🚀 go-pugleaf

(posted & emailed)

Tony Buckland <buckland@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> 
> In article <5gmrkk$d00$1@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,  <chapm19@ibm.net> wrote:
> >In <AF53F4E8966826FB9@brierley.demon.co.uk>, stephen@brierley.demon.co.uk (Stephen Brierley) writes:
> >Another idea for an imaginary date--
> >How about any date in the year 0 (zero)?
> 
>  If only there really had been a year zero.
>  Then we wouldn't have to be concerned about whether the new
>  century and millenium begin Jan 1 2000 or Jan 1 2001.

It probably wouldn't have helped much.  Would you then 
have called year 0 the "first" one or the "zeroth" one?
If "first", then 1 would be the "second" year, etc., sort 
of invoking an off-by-one error in naming.

If you called it the "zeroth" year, then AD 1 would still
be the "first" year (same as with the current numbering
system), etc., and AD 2000 would still be the 2000th year
(and 1901 would still have begun the 20th century).

-- 

                      -- Vincent Johns

Please feel free to quote anything I say here.