3 ms·
"Year 1" was originally conceived as "the first year of our lord", which is one reason why there's no "zeroth year ...". Now we're in the "two thousand and fif
by quesera 11y ago
"Year 1" was originally conceived as "the first year of our lord", which is one reason why there's no "zeroth year ...".
Now we're in the "two thousand and fifteenth year of our lord". Imagine all the off-by-one errors if years were zero-indexed.
Also, it wasn't until Fibonacci in 1200 or so before the western world developed a working relationship with zero.
But natural counting numbers are always 1-indexed anyway. The second dozen starts at 13. Bakers excepted, of course.
- derekp7 11y agoBut measurement of a person's age is 0 indexed. It is a year after you are born that you are 1 year old.
- quesera 11y agoSure, but while you are 0, you are in your first year of life.
- Retra 11y agoNatural counting isn't 1-indexed. You usually count things after you tally them, not before. (You don't start counting beans by saying "one bean" and then waiting for that bean to arrive.) Besides, it is not all that clear if someone just says "Jan 1 marks year one" whether it marks the end of the first year or the beginning. With dates, it usually marks the beginning. That's why it is 1-indexed. We hardly count anything else that way, so why would you assume it is 'natural counting'?