InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 4
Posts 589
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/07/2003

Re: LeftyGmz1 post# 2589

Saturday, 03/01/2008 12:33:45 PM

Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:33:45 PM

Post# of 3673
Unfortunately for logic, that is correct. While it goes against logic to skip over zero and have the difference between -1 and +1 be only 1 and not 2, that is what we are stuck with in what is known as the common era.

extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero
"Third millennium
The 3rd millennium of the Gregorian calendar began on 1 January 2001 (rather than the popularly-celebrated 1 January 2000). This is a direct consequence of the absence of a year zero in the Common Era. Had there been a year zero, which might be considered part of the first millennium, then 1 January 2000 would indeed mark 2000 years since the year numbering datum and be the start of the third millennium."

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era