Customer Discussions > History forum

When do Centuries Begin? On the "00" or the "01"?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 61 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 20, 2012 5:22:59 PM PDT
Dmitri says:
Here is a lightweight thread that everyone can throw there two cents into.

I don't care if there was no year zero. I just short change the first century and say it was 99 years long. I say every century starts with "00." Like 1800, 1900, and 2000.

Maybe I am in the minority. I especially argue this point because I like 20th century classical music and I say that the 20th century lasted from 1900-1999. This century began at 2000.

O.K. that's my two cents. Now I suppose everyone is going to tell me I am wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 5:40:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 5:41:25 PM PDT
S. Friedman says:
I've always felt that if the purpose of words is to communicate, then how words are understood and used is far more important than their absolute definition.

For example, if I work at a bar every day from 6pm till 2am, and I leave work Friday night (Saturday morning) and say to my co-worker "see you tomorrow", we both know I don't mean Sunday.

So while I know that the *20th century* technically starts in 1901, I can't imagine this is what immediately comes to mind when people hear the term. In other words, you can count me in your minority.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 7:52:28 PM PDT
Dmitri says:
S. Friedman

Thank you for your response. Seeing how slow this thread is I feel bad as some other people might feel that this is beneath them to respond.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 20, 2012 8:59:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 20, 2012 9:06:55 PM PDT
they start with the 00s and the new number in the front

there was a year zero
liberal arts majors dont know about the zero yet

apl programming language had an option to start counting things from 0 or 1 to allow for nitwits

ibm computers always start numbering with zero
that is the logical way to do it as then the nth number
is n items away from the start point
and saves making many mistakes and confusion as to waht was being named

the advantage is that it does not lose a year with ad/bc
Christ was born in year zero
his first birthday was AD 1
if you want to count BC you should do it from his birth not a year later. without the zero year you are off one with the BC dates as they would be from his first birthday not his existence which would mean that Jesus did not exist in BC1 even though he was born in that year by that nonsense liberal art confused math-challenged method of omitting the zeroth items when enumerating.

centuries are numbered from n00 through n99

now argue whether the 00-99 century was the zeroth or the first

Posted on Oct 21, 2012 12:12:50 PM PDT
briefcandle says:
No, there never was a year 0. The calendar jumps from 1bce to 1ce. Thus 100 years is never completed till '01 begins for each century. This has the advantage that year 1 was the first year of the ce, rather than year 0 being the first year, the disadvantage that 3000 years ago it was 989 bce, not 988.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2012 2:14:04 PM PDT
that leaves events in year zero assigned to the wrong year !!

there is a year zero even if you dont realise it or use it

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 21, 2012 3:15:46 PM PDT
Dmitri,

There are countries that count age differently than we do. But since we count a zero year, in number of months that would make sense for your theory.

If you talk about the first year of life, then that ends with completion of at year 1. When we talk about 100 years old, we talk about having completed 100 years, too.

Since we lost several days when we converted to the calendar, in October; we have the years so messed up it probably doesn't matter! We do seem to talk about BC and AD with not year zero.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 2:11:15 AM PDT
briefcandle says:
well is there a zeroeth month even if we don't use it?
Is there a zeroeth day of the month?
It's a convention. If there was no year zero, there was a first year and it is 1bce or AD1.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 7:59:58 AM PDT
the convention is illogical and causes mistakes when counting elapsed years between events

Posted on Oct 22, 2012 11:29:34 AM PDT
Dmitri says:
Thanks for the lively brain-teasing discussion. Month Zero? Hah. Now I really have think. An eleven month year!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 12:41:14 PM PDT
nope
it would be 12 months
just numbered 0-11

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2012 4:37:13 PM PDT
Dmitri says:
Yes, I get that it would be 12 months.

I was just playing dumb (OK so I don't have to play dumb...I am dumb)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:49:13 AM PDT
briefcandle says:
No, the convention is not illogical , it's just confusing. As a kid I always found it odd that buildings had a G floor. To me it meant that you always had to add 1 to know how many floors there were in a building.
-That's an aside

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:51:34 AM PDT
"I just short change the first century and say it was 99 years long."

99 years does not a century make.

Posted on Oct 23, 2012 11:57:42 AM PDT
briefcandle says:
When the calendar was devised and instituted arabic numerals including 'zero' were not in use. Only roman numerals existed. There was and isn't an actual zero to number the year with if you are to use roman numerals.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:59:56 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
They begin with year 1. i.e. 2001 was the first year of the 21st Century. Heck, if it began with 0, then it would be the 20th century, as only the last year of the century as "21" in it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 2:45:01 PM PDT
in europe the ground floor is number zero

as we found out when we wanted the fourth floor
pushed 4 on the elevator
and got off on their third floor

and you cant add
at least in the usa
as nobody has a 13th floor

Posted on Oct 23, 2012 10:00:51 PM PDT
Dmitri says:
Saying that the 19th century starts in 1801 and that the 20th begins in 1901 and the 21st starts in 2001 is like always correcting for the "mistake." My way you just correct for the mistake once in the first century and then all the rest of the centuries are normal.

Wow! I think I finally made my point as to why each century should start on the "00."

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 1:43:49 PM PDT
W.T. says:
I think the commonly accepted answer is that decades start with zero, while millennia and centuries start with one.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2012 8:37:58 PM PDT
illogical

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 4:44:14 AM PDT
briefcandle says:
The same prob applies. If you start with 0, then the firt decade of the C1st has only nine years in it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 10:04:07 AM PDT
nonsense

they all have ten

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

count em = ten !!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 11:04:44 AM PDT
briefcandle says:
2nd decade of C1st AD10..........AD19- that's ten
1st decade of C1st AD1............AD9-that's nine

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2012 11:08:05 AM PDT
first decade was year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

you keep omitting the zeroth year between AD1 and BC1
else there is a gap year that never existed to you

Posted on Oct 25, 2012 12:15:49 PM PDT
briefcandle says:
Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to number years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  61
Initial post:  Oct 20, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions