Subject:
|
Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Jan 2000 23:42:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
248 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tony Priestman writes:
> Well, I've bitten my tongue so far, but here goes:
>
> The current system for numbering years was only invented some time in
> the fifth or sixth century, IIRC. Therefore, there never was a year zero
> *or* a year one.
See:
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3180
for my rebuttal of the "well the dating system is wrong, arbitrary, etc" idea.
>
> You can start the new millennium whenever you want, and most people want
> to start it now.
No, you can't. If we take as a given that we are accepting the current dating
system, and if we take as a given the currently accepted definition of a
millenium as being 1000 years, and if we start counting from the arbitrarily
accepted year 1, then the new millenium starts in 2001. If we're not using the
currently accepted dating system, then there's really nothing to argue about,
since it may not even be the year 2000. Talking about new milleniums will make
no sense because my new millenium won't be yours, we'll all miss a lot of
meetings ("I told you top show up on the 5th!- I did today is the 5th- no
today is the 12th") (If that's the case then I say it's 28 AOC. 28 years in
the Age of Chris- all other dates before that are non-existent because the
happened before I was born! On Jan 6th, I will turn 28 and we will the year
will be 29 AOC ;> )
>
> And if you have to work with IBM mainframes, as I have in the past, you
> know that zero is significant anyway, so the last year of a decade *is*
> nine :-)
Using this logic, then the first decade was 9 years long. By definition a
decade is 10 years long, and a millenium is 1000 years long.
>
> But I'm sure a large number of entertainment and sales organisations
> will realise during this year that 2001 is the *real* start of the next
> millennium, just so that they can sell *even more* junk to gullible,
> mathematically challenged punters.
It is the REAL start of the next millenium using the currently accepted dating
system. The year 2000 is not, never was, and cannot, by definition, be the
first year of the new millenium unless we use a new dating system or redefine
millenium to mean "1000 years, except for the first one which was only 999
years long"
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: CLSOTW - Thanks
|
| On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Dave Schuler (<Fnrwno.43A@lugnet.com>) wrote at 18:57:24 (...) Well, I've bitten my tongue so far, but here goes: The current system for numbering years was only invented some time in the fifth or sixth century, IIRC. Therefore, (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
