Subject:
|
Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Oct 1999 03:06:41 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDMnospam.ORG
|
Viewed:
|
624 times
|
| |
|
|
Bill Farkas <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> That's not the point. The first century didn't start on year 0, it started
> on year 1 and ended on year 100, not 99. 101 was the first year (hence the
> 1) of the next century.
Actually, that's exactly what I said. The first year was (retroactively of
course) numbered "1", meaning "In the first year after our reference point".
The year before that is "-1", meaning "In the first year before our
reference point." We count the number of the year we're in, not the number
of years we've finished.
If we did this for human ages, we would say that newborn babies are "1",
meaning that they're in their first year.
To put it another way: if Jesus had been born on January 1st, Year 1, he
would be 1998 years old this year, and turn 1999 on January 1st, Year 2000.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: When should the 2000 Catalogue Appear?
|
| (...) That's not the point. The first century didn't start on year 0, it started on year 1 and ended on year 100, not 99. 101 was the first year (hence the 1) of the next century. Sorry to be so nitpicky. {:^) Bill (25 years ago, 2-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
21 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
