95
submitted 6 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 77 points 6 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 45 points 6 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 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I need my standardized fixed calendar now dammit

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 58 points 6 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 20 points 6 months ago
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 53 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

This explanation is unclear to me. Why do we choose the later of the two endpoints of the year for (0, 1) but the earlier of the two for (-1, 0)?

[-] Reil@beehaw.org 3 points 6 months ago

The language is rooted in the same logic as people. Your first year was between the ages of 0 and 1. The first year before you were born is between -1 and 0. There is no 0th year because 0 is a point in time and not a range in time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Entropywins@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Moving from too... not too from

[-] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 1 points 6 months ago

For the same reason why 1.5 is on the right from 1 but -1.5 is on the left from -1

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago

If we were starting from scratch, it would probably be better to go with two year zeroes, so it would fit normally into positional number systems, and then you could even talk about 0.5AD for the relevant summer.

Unfortunately, positional numbering wouldn't be invented in the old world until hundreds of years after the Christian calendar.

[-] jsomae@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

The only positional numbering system I use daily (base 10) has only one zero. What system are you talking about?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] nudnyekscentryk@szmer.info 1 points 6 months ago

So in your idea there would be year +0 and year -0 before it, right?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jbrains@sh.itjust.works 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

But you are missing the point,. There is no reason to ever start a calendar at year zero. The starting point can be zero, fine, but once the first day goes by, you are in the first day of year 1, not year zero and that is logical and has nothing to do with smart astronomers etc, "not understanding the number zero."

At this point I'd say the only person who doesn't understand zero is you.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] davel@lemmy.ml 20 points 6 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 20 points 6 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.

[-] idiomaddict@feddit.de 2 points 6 months ago

Especially weird considering that Christmas has been set to December for a long time, so 98% of year 1 AD was actually before the ostensible birth of Christ (I know that scholars now think he was born in April or something, but they probably didn’t always)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@kbin.social 17 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] juliebean@lemm.ee 16 points 6 months ago

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

[-] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago
[-] lyth@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 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 13 points 6 months ago

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

[-] ShaunaTheDead@fedia.io 2 points 6 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.

[-] diverging@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 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.

[-] ArcticAmphibian@lemmus.org 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[-] moody@lemmings.world 11 points 6 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 6 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.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 6 points 6 months ago

Arbitrary decision is arbitrary.

[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 3 points 6 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.

[-] governorkeagan@lemdro.id 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I’m no expert but I assume that the year Christ died would be “year zero” (assuming you’re talking about anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC)) since we started counting after that.

EDIT: reading more on the topic I might be completely incorrect with my above statement. If someone else knows, please do correct me

EDIT 2: I found this on Wikipedia which talks about a “year zero”

[-] Vub@lemmy.world 4 points 6 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.

[-] 0_0j@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 6 points 6 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.

[-] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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.

[-] Teknikal@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

Zero doesn't even exist so how would year zero.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
95 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43831 readers
788 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