4 Jan
2011
4 Jan
'11
11:19 a.m.
On 2011 Jan 3, at 4:37 AM, Jonas Otter wrote:
Arguing about this is about as daft as arguing about
whether array
indices
should be zero-based or one-based. It is a fact that some languages
use 0 as
the index origin, others 1. It is also a fact that a century or decade
starts on the year ending with the digit 1, not 0, since there never
was a
year 0. Possibly not logical, but nonetheless a fact. Claiming
anything else
is plain wrong, just as claiming that the sun rotates around the earth
is
wrong, even though it looks that way from the earth. And arguing about
it is
completely pointless. The concept may be hard to grasp for
mathematically
challenged persons who think that celebrating the start of a new
millennium
in 2000 is a good marketing move, but they are still wrong. All the
problems
with non-year-2000-capable software confuse the issue but the facts
still
stand.
You're right, it is daft to argue about it. However, it is the xxx1
pedants telling everyone else they are wrong that make an argument out
of it.
You're not on such solid ground as you would like to believe, as I have
laid out prior. See for example:
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/newmill.htm
Also:
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/astronomical_year_numbering.htm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/cal_art.html presents within it another
argument for the xxx0 perspective, based on Dionysius' original
reasoning for the AD year numbering which the Gregorian calendar uses.
It never fails to amaze me how people who like to claim they are right
by reason or facts can be so blind and obtuse to wider or alternative
reasonings and other facts.