Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's stop counting centuries

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 449 posts

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#61

Post by usrusr »

drewcoo wrote: post #45
milliams wrote: post #11

It's easy, we should have simply started counting centuries from zero. Centuries should be zero-indexed, then everything works. We do the same with people's ages. For the entire initial year of your life you were zero years old. Likewise, from years 0-99, zero centuries had passed so we should call it the zeroth century! At least this is how I justify to my students that zero-indexing makes sense. Everyone's fought t…

> we should have simply started counting centuries from zero Latin, like Lua, is 1-indexed.

And look at the bloodshed that caused!

https://douglasadams.com/dna/pedants.html

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#63

Post by furyofantares »

mmmmmbop wrote: post #22
milliams wrote: post #11

It's easy, we should have simply started counting centuries from zero. Centuries should be zero-indexed, then everything works. We do the same with people's ages. For the entire initial year of your life you were zero years old. Likewise, from years 0-99, zero centuries had passed so we should call it the zeroth century! At least this is how I justify to my students that zero-indexing makes sense. Everyone's fought t…

> We do the same with people's ages. No, we don't. When we refer to 'the first year of life', we mean the time from birth until you turn 1. Similarly, you'd say something like 'you're a child in the first decade of your life and slowly start to mature into a young adult by the end of the second decade', referring to 0-9 and 10-19, respectively.

On your sixth birthday we put a big 5 on your cake and call you a 5 year old all year.

Can't say I've ever had to refer to someone's first year or first decade of their life, but sure I'd do that if it came up. Meanwhile, 0-indexed age comes up all the time.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#65

Post by Izkata »

hgomersall wrote: post #41
semireg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right answer was, and still is: Jan 1, 1901

No, the first century began Jan 1, 0000. Whether that year actually existed or not is irrelevant - we shouldn't change our counting system in the years 100, 200 etc.

The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, there is no year 0.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#66

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

> Did the American revolution happen before, during, or after the Enlightenment?

I’ve no idea. When did the American revolution happen?

Not everyone’s cultural frame of reference is the same as yours. I can tell you when the Synod of Whitby happened, though.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#67

Post by hgomersall »

Izkata wrote: post #65
hgomersall wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the first century began Jan 1, 0000. Whether that year actually existed or not is irrelevant - we shouldn't change our counting system in the years 100, 200 etc.

The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, there is no year 0.

What does that even mean? Do we allow for the distortion due to the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendars, such that the nth year is 11 days earlier? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Instead, we accept that the start point was arbitrary and reference to our normal counting system rather than getting hung up about the precise number of days since some arbitrary epoch.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#68

Post by mixmastamyk »

kstrauser wrote: post #23
milliams wrote: post #11

It's easy, we should have simply started counting centuries from zero. Centuries should be zero-indexed, then everything works. We do the same with people's ages. For the entire initial year of your life you were zero years old. Likewise, from years 0-99, zero centuries had passed so we should call it the zeroth century! At least this is how I justify to my students that zero-indexing makes sense. Everyone's fought t…

We don't 0-index people's ages. There are a million books about "baby's first year", while they're still 0 years old.

How old is the baby now? Six months…

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#69

Post by pdonis »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #14
semireg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right answer was, and still is: Jan 1, 1901

How can that be if 15 of those centuries are on the Julian calendar?

The century in which the switch occurred (which was different in different countries) was shorter than the others. As were the decade, year, and month in which the switch occurred.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#70

Post by pdonis »

hgomersall wrote: post #67
Izkata wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, there is no year 0.

What does that even mean? Do we allow for the distortion due to the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendars, such that the nth year is 11 days earlier? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Instead, we accept that the start point was arbitrary and reference to our normal counting system rather than getting hung up about the precise number of days since some arbitrary epoch.

> What does that even mean?

It means just what it says. In the common calendar, the year after 1 BC (or BCE in the new notation) was 1 AD (or CE in the new notation). There was no "January 1, 0000".

Post reply on HN