3 ms·
The glitch starts with the existence of “year 0”: there's no such thing in the Christian calendars, it goes straight from 1BC to 1AD. (Zero didn't even exist in
by stymaar 4mo ago
The glitch starts with the existence of “year 0”: there's no such thing in the Christian calendars, it goes straight from 1BC to 1AD. (Zero didn't even exist in the 6th century when the Anno Domini epoch was set).
- astrobe_ 4mo agoAnd that's also why we are in the 21st century, not the 20th.
- stymaar 4mo agoArr[0] is the first element of an array, not the “zeroth”.
- keyle 4mo agoBut Arr could be empty or uninitialised...
- Perenti 4mo agoIn a zero based array type language. In pascal I believe arrays can start where you want them to as in "array[-10..10] of integer". It's been a while though. There is no year zero. Trying to compute with one is almost certainly an error. Trying to work with it is like dividing by zero - it does not make sense. The year "1" was originally a Julian Date. Using a Gregorian Date before the calendar was introduced is almost certainly an error. For ancient things, use Before Present, where I believe Present is defined to be sometime in 1950 or there about. For "modern" things (varying definitions of modern) use a sensible format/calendar that works in your database.
- astrobe_ 4mo ago> Using a Gregorian Date before the calendar was introduced is almost certainly an error. It's just an extrapolation; using the calendar being used at the considered time would be meaningless for us, e.g. the short-lived french republican calendar [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar
- quietbritishjim 4mo agoIf there was a year 0, we would still be in the 21st century. It would just have started 1 year earlier, in 2000 instead of 2001: 0 – 99: 1st century 100 – 199: 2nd century ... 1900 – 1999: 20th century 2000 – 2999: 21st century Although I think centuries are usually treated as starting in years ending in 0 anyway, in casual settings. Most people were certainly happy to celebrate "the new millennium" at the start of the year 2000.
- dcuthbertson 4mo ago> 2000 - 2999: 21st century You have the right idea, but you made the 21st century a millennium
- quietbritishjim 4mo agoArgh! I knew I'd make a stupid mistake like that. (Now too late to edit.)
- samlinnfer 4mo agoThey're just using astronomical year numbering.
- quink 4mo agoThey acknowledge that in the article, and make it clear that it really refers to 1 BC.
- GoblinSlayer 4mo agoFirst year is actually zeroth, just shifted by one. Calculations start with zear.
- shakna 4mo ago> Second, in the proleptic Gregorian calendar with astronomical year numbering (which is the calendar that we use on 28times), Non-Julian calendar.
- bazoom42 4mo agoThe article refers to the astronomical calendar, which is differnent from the gregorian by having a year 0, which makes calculations simpler. After year 1 the years have the same numbers, but before 1 they are off-by-one. Years before 0 is indicated with negative numbers, e.g -50 corresponds to 51 b.c.