Ken Pizzini <tz.@explicate.org> wrote on 2005-03-04 00:13 UTC:
- It appears unnecessary to control skipping the year zero. I have not encountered any locale where there is such a beast; in all cases, it appears that the year 1 B.C.E. is followed by the year 1 C.E.
Astronomers, IIRC, use a calendar with a year zero -- it removes a gratuitous anomaly from calculations. Regardless, for calendars where there is a BCE-CE type distinction, there is no year zero; in calendars where there is a year zero (e.g., "proleptic Gregorian"), the years preceeding year zero continue algebraically, starting with year -1.
(modern) (classic) Gregorian Gregorian Astro. 2005 CE AD 2005 2005 2 CE AD 2 2 1 CE AD 1 1 1 BCE 1 BC 0 2 BCE 2 BC -1 4004 BCE 4004 BC -4003
The missing-year-0 BC(E) convention, as well as the 1-to-12-am-pm notation, are wonderful examples for obsolete, inelegant and dangerously fault-prone conventions. Responsible computer folks should stand up against these and tell the world clearly and with force that in no way can these ever be the recommended, proper, responsible ways of doing things. Do not fear the zero! There is a year 0 CE and a year -1 CE, just like there is a time 00:00. Any older notational work-around should have been abandoned after the zero became popular in Europe sometimes in the 1600s. Markus -- Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ | __oo_O..O_oo__