Hans van der Genugten wrote:
> Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:09:46 -0500 Hilary Blue <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >People are regarding 1999 as the last year of the century.
> >BUT IT IS NOT!!!!
> >The last year of the century is the year 2000.
> >And 2001 will be the first year of the new milleniuim.
> Hi Hillary,
> I have to disagree with you.
> 1999 is in fact the 2,000th year!!
> And 1900-1999 is the 20th century.
> It's like with a new born baby.
> The first year of it's new life is from 0 to 1, not from 1-2.
> 0-1 = first year
> 1-2 = second
> ...........................
> 9-10 = tenth year
> 10-11 = eleventh year
> So the next decade starts right after the 10th birthday.
> Substitute decade => century and birthday => New Years Day
> The next century starts right after the 100th NYD.
> The third millenium starts right after the 2,000th NYD.
Hans, your analysis is logical but probably wrong, because it conflicts
with the universal custom that starts "Anno Domini (A.D.)" with Year 1,
NOT Year Zero. Similarly, baby's First Birthday is when he becomes
one year old, NOT the (logical) day he is born. If your system were
properly applied, we should require both a 0(AD) and a 0(BC) year, and
I think virtually no one would accept that.
In engineering and science it's quite a different matter. When you
meaure in units any quantity that may have positive or negative value,
your scale must look like this:
-N....-3,-2,-1,-0,+0,+1,+2,+3...+N
where -0 and +0 account for the range of values between (-1.0) and
(+1.0). Believe me, I've seen many long passionate debates over the
point. In mathematics, it's simple: just the difference between
"cardinal" and "ordinal" numbers, but why go into that? As a practical
matter, we unwashed masses will get a modest bonus: After the expected
wild celebration at the close of 1999, some egghead pedant will explain
it all to us, and we'll then have a SECOND wild party at the close of
2000! Whee!
Joe
--
J. R. Bruman (818) 789-3694
3527 Cody Road
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5013
