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

  • Platypus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

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

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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.

  • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 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?

      • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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)

        • eatham 🇭🇲@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I hate it when people say it wasnt the start of a new decade, it’s a shit argument, why does it matter what the first year was, 2014 - 2024 is also a decade, and 2pm aest September 22nd 2024 will also be the start of a new decade. There is nothing wrong with saying 2020 was the start of a new decade. (again, it was)

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Can i state the obvious reflect on if this question even makes sense?

    We are currently the 2024 year since we began counting and probably didn’t do so from day 1. Instead we took a significant cultural event and marked it the beginning. Adapting any initial time keeping to it.

    We centered the beginning of this count on the life of someone who we cant proof ever existed. Great start.

    we have likely been tracking sun cycles from much before but we cant exactly call our time keeping records reliable scientific measurements. Different civilizations and cultures had different ideas, may dispute data and eventually all had to make way for the teaching of the church.

    There is no year 0, the calendar is a construct of time But doesn’t keep nor measure it.

    • TheChurn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      One nitpick, Jesus was almost certainly a real figure. There are many records indicating someone with that name was in the area at the time, and that they were executed by crucifixion.

      The religious stuff, obviously no way to prove. But as a person, the historical consensus is they existed.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        One nitpick, Jesus was almost certainly a real figure. There are many records indicating someone with that name was in the area at the time, and that they were executed by crucifixion.

        No there isn’t. There’s tons of people who’ve claimed they’ve found records but ultimately none of them can be produced or are based on other accounts like Josephus who doesn’t ever directly reference Jesus. Further none of his original writing survived. Only reproductions, and the earliest one is from 11th century. Or Tacitus who was born after Jesus was dead. So no direct knowledge or evidence of Jesus as a individual, just a second hand accounting at best. Oh and also, no originals exist. Just copies dated back to the 11th century…

        All “evidence” only starts 1000 years after Jesus actually lived… supposedly written by people who were born after Jesus died… and would have written that stuff 50-100 years after his death.

        There is no actual archaeological evidence that “Jesus” existed. And a mere 3 references that exist outside of the bible that I’m aware of. All of which are not original manuscripts.

        Edit: All of this to say, there is no consensus… and to claim there is consensus on the matter is a christian/catholic claim. Not an actual historical consensus.

  • lyth@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 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