FOM: (no subject)
kanovei at wmwap1.math.uni-wuppertal.de
Mon Feb 18 12:52:42 EST 2002
>From: JoeShipman at aol.com
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:20:19 EST
>I am allowed to regard the year "1 B.C." as having the alternate name "0", the year "2 B.C." as having the alternate name "-1", and so on, since neither notation has the sanction of having been used contemporaneously
Since while ago this is the system accepted in the history
>there is no reason I can't say that the "1st century" consisted of the years 0-99 rather than 1-100 and "the 3rd millennium" began in 2000.
This contradicts traditions of counting.
This also contradicts the whole meaning of the description
"anno domini", meaning the era after a certain event.
(Be it given in terms of the bible or in terms of the Roman
After all, the initial year of someone Joe Shipman
is called FIRST year.
>"Tertio Millennio adveniente" on November 10, 1994, declaring the entire year 2000
The Pope is mathematically correct calling the 2000th year
year number 2000 anno domini.
More information about the FOM