97
submitted 2 months ago by lemmyreader@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Please explain my confused me like I'm 5 (0r 4 or 6).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] platypode@sh.itjust.works 80 points 2 months ago

It depends which calendar you use! Every calendar picks a basically arbitrary system to uniquely identify each year, and in some of them "year 0" doesn't refer to any year.

The Gregorian, for example, goes directly from 1 BC to 1 AD, since 1 BC is "the first year before Christ" and 1 AD is "the first in the years of our lord." This doesn't make much mathematical sense, but it's not like there was a year that didn't happen--they just called one year 1 BC, and the next year 1 AD.

ISO 8601 is based on the Gregorian calendar, but it includes a year 0. 1 BC is the same year as +0000; thus 2 BC is -0001, and all earlier years are likewise offset by 1 between the two calendars.

[-] radiant_bloom@lemm.ee 46 points 2 months ago

If ISO says there was a year 0, there was. There’s only one thing better than perfect : standardized !

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I need my standardized fixed calendar now dammit

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 60 points 2 months ago

Yes. They skipped right over. It confused many people at the time: a whole year of their lives, gone. Many centuries later when zero was invented, an explanation was finally offered as to why that happened.

[-] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Serious answer about what the year would have been in 1 AD, according to 63-year-old Emporer Augustus: ~~DCCLIV~~ 754 Ab Urbe Condita

That means "from the founding of the city" - they based their calendar on the mythical founding of Rome, as calculated by Verro, who himself was not long dead at that point. Before that, they just counted the years of each person's reign Japanese-style. Probably other people in the ancient world had older calendars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 55 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

When you consider the time as a number line, years are not points at integers (which would in some way warrant a year 0), but rather periods between them. Year 1 is the period between 0 and 1, and before that was -1 to 0, or year -1. There is no year 0, because there isn't anything between 0 and 0

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago

That makes sense, but trying to square that off with the idea that the year 2000 is the start of the 21st century is hurting my head.

If year 1 is the 1st year, then surely the first year of the 21st century should be 2001?

[-] savedbythezsh@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago
[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Ohh, nice one!

The first convention is common in English-speaking countries, but the latter is favoured in, for example, Sweden (tvåtusentalet, which translates literally as the two thousands period).

I'm not sure that's entirely true, most people in English speaking countries (and the world over) celebrated the millenium at the beginning of the year 2000.

[-] jeremyparker@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The enumeration on the losing side of that debate is probably correct. But as a person who was in my early 20s in 2000, I'd like to offer what I will characterize as The Historical Context and Definitive Conclusion to This Debate.

No one actually gave a shit about that debate. Sure, it came up, but it did not alter anyone's party planning. We weren't actually celebrating the changing of the millennium, we were celebrating because we had a permission slip to do so. Any attempt to withdraw that permission was unwelcome.

In Paris on December 31st, 1999, at around 11pm local time, someone threw themselves in front of a metro. The trains were free that night (because it was the 100 year anniversary of their opening iirc), but because of that suicide, at least one of the train lines was substantially delayed. The streets from the center of the city to the north side were crowded well toward dawn as everyone chose to walk home instead of wait indefinitely in a stinky train station.

That person, who chose to end their life on the tracks that night, holds the core truth of the debate within his death: it's a ridiculous debate and those who would fight for it should just stay the hell home and let the rest of us drink a lot and dance.

[-] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 months ago

If year 1 is the 1st year, then surely the first year of the 21st century should be 2001?

It is. The system is confusing.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It should all be zero indexed. Positional number systems like we write with are (600=0600) but our language isn't, which causes this problem. Basically, if 2004 is the 20th century the gospels took place in the 0th.

[-] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

the idea that the year 2000 is the start of the 21st century is hurting my head.

That may be because it is not. The first century was years 1 to 100. The second was 101 to 200. The 21st is therefore 2001 to 2100.

What you're probably referring to is the "cultural century" which was considered to have started when the lead digit changed from 1 to 2. The same thing happened quite recently when some people argued 2020 was the start of a new decade (again, it wasn't)

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[-] jbrains@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Years exist. We decide what to call them. You and I agree to call this year 2024, but that's only an agreement. Some people call this year 5784.

We call the system we use "The Gregorian Calendar", because of a Pope named Gregory. That system is mostly the same as "The Julian Calendar", with some important changes to make the calendar match the changing of the seasons better. In the Julian calendar, they decided to count the years starting from when they thought Jesus was born. They chose his birth year to be "The first year of our Lord". We call that "year 1" for short.

The people who created that system (the Julian Calendar) didn't understand 0. The year before "The first year of our Lord" was called "The first year before the birth of Christ". We now call these "AD 1" ("anno domini", because Latin) and "1 BC" ("before Christ"). Since they didn't understand 0, they didn't call any year "0". We have kept the tradition, because reasons.

Some other systems have relabeled the year before "AD 1" as year 0, but that's not how the Gregorian Calendar works, and that's the calendar that you and I have been taught to use.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"They," i.e. the catholic church, or whoever was tasked with coming up with a calendar, absolutely understood the concept of zero in the 1500's. Yes, Zero took a bit longer to formalize and enter the zeitgeist of the public consciousness, but this myth of zero being some kind of unknowable thing for thousands of millennia is naive.

I'd go so far as to say that a year zero in a calendar is useless. There should be a starting point of course, but calling it yero zero instead of year 1 is dumb.

[-] jbrains@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

By that part, I was referring to the people establishing the Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian. I've edited my comment to clarify that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

The year of Jesus’ supposed birth was counted as year 1 AD/CE. The year before that is considered year 1 BC/BCE. It’s worth noting that the concept of zero didn’t yet exist back then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0#History

[-] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Probably worth noting that the Gregorian Calendar was an invention of the 16th Century. It was invented to deal with the problems of the Julian Calendar and the creators would have had a firm understanding of the concept of zero. The AD/BC split was all about the assumed year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth (according to Christian mythology). The year of his birth was set as the first year Anno Domini or "The year of the Lord". Or the first year where Jesus was kicking about. The year prior to that would therefore be the first year before "Before Christ" was alive, and therefore the year 1 BC.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] juliebean@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago

i hope all these conflicting answers in the comments have made you less confused, OP.

[-] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago
[-] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@kbin.social 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

ELI5 answer?

In the conventional calendar, there wasn’t a year zero and it wasn’t skipped. Zero is the moment in time that we use to begin counting time.

Think of an elementary school style number line: …-3_-2_-1_0_1_2_3… Each number is one year apart. This makes the numbers measure something like Age. If you are 3 years old, you can count 3 years between 0 and 3.

But a year is not an Age. It is the span of time between ages, and the years we name are actually the spaces between the numbers on the number line. So the first year (1 AD/CE) is the first space after zero (between 0 and 1), and the first negative year (1 BC/BCE) is the first space before the 0 (between -1 and 0).

Then there is the astronomical calendar, which does have a year zero. They get this by naming the year (the space on the number line) after the number to the right side of the space on the number line.

[-] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 2 points 2 months ago

By this description, year zero is the time between the 0 and the 1 for the same reason the time between 10 and 11 is the year 10.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] diverging@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 months ago

The anno domini (AD) dating system started in 525. The concept of zero did not make it to Europe until the 11th century.

[-] lyth@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 months ago

Years are ordinal numbers, the kind of number that tells you which place you finished in a race, and as such cannot have zeroes or negatives. You're living in the 2,024th year since the instant that began the Common Era. "0th" and "-1st" are not valid expressions for years for the same reason that you can't place 0th in the Olympics

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 12 points 2 months ago

Programmer clutching their keyboards screaming "Arrays start at 0!"

[-] ShaunaTheDead@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago

Ordinals are largely used for counting and when you're counting you kind of do start a zero, most people just don't say it. When you count 1... 2... 3... it would work just as well to start 0... 1... 2... 3... So programmers can rest easy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Nope. 1 BC/BCE -> 1 AD/CE. That's just how it was designed.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] moody@lemmings.world 10 points 2 months ago

When someone decides to change the way that they keep track of time, the new calendar typically starts at 1, as in "the first year of this new era". It's not that there was no existing year before that, just that it doesn't make sense to start as zero.

It's not like the Gregorian calendar that we use now existed in -1 and then rolled over to 0 and then 1. They just started the new one at 1, and for a period of time, there was surely some overlap in people using both calendars, until one was phased out entirely.

[-] criitz@reddthat.com 6 points 2 months ago

The year 1AD wasn't called 1AD in 1AD. The system was invented hundreds of years later.

Korea kinda takes this to the extreme with birthdays.

[-] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Zero does exist in the astronomical year numbering system (BCE/CE as units, based on Julian calendar), as well as the Hindu, Buddhist, the modern ISO 8601:2004 (uses no units, based on Gregorian system) as well as the Holocene calendar (HE as unit).

It is just not in the old Gregorian and Julian calendar that uses the Anno Domini calendar year system (BC/AD). To make sense of it, 1BC follows 1AD. However, 0BCE follows 1CE. Also, in the Holocene calendar, it starts with -1HE.

Also, BC/AD and BCE/CE are not one and the same:

  • 1BC = 0BCE = 10000HE
  • 1AD = 1CE = 10001HE

The only difference between Julian and Gregorian calendar is that Julian leads the Gregorian calendar by 13 days - this holds true from 1901 to 2099.

[-] Skua@kbin.social 4 points 2 months ago

CE/BCE isn't strictly astronomical year terminology, it can be applied to the Gregorian calendar and AD/BC can be used for astronomical years. If you see BCE outside of an astronomy context, it probably does not include a year zero

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

They left out 0 from the list. It basically jumps from -1 to 1.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The switch to the current system of using the theoretical birth of Jesus as the start of our calendar occurred in the 6th century, 500 years after the fact. They picked a year based on what evidence they had for when the birth of Jesus occurred with a margin of error of about ~30 years.
When this occurred and we started observing years in Anno Domini, whatever local calendar was being used was immediately replaced by the year 525, and retroactively everything before that was assigned it's proper year. This ends with AD 1 and directly starts with BC 1 going the other direction. No year 0 was observed in this switch.

[-] brianorca@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Also note that before this switch, years were often designated in relation to the founding of a city or by the start of a ruler's reign. There were always ordinal numbers, so the first year of a reign would be year 1, and there was never a zero, because it was year X of a previous reign.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 5 points 2 months ago

Arbitrary decision is arbitrary.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They switched when years are counted. BC years are counted at the beginning of the year. AD years are counted at the end of the year.

The halfway mark in the first inch of a ruler is 0.5". The first inch ends at 1.00. 1.25" falls in the second inch of the ruler.

We recently completed the 3rd month in the 2024th year AD. We have not completed the full, 2024th year yet; but we are in it. This most recent April 1st was 2023.25.

1-Jan-1 BC was almost a year before 31-Dec-1 BC. 31-Dec-1 AD was a year after 31-Dec-1 BC.

[-] 0_0j@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

like I'm 5 (0r 4 or 6).

Okay then.

Before dawn of technology advancements that we have today, people did stuff in a very different manner, for the sake of this explanation, I will call it "primitive"

As brilliant as human beings are, they often forget little things (little because may not have higher priority at that particular time) and dates is one of them.

Even now, if you happen to forget today's date, and do not have means for referring that (like looking at your smartphone or watch, some digital billboards and whatnot),

what you would naturally do is refer back/forward, to the closest (recent/upcoming) date and day where a memorable event occurred/will occur. Events like your cousin's birthday, trump impeachment, the coming football derby or the coming elections date. then you start counting with your fingers towards/backwards to the current day. This is "primitive"

These variations of calendars that currently exist today have their own sort of "memorable event".

The most widely used today is AFTER CHRIST (AD). (Of which, to go back past that, they should have used count backwards tactic, i.e. -1, -2, -3, -4; Eg: -4AD; but instead, -4AD becomes 4BC which is BEFORE CHRIST. That is why counting forwards in BC, number decreases 😏 )

To answer your question;

"Year zero" is the year where that particular memorable event occurred.

But as I demonstrated above, we use that year as a reference to count forward/backwards the following/past years.

[-] Vub@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

No, in our calendar system there was year 1 BC followed by year 1 AD. So no zero. It’s just how they set it up, they’re human made ideas anyway. Many countries do not even use this system, for example it is currently year 2567 in Thailand and year 113 in North Korea.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
97 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

42431 readers
1262 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS