Talk:Year zero/Archive 1

Calendar making

True or false: there is an advantage to a calendar that contains no year 0 in a way that is independent of history? --66.245.99.35 17:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

False. --Anonymous

Organizing this article.

This article belongs in:

• A. Category:1st century
• B. Category:1st century BCE
• C. None of the above
• D. Both A and B

--66.32.241.40 01:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

C. None of the above, but it should be linked from Category:1st century, Category:1st century BC, Category:1st millennium and Category:1st millennium BC. -Sean Curtin 23:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interwikis

Uh-oh! The Interwikis for this article have plenty of information! Can any registered Wikipedian who can translate any of those into English put the translations on this article?? --66.32.252.8 23:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move page?

Should this page be moved to the better sounding title "Year 0", since its usually spoken of in that way? —siroχo 23:43, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Probably. -Sean Curtin 00:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

As discussed on Talk:0 (number), I propose that this page be moved to '0' so that it will obey the Manual of Style: "A page title that is just a number is always a year." Currently, 0 is a redirect to 0 (number), probably because when it was created, no one knew of true year zeros. All disambiguations and redirects will need to be modified. I will undertake the task. --Joe Kress 06:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Year link

A Template:Otheruses-number template has been proposed for all years. What will it say when added to this article?? --66.245.80.19 23:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that this article and its associated article 0 (number), not to mention the zero (disambiguation) article, are sufficiently different from the usual 'N' and 'N (number)' pair that a standard template of the style "For other uses see number N" would be inadequate. --Joe Kress 06:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Millenium-end Confusion about Confusion

The statement that the absence of the Year 0 led to confusion about when the 3rd Millenium started, is an interesting one. There was definitely confusion about when the millenium started, but more to the point, there was confusion about WHY there was confusion, and I think there still is.

I have always maintained that:

• the 3rd Millenium started at 1 January 2001, and
• the absence or presence of Year 0 from the Christian Era had absolutely NOTHING to do with this.

The Christian Era started with the Year 1 AD, and it would have been absurd for it to start with any other number. People who argue that not calling the first year "Year 0" introduced some sort of discontinuity from the pre-Christian Era really have to get their history sorted out. The first page of a book is Page 1, not Page 0. The first year of any Era (not just the Christian Era) is Year 1, not Year 0. Hence the 1st Century is 1-100, the 1st Millenium is 1-1000, the Second century is 101-200, the 2nd Millenium is 1001-2000, and so on ad infinitum. It's really incredibly simple. Any child can understand this.

The confusion arose when Christian historians decided to retrospectively rename years before the Christian Era, using the BC (or nowadays BCE) terminology. This was a bad mistake, and we are still paying for it now - but we are stuck with it and we have to work with it. By definition, any Era applies only from a certain point onwards, it does not go backwards. But Christians tried to have their cake and eat it too, by associating every earlier year, from the beginning of time, with the Christian Era, using the BC formula. So, this means that any year at all, from the beginning of time through to the present day and beyond, is either part of the Christian Era starting from 1AD, or part of the "pre-Christian" Era starting in reverse from 1BC.

Despite its disregard of previous year-naming conventions, there is an internal logic in this system. This AD/BC system simply had no place for a Year 0. It was inappropriate for a Year 0 to have ever been contemplated. The whole issue of Year 0 is a RED HERRING.

Scientists and mathematicians later came along and tried to regard the entire calendric system as continuous - but that's the sticking point. Time is certainly a continuum, but the AD/BC system is not a continuum, it is essentially two sub-systems within a larger system, and the two sub-systems contain an inherent discontinuity because they are inherently incommensurate. The layperson has absolutely no difficulty with the fact that the year before 1 AD was 1 BC, because they know the AD years were supposedly (if inaccurately) based on the year in which Jesus was born, and the preceding years just count backwards starting from "the first year before Christ", which would sound wrong and counter-intuitive if it were anything other than "1 BC". It is only mathematicians and scientists who seem to have a problem with this.

Another point is that the two sub-systems sound like they belong to one system because the months have the same names in both BC and AD. Different month names could easily have been chosen for the Christian Era (and given that they derive from Roman gods and Emperors, it is amazing that this didn't happen). But again, we have the convention that we have. --JackofOz 22:41, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's stupid to say "year 0". There is no year zero. And also, the year 2000 is part of the 20th century, NOT the 21st. The 20th century began in 1901 and ended on January 1st, 2001.

Well, I think I disagree. With the number concept available at the time, the decision to name the year immediately following the supposed birth of Christ "Year 1 AD", and later the decision to name the preseding year "Year 1 BC", were the only logical possibilities. With a modern number concept, they are not.

Think of your own age. In the year immediately following your birth, you are "0 years old", not "1 year old". Let's call this "index origin 0", as opposed to the traditional "index origin 1". (In primitive cultures, you may give your age as a number of "summers", which, from a modern viewpoint, is in fact more complicated.)

I'm not saying that index origin 0 is the only logical possibility today. There are now two sensible choices, numbering years (index origin 1) or measuring years (index origin 0). I call it measuring because you can think of it as the integral part of the time elapsed measuerd in years. E.g., when you are in fact 40.9 years old (40 years plus nine tenths of a year), you give your age as 40 (but you are living in your 41st year).

Having these two logical ways of doing things causes lots of "plus/minus one errors" in computer programming and other contexts, and it causes the war between index origin 0 languages (like C), and index origin 1 languages (like Pascal).

Have you thought of this little problem: When is the 10th anniversary or jubilee of an annual event? Is it the 10th iteration, 9 years after the 1st one, or is it the 11th iteration, exactly 10 years after the 1st?

As for drawing conclusions about the exact date of the turn of the millenium, or century, or decade, I take a slightly more vague position. I in principle agree on the date Dec.31, 2000 - Jan.1, 2001, but in this encyclopedia we must describe the world as it is, an far more money was spent on fireworks the year before! In the case of decades, the "1920's" obviously are 1920-1929, where as the 193rd decade strictly speaking would be 1921-1930. Similarly, the "eighteen hundred years" (a wording frequently used in my native tongue, Danish) are 1800-1899, nearly but strictly speaking not quite coinciding with the 19th century.

--Niels Ø 07:05, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Building on that, First, in the decimal system, we don't number from 1 to 10- we number from 0 to 9. After we pass "9", we add to the next higher place value, hence "10" being a two-digit number. Also, from another mathematical standpoint, saying it is the beginning of year one means that one year has just passed- just like 12 AM is the start of the day, not 1 AM (because when it turns 1 AM, the day is one hour old). In theory, the years should count 2 BCE (or BC), 1 BCE, 0 BCE, 0 CE (or AD), 1 CE, 2 CE, etc. The actual zero point is between the two zero years, but since we are counting away from it (that is, the numbers ascend in either direction), that leaves a zero on each side (think of numbers; between 0 and -1 would be -0.1, -0.2, etc., while between 0 and +1 we count 0.1, 0.2, etc. JeremyMcCracken 18:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the 3rd Millenium did start at 1 January 2001. If someone prefer that this millenium started at 1 January 2000, that is not the 3rd Millenium but the 2nd, since he/she would number the first century (beginning with Year Zero) as the Century Zero, the first millenium as the Millenium Zero, and so on, rite? --Avia 02:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy birthday Jesus!

I commented out the assertion that (Jesus was born during spring time). This may or may not have been the case, but I don't know that any more evidence exists for this date than the traditional December 25. Lusanaherandraton 21:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The evidence for spring time is a statement by Luke (2:8): "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night." The only reason shepherds would watch over their flock by night would be to protect lambs from predators—full grown sheep did not need such protection because they could fend off predators. The only time that lambs were too young to fend for themselves was in the spring time shortly after they were born.

I also reverted your hyphenation of "fortysixth". Whether it should be hyphenated or not is immaterial—anything within quotes must appear the way the that the original author wrote it. — Joe Kress 05:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that we think of 12:00 AM as the beginning of the next day whereas its designation as 12 (following 11:59) and not 0 indicates the exact opposite. To finish out that thought, we also call it 11:59PM followed by 12:00AM, which turns it around again. Adding a year zero right now would appease the discrepency and could be done with agreement. Let's do it and make everyone happy.

To bring this to a Year Zero note, Jesus is always one year older than the year being discussed (he was 21 in the year 20CE) with the real way our calender works, assuming he was born somewhere near to January first (Dec25-Jan7, whatever). Must have confused the heck out of the little guy when he realized the parrallel between the date and his age.

Anonymous

German Wiki "Jahr Null"

Since two month the German "Year zero" page describes a proposed "civil, historical and astronomical Year zero" for the first 365 days of A.D. 1792. A proleptic chronology with intervals of 128 years for the exceptional not-leap years. My German is not good enough to catch all. But this seems to be very interesting.
--Peterly 13:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody uses Gregorian calendar before AD 1582, October 15th

Ok, Joe. I let your version: "regardless of the calendar employed (Julian or Gregorian)". Even if, that's obvious. Because nobody uses the proleptic Gregorian calendar! So, therefore ISO 8601 is a hoax, rightly disregarded by astronomers, historians and everyone else. --Peter 2005 16:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is not obvious because some people argue that the proleptic Gregorian calendar does have a year zero, unlike the Julian calendar which they argue does not. And I saw this argument well before ISO 8601 was ever written! And the proleptic Gregorian calendar is actually preferred by Maya historians because it does not drift relative to the seasons anywhere near as much as the Julian calendar does. Nevertheless, I now think "appellation" is also appropriate, so I am reinserting it. — Joe Kress 17:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. I don't know, like you, Maya history. But according to Jean Meeus Gregorian year was astronomically correct about 5900 years ago, thus it well shifts. The only not-shifting ruler is von Mädlers's ruler, like above Peterly adverted: Here in Google traduction. --Peter 2005 19:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The Gregorian rate was only correct 5900 years ago relative the mean tropical year—the number of days in the Gregorian year is now actually quite close to the vernal equinox year, which is required for Easter. A 128-year cycle does indeed shift relative to the tropical year because the tropical year itself changes. — Joe Kress 20:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

March Equinoxe from AD 2001 to 2048 in Dynamical Time (delta T to UT ≥ 1 min.)
2001	20	13H32		2002	20	19H17		2003	21	01H01		2004	20	06H50
2005	20	12H35		2006	20	18H27		2007	21	00H09		2008	20	05H50
2009	20	11H45		2010	20	17H34		2011	20	23H22		2012	20	05H16
2013	20	11H03		2014	20	16H58		2015	20	22H47		2016	20	04H32
2017	20	10H30		2018	20	16H17		2019	20	22H00		2020	20	03H51
2021	20	09H39		2022	20	15H35		2023	20	21H26		2024	20	03H08
2025	20	09H03		2026	20	14H47		2027	20	20H26		2028	20	02H19
2029	20	08H03		2030	20	13H54		2031	20	19H42		2032	20	01H23
2033	20	07H24		2034	20	13H19		2035	20	19H04		2036	20	01H04
2037	20	06H52		2038	20	12H42		2039	20	18H34		2040	20	00H13
2041	20	06H08		2042	20	11H55		2043	20	17H29		2044	19	23H22
2045	20	05H09		2046	20	11H00		2047	20	16H54		2048	19	22H36
Source: Jean Meeus

Your statement is accurate. The duration of saisons among themselves is neither equal nor constant and the duration of northern spring currently diminishs. Therefore the March-Equinoxe to March-Equinoxe Year elongates. Now about 365.242375 days. For calculation of christian Easter date that's relevant.

But for civil calculations only the mean tropical year is important.

It's also true like you assert, that the tropical year is [constantly] slowing down, currently about 0.532 s per century. But if you have the choise between a rule, which has been right about 6000 years ago and which will falsify more and more in future and an other rule which is now correct. Which one, in your opinion, should be applied?
--Peter 2005 21:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

PS. Because an erroneous value was applied since centuries, even beginning of spring will shift from March 20th to March 19th in AD 2048 (in 2044, Mars 19th at 23H22 UTC of Greenwich is equal to 20th, 00H07 UTC of Florence.)

PS2. Thanks for having reworded the von Mädler article.

Bede changes

Because I have been requested to explain my reversions, here goes (you asked for it):

Jclerman recently made the following changes to Bede:

• because an epact is a number of counted days,
• but did not use a [year] zero (when he numbered years) between BC and AD because all calendar units (week, month, year) begin their numbering with 1.

I am reverting both because they are wrong or not used by Bede. An epact is not a number of counted days for two reasons: Its first number is zero as the article states whereas counted items begin with one, and it does not follow a counted sequence (1 2 3 etc.)--its sequence is 0 11 22 3 14 25 6 17 28 etc. See computus. Although the day is not listed, as used by Bede it did not begin with one: Bede used the Latin or Roman calendar which, for example, labeled the five days centered on 1 January as (translated into English):

• the third day before the calends of January
• the day before the calends of January
• the calends of January
• the fourth day before the nones of January
• the third day before the nones of January

The first two refered to January although they were in December. Obviously, Bede did not number the days in his months, let alone begin them at one. Sequentially numbering the days of a month developed during the late Middle Ages.

Only the middle five days of the week were numbered by Bede. He named the first day the "Lord's Day" (our Sunday) and the seventh day the "Sabbath" (our Saturday), which is still used to refer to the days of the week in Portuguese. Weeks of the year were never numbered nor were they even indicated in the medieval calendar because only a generic calendar for all years existed. Weeks were not numbered until the twentieth century. Months were not numbered by Bede except in conjunction with the name of the month--he stated that January was the first month but did not give any date by stating that the event occurred in first month, or any other numbered month. The article already states that Bede numbered years from one because all previous eras began with one. — Joe Kress 08:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed my mind and thought it would be useful to add at least some of this explanation to the article. — Joe Kress 18:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Millenium-end Confusion about Confusion - Part 2

Since this is the discussion page, I'd like to introduce myself as a person interested in systems. I have been trying to add information to the page, unfortunately without enduring result: I added information from very official sources who disagree with the historian/scientific approach to the Third Millennium, but saw all my contributions erased.

While I am not a religious person myself, I consider the Roman Catholic church a source that simply cannot be denied. For Wikipedia, I am not interested in ending up with a single final answer on this page; rather I would like the different points of views all in plain view so each person can make up their own mind. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a political platform where we boo away views we disagree with. And the facts are quite interesting for both sides...

With ample information about why the third Millennium started in 2001, let me show the facts for the year 2000. Don't worry, it is not the year zero. The Roman Catholic Church opened its Millennium Year on December 25, 1999 symbolically — by opening a door. This religious year culminated in the celebration of the beginning of Chirst's 2001st year on December 25, 2000 when the church closed that door again. So instead of choosing a full year that starts January first, the Roman Catholic Church has the Christian Era start on December 25. The new Millennium started therefore, at least for the church, in the year 2000, albeit close to the very end of it. Seven days later, historians and scientists celebrate their new Millennium on Jan 1, 2001.

With a final point to make in favor of the 2000 Millenium, I'd like to show that there are factual reasons — good intellectual facts — on which the Millennium could have also started on January 1, 2000. As an example, there would probably exist no confusion at all if Jesus was born on June 25 (of whatever year), since this date in June is so far away from January 1 that everyone in the entire world would not be confused about days and years. Everyone would probably agree that the year in which the 2001st year begins is the Millennium year. Personally, I don't count the decades of my own life back to January first — especially not to the first day of the year after I was born — I date my decades back to my birthday itself, and when someone insists to count in years, or only the decades, then they do not change on January first after my birthday, but before my birthday. I am born in November 1960, so when only counting in years, the fourth decade started on January 1, 1990, not in 1991. Without a doubt, the former is premature, but the latter is truly beyond expiration.

That's it! Systems are systems. One can say that when a Millennium must start on January first the reason for the beginning of that calendar must then also fall in that year; therefore there would be a problem for historians and scientists to have the Millennium of the Christian calendar start in 2001 when the reason is falling outside the actual frame work, or one can say that once you start counting in a particular frame work then that's the first year you're stuck with. In either case, there is no clean answer, and both are worthy being mentioned in our wonderful Wikipedia, lest we want it to be less than an encyclopedia.

As an extra pointer for a possible discussion: in my mathematical adventures I discovered Mathematical evidence [[1]] that suggests that zero always exists. This would mean that when a system makes use of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, that zero is then already included. From that point of view, a discussion about whether a year zero exists or not would be void, since zero would then always exist; and excluding such year would then be a artificial human act, not a given. This point, however, that zero always exists, has not been discussed widely, and is therefore also not widely considered. As mentioned in several places, zero should not be seen as identical to Nothing.

FredrickS 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "that zero always exists".
If you open a blank book and you will begin to write into, sensefully, you start with the first page. There is no "page zero" in a diary, in a daybook. You write a chronicle of your life.

A chronology is quite another subject-matter. Any chronology – at least in our modern scientific approach – must always define this logical year zero, if not – ipso facto – it is not a chronology, but a chronicle. Each chronicle is also legitimate. However by no means it's a chronology. This even, if since ever this obvious and essential distinction was ignored.

Paul Martin 12:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point Paul,

-Here I deleted the part about abstracts since it was indeed not most to the point - To get to your example of the book, I have to give a dual answer. The first part is that before there was a book there was no book, and while there are many pages starting from page 1 till the end in the book, when there was no book there were zero pages. Zero is then not part of the numbering, but is placed in complete opposition to all pages. The second part — and you may find this a more direct answer — is that if I wish, I can name the first blank page as page zero: convention is not based on this practice and people will look at this with surprise, yet our world could have started out with this convention without much difficulty. I do not state we must change our convention, I just want to point to the human source of the convention, not the 'natural' source. Zero, and its function, has often surprised people. FredrickS 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fredrick, I can't answer you exhaustively to the first half of your reply because it's a philosophical topic about "abstracts" etc. and here we are on the Talk:Year zero.
Other users may be uninterested to read long extraneous comments. Only: a superordinate concept is rightly "singular", even if, inside, it joins a "plurality of members".

Back to our book comparison:

• Either your book has no cover, then you write on the very first page directly one. You have to range your diary tidily for avoiding soil,
• or – in most of cases – your book has a protection cover. Then, to the left of your first writing-page, there is the second cover-page.

You mark your name at one of the four cover pages. In any case, there is no page zero in a book, therefore we use ordinal numbers.
First page, second page, etc. Nor there can exist negative pages in a book.

Surely you can begin another book. Therein – in our calendar topic – you write, for example, the chronicle of the years BC.
At the first page the events of BC I, at the second page the events of BC II, etc. A chronicle in two tomes. Not a chronology!

A chronology defines at first a year zero. This year zero must be "appropriated" and then it have to become "widely accepted".
Because our present astronomical realities impose it (cf. tropical year), this year zero must also:

• on one hand, be an exceptional common year and,
• on the other hand, have a proleptic 128-years exceptional common year rule.

Then we dispose of an accurate, faithful and continious chronology. This chronology has also the best possible astronomical accuracy.
At present it is perfectly accurate. For the five or six millennia in past and future there is a maximal astronomical error of about one day.

Contrarily to your affirmations just above:
There is no reason "on which the Millennium could have also started on January 1, 2000."
On this topic, I added on 2006, January 4:  "– induced in error by unscrupulous wheeler-dealers tempting to "sell" the New Millennium one year before –".
Several days later, an other user struck out it in the article by invoking POV. However, I continue to think that this is not a simple "point of view".
Indeed, this should be the objective main reason why the "New Millennium" was widely celebrated till 2000 January 1. Can anybody give me another, consistent reason? No!
I didn't battled for keeping it in, because I know in our "merchandising society", there are many, many verities systematically censored.
One has not the right to blaspheme the "almighty God Money".  Sadly, even Wikipedia, all too often, obeys to this "imposed logic" by invoking POV or NPOV.  Be it!

-- Paul Martin 12:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: It would be useful if you integrate here your talk with DJ Clayworth at User talk:DJ Clayworth#Christian Era started on December 25, partially already deleted by you.
This avoids "personal talks", excluding other users.
Perhaps you are really a new user and so you ignore this good Wiki-custom. If you didn't find the paragraph given by David: It's there.
Perhaps, later on, I will also participate on this topic, but already it seems me important to never confound: "Millennium", "Millennium Year" and "New Millennium".
The "Millennium Year", obviously, was A.D. MM.  But the "New Millennium" certainly began after this "Millennium Year". No reason to start the "New Millennium" at 2000, January 1.

PS2:  On your source integrated in the article (normally rather given at Wikipedia by a footnote or as "References"): John-Paul II wrotes:
"As the Jubilee Year progressed, day by day the 20th century closes behind us and the 21st century opens."

So your conclusion in the article:
"Interestingly, in the latter case, the clergy too would have the new Millennium start on January 1, 2000, since that is the year that includes the new beginning."
is your own idea, not attested at all. A "religious third Millennium" beginning in the night of 24/25 December 2000 is worth a discussion. However we would need sources affirming it.

Okay. See more links User talk:DJ Clayworth#Christian Era started on December 25,

FredrickS

Zero and First

New to Wikipedia, or at least not versatile in using it, feedback on use OK.

There is a difference between first and zero. The first page signifies the page a person encounters immediately when opening a book. The zero page signifies a numbering. Following convention, close to always do we find a page numbered 1, but not zero. The convention to start a page with number 1 is in my eyes a very logical convention, though not necessarily the only correct possibility. If some people in the past had made the choice to start page-numbering with zero, it would have been the convention today. In my opinion it is zero itself that gives us the option to ignore it or use it - no other number gives us that function. An example of this ability to use or ignore are the first two zeroes in front of 304: 00304. These two numbers, 304 and 00304, are not identical but if both refer to dollars the amount is exactly the same in both cases. Note that the third zero cannot be ignored without altering the whole number; 304 is not the same as 34.

The argument to state a distinction between first and zero seems to be trivial, but it is not. Where a first page names the encounter itself, page 1 names the specific page. To possibly help clarify this: there is no nilth page to encounter - ever. These aspects of first and zero are different, and not necessarily about one and the same phenomenon. People tend to link both together, while they belong to two different categories. The first encounter does always have a preceding moment: but it is either no encounter or not yet an encounter, or this is formed by various different encounters that are in no way linked to this particular first encounter. To find its own category, we could say that, for instance, the zero moment is the moment before encountering the first page. But to specify this precisely; this means that the zero moment forms a pair with the next moment, not with that of the first page which is in its own category. This would all not be important (and kind of confusing when you read it fast) when all words were used correctly. However, confusion about zero and nilth, one and first, complicates discussions about the importance that zero is always there (once one says one, two, three, four, five, etc).

Possibly redundant: when I state that mathematical evidence suggests that zero always exists, I mean to say that zero always exists, not that there is something before a first time. A first time is a first time, and before the first time there is only a time when there wasn't a first time yet. If you wish we can call that a zero time, a period in which contents are not yet delivered, but which should be seen as a context, like a book cover providing the context for the pages as the contents. FredrickS (UTC)

The differences between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers are well and clearly established.  However, "nilth" can exist!
Indeed, you can consider that your real birthday was your "nilth birthday". Nevertheless: with your birth began your first year.
-- Paul Martin 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and thank you for delivering it. I am surprised that you deliver this point that favors what I am trying to tell you. To clarify the point, in Holland, people have one birthday, and one birthday only. Every next occurrence is an anniversary of the birthday, since one can only be born once. As such the birthday (the one and only) is indeed the nilth anniversary, which implies that not a year has gone by. Birthdays come by only once, while anniversaries of that day come by every year. I like you sharpness of mind, and admire the example you found through this occurrence in language. Yet inaccurate use of language is quite common in English (and is similarly found as accepted convention in other languages too); it is important to keep that in mind. Since you are rebuking my use of nilth in the example of 'birthday,' could you do the same for your example of pages? The point I am trying to make is that there are two categories: the one in which zero and one exist, and the category in which nilth and first have their place. The mathematical information I discovered suggests that zero always exists when one mentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Thanks again for delivering a point in my benefit.

FredrickS 20:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

1 BC/BCE and 1 AD/CE

The entire purpose of this discussion is to emphasize that the Anno Domini era is the same as the Common Era whenever it is used by historians. This is necessary because some think that the Common Era includes a year zero, which historians do not accept. One reader got that idea from Peter Meyer [2], a designer of calendar software, not a historian. By historian I mean someone who dates historical events, not someone who discusses the calendar without ever referring to history. Many historians state that for them BCE means "Before the Common Era", not just "Before the Christian Era", which is Peter's opinion. I have never seen any historian use negative years with the Common Era in the way Peter does. Indeed, whenever negative years are used by historians, a year zero is NOT included, thus for them −1 is the year immediately before year 1. If BCE is interpreted as Before the Common Era and a year zero was included, then we would find the statement that Julius Caesar was assassinated in 43 BCE, but we don't (in the Anno Domini era he was assassinated in 44 BC). Thus it does not state the same thing twice. Would you prefer a more explicit discussion of this point in the article? — Joe Kress 21:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I saw the argument that there was a year 0 somewhere, though can't remember if it was a WPian using the link you give in defence of that. Assuming it is as you say it is, I do not see why the article is trying to say the same point twice. Historians already understand the BC/AD system, don't they? (or am I mistaken here) If someone wants a discussion of the BCE/CE notation, they can see it on Common Era - which seems to me to be the appropriate place for such a discussion rather than here. In short, I can't really see the benefit of referring to the point in this particular article - especially as I fear if anything it will distract the reader from the main point, as BCE/CE terminology has no general currency whatsoever that I am aware of outside North America and Israel, jguk 18:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Would a discussion between the exact dates for BC and BCE be appropriate in this place? CE appears to be in use both for Christian Era and Common Era (at least there is no fuss about it), yet BC (which would be before Christ was born) and BCE (which is before the Common Era) would be a problem since December 27 of 1 BCE is not Before the Christian Era (BC), but after the Christian Era started.

Countries that use year zero

Bigbluefish, your edit summary was "Some countries officially use calendars with year zeroes", and the revised text is "A year zero does not exist in the Christian Era and thus also does not currently exist in the calculation of times in most cultures." Some questions, if I may.

• Can you provide any information about which countries have used year 0? Do any still do so today? Which ones?
• The sentence is illogical. If year 0 does not exist in the Christian Era, then no countries that use the Christian Era would use year 0. But the "most cultures" suggests that some countries use both the Christian Era and year 0. How can this be? JackofOz 12:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I changed Bigbluefish's "in the calculation of times in most cultures" into "in our current – internationally recognised – calculation of times".
• I also rejoin JackofOz's first objection: In which country a calendar system with a year zero has an official status?  -- Paul Martin 11:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

'Mathematically skilled'

User:Paul Martin wrote: "That arithmetically at least dubious result provoked the mathematically more skilled astronomers to postulate the necessity of a logical year zero.". I removed that because it is really contentious. Typically both historians and astronomers are capable of subtracting negative numbers. Presumably the Astronomers decided to use a year zero for reasons of mathematical convenience rather than any 'superiority'. DJ Clayworth 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi DJ Clayworth, this phrase don't mean that historians are not capable of subtracting negative numbers. This only means that this logical error was less acceptable for the astronomers (who spend their time with interminable mathematical calculations) than for the historians.

We know both that the absence of the year zero is indebted to the fact that old Romans neither knew the concept of the number zero – essential and indispensable today in all modern algorithmical arithmetic – nor had a sign for this number. (Even in other aspects there are examples that the old Roman logic is not in unison with our nowadays one: So, they called the e.g. the December 31th "pridie Calendis Ianuarius". What's logical. But Dec. 30 is "dies III ante Kal. Ian.". We nowadays would say: The day before the previous day is the second before, not the third one. Nor there are three days between December 30 and January 1st.)

But the historians who – since Bede – registered all history directly in the Christian Era and wrote in latin till Renaissance time (and actually even long times after) naturally used the Roman numbers for the years; this without year zero. When they swiched to other languages than Latin and also began to use our Arabic-Indian decimal digits – to simplify matters – they wouldn't and they couldn't integrate suddenly a year zero opposed to the tradition. Great confusion would be the result of such an impracticable idea, happily never applied nor attempt. This proceeding was however not too incommoding for the historians, because it's only in the scarce cases when for example they have to know Augustus age when he died. They made a count like (63+14)-1 and so they know that he died about a month before his 76th birthday. That's practicable for historians!

For astronomers, this permanent spraining of the consisting arithmetical principles – since Cassini – was not acceptable, not any longer. As you know astronomers operate arithmetical calculations all day long. So, necessarily, they are more "skilled in arithmetic" than the historians. But this will surely not say, whensoever the historians need a BC/AD calculation of years, they are not able to deliver the good result and correct one. For this – however still – historians are naturally also capable. Luckily for our world!

Paul Martin 11:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we say something like 'Astronomers, for whom ease of mathematical calculation is more important, use a year zero'? DJ Clayworth 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What do you think about:

Therefore since Bede historians have not counted with a year zero. This means that between, for example, B.C. 500, July 1 and A.D. 500, July 1 there are surprisingly only 999 years. However astronomers, for whom ease of mathematical calculation is more important, since several centuries use a defined leap year zero equal to BC I of the traditional Christian Era.

-- Paul Martin 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's great. DJ Clayworth 23:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

English of the intro

Hi all, I was reading the beginning of this article and it strikes me as though the language, to put it nicely, a bit idiosyncratic. I'm willing to do a rewrite if people don't seriously object (although I notice a lot of people have contributed so I didn't want to just jump in). --Deville 00:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahead jump in user Deville!  Bettering the English style is always welcome at Wikipedia. However I propose you, if you want correct the form, try to be faithful to the content.
Later on, when your rewriting in better style is accepted by the other users, like everyone, you can still propose another content. -- Paul Martin 09:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)