an odd number of minutes.

… because a man born 1 bc should be 2 years old in the year 1 ad, not 1 years old as it is in history.

Au contraire. If I was born 10/28 in 1 BC, I would turn 1 year old on 10/28/1 AD. There are only 365 days between these two days, not 730.

Even though we’re tempted to express 1 BC as -1, this is mathematically incorrect, because year numbers are ordinal. Remember there was no 0 AD or 0 BC. (0th year?) 1 BC ended 12/31/1 BC. The next day was 1/1/1 AD.

16

BTW, I’m in the Eastern Time. That’s why my time of posting (8:48) doesn’t equate to the time I mentioned in my post (9:##).

17

Depends on what you’re talking about. If you’re counting longitude or latitude, you definitely start from 0.

18

Bj0rn, I think I see where your logic fails.

The whole issue revolves around the ‘rear 0’. The point is, that the year 0 isn’t actually a year, but a non-measurable point in time that occured when 1 BC became 1 AD. OK, that’s all a bit hypothetical since our year should then actually start on Christmas Eve, but Pope Gregorus messed that one up…

Considering the above (as alreday by posters before me), the second millenium ends on December 31, 2000.

But I have no problem in calling January 1, 2000, the first day of the new millenium. It just feels like it is, and that’s good enough for me.

Coldfire

“You know how complex women are”

  • Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
19

January 1: Today is the first day of the next millennium of your life? :smiley:

20

The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life. :slight_smile: