B.C = Before Christ

yet, Jesus Christ was born 4 BC,

Fuck you.

Europeans are retarded.

Nobody know exactly when Jesus was born, idiot.

@antigermgerm 1 Januari 0 :P Or somewhere in december. Hmm

A new troll topic

@antigermgerm does anybody know he was actually born at all?

@iiii there seems to be a consensus, even among atheists, that jesus was a real man who existed roughly at that time.

@iiii yeah we do know from roman, jewish and greek sources that a guy named jesus was punished for fomenting revolts against roman rules. IIRC

But nobody knew when he was born, I don't even think birth were registered at the time.

Yeah, theres a wide range of dates where Jesus could've been born, we're just not sure anymore. That's further compounded by the fact that time/date keeping changed throughout history a lot as well. If we wanted to fix it now we would just make the problem more confusing... So at this point It's better to not fuck with it.

At the end, the only thing that really matters is that we use the metric system like a civilized world should.

@Hazarth the metric system sucks.

The french revolutionary system is the way to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

@retoor in the christian counting, there is no year 0 - did you know?

@tosensei arabs invented the zero.

You're welcome.

@antigermgerm arabs also invented the numbers that we use now and stuff like algebra.

@tosensei christian devs do.

@antigermgerm Everyone knows that Mateusz Morawiecki invented 'Zero'.

@retoor christian devs... do they just.... pray for god to miraculously let the right code appear on their computer?

@Lensflare except there's no evidence ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

@tosensei they write their own freaking compiler. Holy C young man!

@Lensflare yeah I thought that too.

But in reality indians are the ones who invented zeros. Arabs just copied it

@jestdotty you're welcome

Imagine counting in binary without zeroes.

@tosensei why should there be a year zero? There is a first year since the event and first year before the event. There's physically no zeroeth year before or after an event.

@iiii the year of Jesus' birth should be year zero, just like every newborn is 0 years old and not 1 year old at the day of birth.

1 AC meaning 1 year after Jesus birth makes sense.
1 AC meaning the day of Jesus birth makes no sense because it would imply that 0 AC/BC means 1 year before his birth.

@Lensflare no. the day after his birth would be the first day of the first year since his birth. the event is atomic, it does not span the whole year for it to be "the year of his birth"

there cannot be a year zero. it's not "1 year after" it's "the first year since"

technically only one single day does not belong to both 1AD and 1BC

@Lensflare and you are mixing cardinal and ordinal numbers. a baby is 0 years old, but it is in its first year of life

@iiii with that system, which skips year zero, you'd have weird arithmetics.
How many years have passed between 100 BC and 50 AC?
That would be one year less than years passed between 100 AC and 250 AC.
You'd always need to make a check if you need to account for that one skipped year or not.
Why would you want to do that? Just to avoid a perfectly valid year zero? It makes no sense.

I‘m not mixing up cardinals and ordinals.
You can refer to 0 AD as the first year. There is no contradiction. It doesn‘t have to be 1 AD to be the first year, because one is a cardinal and the other is an ordinal.
I think you might be mixing this up :)

@iiii @Lensflare for me the 21'st century was always a weird idea. Always had bit issues parsing it.

@Lensflare fiddling and faking numbers just because "you will have weird arithmetic" is not a correct approach

@Lensflare "0 AD" is not "first". It's clearly "zeroeth". Your approach creates even more weird arithmetic

If you cannot understand the concept of ordinals, I can't really do much.

@retoor what do you mean?

@iiii 0 AC means zero years after christ, the same way as 0 years old baby means 0 years after birth.

And as we say that it‘s the first year of a newborn, we can also say that 0 AC is the first year of christ.

It‘s not wrong or even unusual. I don‘t know what‘s so hard to understand here.

We also say that array[0] is the first element in the array.

Zero can be the first mark on a scale, when that scale starts with zero. Any number can be the first mark on a scale. Zero is nothing special.

Fiddling and faking numbers? What about it is fake? It was a simple example to illustrate the absurdity of your proposed system.

You cant just remove a number (zero) from the number line. It breaks arithmetics as I have showed with my example.

@iiii

> "0 AD" is not "first". It's clearly "zeroeth".

You are wrong. It‘s first, not zeroeth.

> Your approach creates even more weird arithmetic

Explain to me how my approach is more weird or show me an example. It’s literally the number line of integers, including the number zero, which you want to remove. I‘m intrigued to see how that is weird.

@Lensflare if it's "first" then why the number is 0? It is supposed to be an ordinal number, which start from 1.

Your approach just ignores the fact that ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers are different sets of numbers and there are no negative numbers in ordinals and no zero in ordinals. The year number does not indicate a span of time, it indicates an ordinal number of the year. Breaking the whole ordinal number system and pushing everything by one for the only fucking sake of not thinking about one specific edge case is probably one of the stupidest ideas i've ever heard. If you do that now you have to mind the WHOLE FUCKING RANGE because it's shifted by one. Very fucking convenient, Einstein.

@iiii

You seem to think that BC and AC are ordinals. They are not.
BC and AC are cardinals, meaning how many years since an event. It‘s in the name: Before Christ and After Christ.

"First Year" is ordinal.

@Lensflare those are not cardinal numbers and I am already tired of talking to a wall about that.

There is astronomical year numbering, which is sort of what you wanted, but implemented in a sane manner, which does not break current time scale.

@iiii ...the year OF the event?

@iiii I‘m tired too. There is nothing else to say anyway, it seems, so lets end this conversation.