Re: What are you most looking forward to,in the 2006 Aus season?

On 11/14/05 3:47 PM, in article
1132012065.658414.205700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "JD"
<_antipodean_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Cameron McDonald wrote:
>> On 11/14/05 2:59 PM, in article
>> 1132009178.576690.102690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "JD"
>> <_antipodean_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Cameron McDonald wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Year zero is the first year -
>>>>
>>>> So 0=1 now...not too bright our JD is he?
>>>
>>> Poor Cam, much brighter than you it appears, you're missing the point
>>> completely.
>>
>> See if you can rewrite your point succinctly for me then.
>
> I'll try again, but you must keep in mind the gist of my response to
> Rick in Message-ID:
> <1132008985.884808.196090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> As Prof Dutch (and others) stipulates, there are many screw ups in the
> creation of our calendar.

So what?

The other problem is that we count time
> ordinally and cardinally depending on usage. If we want to have it
> adequately reflect our usage and make sense, we can either define year

We can define a year zero but we haven't yet.

> zero to exist or continue with the notion that millennia, centuries and
> years don't begin with the same numbers. The simple fix is to define
> the nineteenth century is simply 1900 - 1999 etc.

We could do that fix yes but we haven't
>
> This either requires defining that the first century is simply 99 years
> long,

Right so not really a century but the first 99 years.

or recognise that when Dionysius fiddled with the calendar the
> concept of AD didn't exist, and call it the zeroeth century, which has
> no real impact
>
> Referring back to the response to Rick, I must admit to running my own
> small experiment about debate in this ng which has confirmed my
> previously held beliefs.

Huh - turns out I got your point completely and you missed mine - did you
even read my post? Arbitrary it may be but we haven't defined a year zero in
the historical calendar so there is still no year zero which means Rick is
right.

Oh, and the current calendar starts at 0, just like timekeeping so that
analogy is flawed - see my other post.

You can go and sign a petition for change if you want (I'm not fussed either
way, although Stephen Dutch seems quite angry), but currently despite all
the 'problems' and potential 'fixes' we in the western world do not define a
year zero for calendar purposes.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Maya Long Count
    ... calendar. ... to use Julian days. ... the Zero Year was found missing in my thoughts. ... so SkyGlobe is not the only program with glitches. ...
    (sci.archaeology.mesoamerican)
  • Re: Times & Dates
    ... > languages tend to have a lot of idiomatic usage. ... A simple internationally accepted calendar time NOT based on TIME ZONES ... 1900 n00 twoneg zero ... -322 n7678 fourneg seven six seven eight ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Maya Long Count
    ... calendar. ... to use Julian days. ... the Zero Year was found missing in my thoughts. ... so SkyGlobe is not the only program with glitches. ...
    (sci.archaeology.mesoamerican)
  • Re: Internal date format (numerical)
    ... It's the wonderful vagaries of the calendar! ... you have to subtract the day whose number is ZERO not ... So the only way Oracle could ... I believe that Oracle stores about half of its range as "days ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.misc)
  • Re: RePost: Password
    ... then lock the form from edits. ... Cheers Rick, i guess i dont really need any passwords, i ... and queries and no-one is computer literate enough to get ... >text box that displays the date on the calendar. ...
    (microsoft.public.access.security)