[off-topic] Re: Intent to package: "birthday"
> So, since we use a numbering based on the number 10. The first
> century goes from year 1 to year 100. The second century starts the
> year 101. For more information, read the Isaac Asimov's book "Origins".
> There are many people in this error, and I get quite frantik
> when I hear (or read in a newspaper) such fuzz about the 21st century,
> one year before it will happen!
I am one of those people. :)
The way I always thought about it was from a mathematical point of view.
Zero is generally a "starting" point in mathematics. You start from
"nothing" and continue on to "something." So for me it only makes sense
that the first century should start from year "zero" on to year 99, the
second century from 100 to 199, etc. I am not saying this is correct.
It's just the way that I always thought about it and the way it made sense
to me. Thanks for the clarification!
On a side note, I thought "AD" (Anno Domini) was now referred to as "ACE"
(After the Common Era) since not everyone is a Christian. At least this
what we are now taught in US humanities courses. Are European schools
still using "AD?"
Ossama Othman <email@example.com>
58 60 1A E8 7A 66 F4 44 74 9F 3C D4 EF BF 35 88 1024/8A04D15D 1998/08/26