"(a few pedants grumbled that the millennium wouldn’t start until 2001, but no one paid much attention)" LOL! I'm sure this is a tongue-in-cheek observation. IIRC, there were plenty of basically numerate pedants, and yes, it was frustrating to be so obstinately opposed.
The pedants' case against starting the millennium in 2000 relies on the claim that there was no year 0. But our current dating system didn't emerge until around 1400 years ago, so there was no year 1 either. The system didn't contain a zero because the idea of zero was new barely known then (though it seems that Dennis the Small, who developed the dating system, was aware of it). It would have made more sense to include a zero at the time, but the second best solution is to add 0 CE, coinciding with 1 BCE. Then everything works neatly.
Of course this is irrelevant to the excellent discussion of Y2K, but..
It makes no sense to postulate a Year 0 having a duration of a year.
We're obviously counting back to a time before our current dating system was developed, but that can't alter the fact that 0 is a starting point of zero duration, and a century is only complete after the passage of 100 years, and a millenium after 1,000 years.
"(a few pedants grumbled that the millennium wouldn’t start until 2001, but no one paid much attention)" LOL! I'm sure this is a tongue-in-cheek observation. IIRC, there were plenty of basically numerate pedants, and yes, it was frustrating to be so obstinately opposed.
The pedants' case against starting the millennium in 2000 relies on the claim that there was no year 0. But our current dating system didn't emerge until around 1400 years ago, so there was no year 1 either. The system didn't contain a zero because the idea of zero was new barely known then (though it seems that Dennis the Small, who developed the dating system, was aware of it). It would have made more sense to include a zero at the time, but the second best solution is to add 0 CE, coinciding with 1 BCE. Then everything works neatly.
Of course this is irrelevant to the excellent discussion of Y2K, but..
It makes no sense to postulate a Year 0 having a duration of a year.
We're obviously counting back to a time before our current dating system was developed, but that can't alter the fact that 0 is a starting point of zero duration, and a century is only complete after the passage of 100 years, and a millenium after 1,000 years.
I'm sure if we were starting from scratch we'd put a zero in.
Yes, as a starting point. It has exactly zero duration. That's what 0 means.
If you insist on an initial Year 0 of 1 years duration, you would logically also insist on a Year 0 BC! This graph demonstrates the absurdity:
-5____-4____-3____-2____-1____-0____0____+0____+1____+2____+3____+4____+5
John, you're probably (and understandably) weary of this side issue, so I'll say no more.. except to note that pedants are generally right.