1340: "Unique Date"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Arcorann
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:06 pm UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Arcorann » Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:20 pm UTC

No-one's mentioned RFC 2550 yet? Guaranteed to work arbitrarily far into the future, and it's compatible with our current system. What could possibly go wrong?

sonicspin
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:17 am UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby sonicspin » Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:52 pm UTC

AFAIK, the "first day" is sunday because God made the everythings that day, and saturday is rest day because god rested that day, but monday is the first day of the week because is the first day of the work week, and saturday and sunday are the breaks, make your work before you can rest
I am not religious, just pointing what I know

xtifr
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby xtifr » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:14 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
In addition to Portuguese, incidentally, Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Greek, Vietnamese, Maltese, and Armenian all have names for Sunday that mean "first" and/or names for Monday that mean "second", according to Wikipedia.


And yet Saudi Arabia starts its week on Saturday, according to the same source. (But thanks again, that is an answer to my question.)

xtifr wrote:And yet that claim is contradicted by their own data.
Their own data, which you've looked at for less than a dozen countries? And that proves something about the majority of cultures in the world?


I looked at way more than a dozen. I didn't bother mentioning most of them, especially any of the many that do start on Sunday, because they're irrelevant to my point, which is simply that the ISO's decision to choose Monday was perfectly reasonable, given that no possible choice could satisfy everyone.

The majority of cultures on this planet aren't even Christian. There's probably more cultures in China and India collectively than in the rest of the world combined. Certainly more than any other individual continent.

(Also, Wikipedia has China listed as a Sunday-start country on that map.)


Yes, but it also has India listed as a Monday country, when I'd conceded it to the Sunday side. My point remains. Monday was a perfectly reasonable choice for ISO to make.

Furthermore, you can't just assume the Vatican must be the same as Italy, any more than you can assume the US is the same as the UK. The Catholic Liturgical Week starts on Sunday, in keeping with the previous Jewish system.

Cool, thanks. I like random data, even if it is irrelevant to my point. :)
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

nyanonie
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:05 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby nyanonie » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:22 am UTC

In the european culture Sunday is the day to rest and to celebrate the death and resurection of God. Because of that, there are also special laws, which complicate working on these days. So they want to protect Sunday as a restday.

I think this could be the logic behind. Because Monday is the first workday. And sadly work dictate our live.. :x

User avatar
BytEfLUSh
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:15 am UTC
Location: Sombor, Serbia, Pizza
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby BytEfLUSh » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:45 am UTC

sonicspin wrote:AFAIK, the "first day" is sunday because God made the everythings that day, and saturday is rest day because god rested that day, but monday is the first day of the week because is the first day of the work week, and saturday and sunday are the breaks, make your work before you can rest
I am not religious, just pointing what I know

Not religious either, but I always thought that Sunday is a day of rest since that was the 7th day. Probably a cultural difference.
That's just my PoV, don't have anything to back it up except the fact that in my region most businesses run normally Mon-Fri, Saturday is often a workday (though, business hours are often shorter than Mon-Fri) and Sunday is generally a non-working day (except some stores and such).

Edit: Chirpin mustard fixed.
Last edited by BytEfLUSh on Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:19 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Image

-- Professor Dan, The Man from Earth (paraphrased)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Klear » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:53 am UTC

BytEfLUSh wrote:Not religious either, but I always thought that Sunday is a day of rest since that was the 7th day. Probably a cultural difference.


I thought so too, though it appears the real reason is to distance themselves from the Jews...

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2236
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Flumble » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:36 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:Those computers will be smart enough to accurately place the Big Bang as T=0

No matter how advanced the system, I don't believe there's a way to accurately (planck-time accuracy 'ey, not "1 part in a trillion" type of accuracy) measure T=0. Hell, it might not even be the same everywhere in the universe.


Arcorann wrote:No-one's mentioned RFC 2550 yet? Guaranteed to work arbitrarily far into the future, and it's compatible with our current system. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm too young for RFCs from before 2001; I could barely swim during the changing of the millenium.

It's fun to read though and it reminded me of one reason why ISO starts numbering months and days with 1: this way you can seperate the whole month from a day within the month (or a year from a month within a year) and still match the date pattern.

User avatar
NeatNit
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby NeatNit » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:57 am UTC

xtifr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Sunday is literally called "first day" in some languages, but obviously not English because in English it's literally called "Sunday". So, like, it's pretty obviously not a reference to English.

Yes? That's what I said. So, to repeat myself, what language is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday#Pos ... n_the_week

So, just from the Wikipedia page, here they are:
Hebrew (my native language, by the way)
Arabic
Persian (and related languages)
Greek
Portuguese
Vietnamese
Maltese
Armenian
Perhaps I exaggerated when I said 'countless languages' but you've gotta admit that's a lot.

Now, let's see how many languages Wikipedia lists as having Monday as the first day:
Polish
Hungarian (but not really)
Russian

That's it.

Now, as for ISO's decision... Clearly they were torn between Sunday and Monday, since they both have roughly the same ground being used (though much of Europe only adopted the ISO decision, and was previously using Sunday (according to Wikipedia). I can also see that there were even some languages where Monday is the first day... But let's be realistic here. They had to make one group of languages make no sense. Would you pick the smaller group or the larger group?

Also, just to be perfectly clear: Sunday was the first day first. I found this fascinating page which explains in detail how this whole thing happened.

Also, just to nitpick: Sunday is not the weekend for me, it's a regular workday. So that excuse won't convince me! :P

KTLin
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:11 am UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby KTLin » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:59 am UTC

I just felt like chipping in. The company I work for runs on a Saturday-Friday work week. So even though I now work in a position that is Monday-Friday, I still consider Saturday the first day of the week out of habit. So I 'start' my week with rest, then work. Anyone else have personal schedules they keep themselves on, either for individual reasons or employment standards?

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Nylonathatep » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:05 am UTC

In other news: Did anyone realized that 4/4, 6/6, 8/8, 10/10 and 12/12 in 2014 are all Fridays?

sonicspin
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:17 am UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby sonicspin » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:10 am UTC

Nylonathatep wrote:In other news: Did anyone realized that 4/4, 6/6, 8/8, 10/10 and 12/12 in 2014 are all Fridays?

modulo magic

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5395
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:31 am UTC

A year zero is stupid because we don't have a month zero or a day zero, because those numbers measure discrete intervals of time, not points in a continuum of time. The year between the moment I was born and my first birthday was the first year of my life, not the zeroth year of my life; likewise the first month and the first day. Clock time on the other hand marks points in a continuum of time; the first second of the day is not 12:00:00, it is the interval between 12:00:00 and 12:00:01; the first millisecond is the interval between 12:00:00 and 12:00:00.001. (Left-inclusive and right-exclusive, IIRC).

If we really wanted a mathematically convenient calendar we wouldn't just include a year zero, we would switch completely from counting discrete intervals to marking points on the continuum. The start of the epoch would be 0000-00-00T00:00:00, and the time exactly one day later would be 0000-00-01T00:00:00. The current date, using the same epoch as the AD calendar, would be 2013-02-09... that is to say, over 2013 years, 2 months, and 9 days past the start of the epoch, which would put us in the 10th day of the 3rd month of the 2014th year, as we are.

But good luck convincing anyone to start writing dates like that, and if you're not going to be able to fix the whole problem, at least keep the dates consistent within themselves as counting discrete intervals: so the date of the day the epoch begins is 0001-01-01, and the day before that was -0001-01-01, and there is no goddamn zeroth year because that would make no fucking sense.


Also: Sunday was the first day first, and if we're sticking with a religious-inspired seven-day week at all (seriously why seven, that's a horribly inconvenient number of days to divide anything by), we may as well stick with it the way it was made instead of randomly offsetting our week by one day.


Also also: anointed, christ, and messiah all literally mean the same thing in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew respectively: "oiled", referring to a ceremonial fragrant oil poured in the hair of newly-ascended rulers in ancient middle-eastern cultures. Calling someone "anointed", "christ", or "messiah" (or for that matter "Lord") no more acknowledges the legitimacy of their rule as calling someone "crowned King" does -- you're saying that they're someone with that title, not that they deserve that title. Using "AD" and "BC" are no more religious affirmations than if we talked about "years of the King" or "before the King" because we started counting from some king's reign and kept doing it for long enough we didn't want to switch later. It's a little nonspecific which king (or lord or anointed one) we're talking about, but that information can be easily inferred from context and really isn't important unless you do care about it for religious reasons.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Coyne » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:59 am UTC

Arcorann wrote:No-one's mentioned RFC 2550 yet? Guaranteed to work arbitrarily far into the future, and it's compatible with our current system. What could possibly go wrong?

I'm too young for RFCs from before 2001; I could barely swim during the changing of the millenium.

It's fun to read though and it reminded me of one reason why ISO starts numbering months and days with 1: this way you can seperate the whole month from a day within the month (or a year from a month within a year) and still match the date pattern.[/quote]

But like most of the RFC's, it also has a dead serious foundation. It would truly solve the date problem for all time. ...which raises the question of why we keep going through this every time the number of digits in a year changes, rather than fixing the problem for all time (or at least until the photons are pulled apart). Sigh.
In all fairness...

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:57 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:A year zero is stupid because we don't have a month zero or a day zero, because those numbers measure discrete intervals of time, not points in a continuum of time. The year between the moment I was born and my first birthday was the first year of my life, not the zeroth year of my life; likewise the first month and the first day. Clock time on the other hand marks points in a continuum of time; the first second of the day is not 12:00:00, it is the interval between 12:00:00 and 12:00:01; the first millisecond is the interval between 12:00:00 and 12:00:00.001. (Left-inclusive and right-exclusive, IIRC).


I think you mean between 00:00:00 and 00:00:01. But other than that I am nodding my head in furious agreement. People who celebrated "the millennium" (as though it was just a point in time) a year early clearly think 01/01/00, 1/1/00, 00-01-01 or however they write it is more significant than the first of the first of the (umpty-)first...

I like to think that there was a Time Zero rather than a Year Zero - midnight on 1 January 1 AD (even though it wasn't invented until much later, and years used to begin on 25 March) is 0.000000, midnight on 1 January 2 AD is 1.0000000, midnight on 1 January 1 BC is -1.0000000, midday on 2 July 1 AD is 0.500000 etc.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:15 am UTC

Just to throw in my two cents about the whole "when does the week start" question:

I say Sunday, but admittedly that's just because I'm used to it being Sunday. Also, every calender I've seen goes Sunday to Saturday. I don't know if I like the idea of a Monday to Sunday calender. But as for the use of the term "weekends", I think of it as like bookends. You have a bookend on either side of your books, and you have a weekend on either side of your week.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:41 am UTC

On the subject of "when do things begin?", the tax year in the United Kingdom runs from 6 April to 5 April, for completely non-arbitrary reasons.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby ucim » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:31 am UTC

CharlieP wrote:On the subject of "when do things begin?", the tax year in the United Kingdom runs from 6 April to 5 April, for completely non-arbitrary reasons.
Just curious - what are those reasons?

As to year zero and such, people are used to thinking of time as a point in time, but a date as a block of time. 12:00 is an instant, but 1967 is an entire year, and July 5 is an entire day. We are used to treating 1 as "the first number", but in many cases 0 is "the first number" (arrays start at zero in many computer languages). If we get used to treating 0 as "The first number", a lot of the angst would go away.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:32 am UTC

ucim wrote:
CharlieP wrote:On the subject of "when do things begin?", the tax year in the United Kingdom runs from 6 April to 5 April, for completely non-arbitrary reasons.
Just curious - what are those reasons?


Until we switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1752, the year began on Lady Day (25 March, a nominal nine months before the purported birth of Christ). So, 24 March 1751 was followed by 25 March 1752, and the tax year accordingly ran from 25 March to 24 March. When we finally agreed that leap years were A Good Idea and caught up with the rest of Europe, we jumped forwards 11 days (Wed 2 Sep 1752 was followed by Thu 14 Sep 1752). Rather than lose 11 days' tax revenue, the Treasury moved the end of the tax year from 24 March to 5 April, and it's been that ever since. :shock:

As to year zero and such, people are used to thinking of time as a point in time, but a date as a block of time. 12:00 is an instant, but 1967 is an entire year, and July 5 is an entire day. We are used to treating 1 as "the first number", but in many cases 0 is "the first number" (arrays start at zero in many computer languages). If we get used to treating 0 as "The first number", a lot of the angst would go away.


It would also help if people simply remembered the difference between cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers after leaving school. :)
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby orthogon » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:35 am UTC

ucim wrote:[...] 12:00 is an instant, but 1967 is an entire year, [...]

And quite a year it was, by all accounts. For some people, 1967 never ended...

Counting from zero is the best choice for computing, but it brings angst of its own. If you have 5 things, then the last one is number four. Those of us who use computers a lot do eventually get used to it, but I suspect we all get it wrong from time to time. Having some languages (e.g. Matlab) start indexing from 1 doesn't help either. I wouldn't be so confident that we could get the general population to use zero-based indexing, though I'm pleased to see innovations like Platform 0 at King's Cross station in London.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:43 am UTC

It always bothers me when I see time travellers in films with magic clocks that tell them that it's currently 16 August 7145 BC (for example). Yes, it's useful to know how many years you are in the past, but the lengths of months, how many we have etc. hasn't been stable for long enough for it to be sensible to apply it to the past.

Are there any websites that "stitch" together all known calendars into a side-by-side view, and if so, how far back can you go one day at a time before the data isn't reliable enough?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:47 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
ucim wrote:[...] 12:00 is an instant, but 1967 is an entire year, [...]

And quite a year it was, by all accounts. For some people, 1967 never ended...

Counting from zero is the best choice for computing, but it brings angst of its own. If you have 5 things, then the last one is number four. Those of us who use computers a lot do eventually get used to it, but I suspect we all get it wrong from time to time. Having some languages (e.g. Matlab) start indexing from 1 doesn't help either. I wouldn't be so confident that we could get the general population to use zero-based indexing, though I'm pleased to see innovations like Platform 0 at King's Cross station in London.


That wasn't so much of an innovation as a bodge - a new platform was added to the east of Platform 1, and they didn't renumber them all as lots of redevelopment work was underway/imminent. I think the intention was to do this when work finished (last year), but that doesn't seem to have happened (yet). When/if it does, the Platform 9 3/4 attraction will actually be in the "right place", sitting as it currently does between 8 and 9. :lol:
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:03 pm UTC

CharlieP wrote:Until we switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1752, the year began on Lady Day (25 March, a nominal nine months before the purported birth of Christ). So, 24 March 1751 was followed by 25 March 1752, and the tax year accordingly ran from 25 March to 24 March. When we finally agreed that leap years were A Good Idea and caught up with the rest of Europe, we jumped forwards 11 days (Wed 2 Sep 1752 was followed by Thu 14 Sep 1752). Rather than lose 11 days' tax revenue, the Treasury moved the end of the tax year from 24 March to 5 April, and it's been that ever since. :shock:


Actually, I should have checked my facts first. Both the Julian and Gregorian calendars had leap years, but their precision varied.

Julian (leap day every 4 years): 365.25 days per year

Gregorian (leap day every 4 years, excluding every 100 years other than every 400 years): 365.2425 days per year.

The tax year moved forwards 11 days to become 25 March 1752-4 April 1753, but when 1800 came along the Treasury, miffed at only getting 365 days' tax when they'd have had 366 under the old calendar, changed it again to 5 April 1799-5 April 1800. They weren't allowed to pull the same trick in 1900.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

jpvlsmv
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby jpvlsmv » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:11 pm UTC

CharlieP wrote:I like to think that there was a Time Zero rather than a Year Zero - midnight on 1 January 1 AD (even though it wasn't invented until much later, and years used to begin on 25 March) is 0.000000, midnight on 1 January 2 AD is 1.0000000, midnight on 1 January 1 BC is -1.0000000, midday on 2 July 1 AD is 0.500000 etc.

Ok, and I think we can all agree that year 4 CE should have been a leap year, but what was the leap year before that?

Year "0" was not a leap year (divisible by 400) so 365 days before 0001/03/01 would be your convention's -0001/02/28, but 4 years before that would be -0005/02/29.

I guess leap year calculations in BCE look for(year+1) % 4 (rather than year % 4 , or abs(year) % 4 but that means everybody's been calculating them wrong again.

--Joe

CharlieP
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:22 am UTC
Location: Nottingham, UK

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby CharlieP » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

jpvlsmv wrote:
CharlieP wrote:I like to think that there was a Time Zero rather than a Year Zero - midnight on 1 January 1 AD (even though it wasn't invented until much later, and years used to begin on 25 March) is 0.000000, midnight on 1 January 2 AD is 1.0000000, midnight on 1 January 1 BC is -1.0000000, midday on 2 July 1 AD is 0.500000 etc.

Ok, and I think we can all agree that year 4 CE should have been a leap year, but what was the leap year before that?

Year "0" was not a leap year (divisible by 400) so 365 days before 0001/03/01 would be your convention's -0001/02/28, but 4 years before that would be -0005/02/29.

I guess leap year calculations in BCE look for(year+1) % 4 (rather than year % 4 , or abs(year) % 4 but that means everybody's been calculating them wrong again.

--Joe


Whoa, I don't know where to start...

1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1), but had there been, it would have qualified as a leap year in the same way that 2000, 1600 etc. did. However, there were leap days in the years we now refer to as BC or BCE, although thanks to a fencepost error they started occurring every three years instead of four!

2. If you're suggesting ignoring this and simply backdating leap days, then keeping the current sequence would make it 28 Feb 1 BC.

3. My suggested convention isn't to use dates with negative years - I was simply suggesting converting date and time into a single time with 0.00000 defined as midnight on 0001-01-01. Leap days would therefore be at approximately -4,836, -0.836, 3.164, 7.164 ... 95.164 (skip) 103.164 ... 395.164, 399.164, 403.164 ... 2011.164 (the last one) etc.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:28 pm UTC

Charlie wrote:1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1), but had there been, it would have qualified as a leap year in the same way that 2000, 1600 etc. did. However, there were leap days in the years we now refer to as BC or BCE, although thanks to a fencepost error they started occurring every three years instead of four!
Surely you mean something like congruent to 3 mod 4 (-1=1BC, -5=5BC, etc.), rather than every 3 (1BC, 4BC, 7BC)? Julian leap years were every four just like today.

And I would assume people were capable of keeping teack of that, so even if the numbering of years changed a few times over the centuries, leap years probably continued to happen every 4. Like, even though nobody alive at the time thought of 4AD as the fourth year of anything special, I suspect it's a safe bet that the February that ended 2,010 years-and-a-bit before today had an extra day in it. (Yes, I know I could just look this up, but I'm lazy.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

stickler
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:40 pm UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby stickler » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:56 pm UTC

CharlieP wrote:1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1)

I used to remember it as BC=Before Christ and AD=After DChrist.
But the lack of year 0 means that it was "One year before Christ", and a year later it was "One year after Christ". :?
What happened to the missing year?

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Klear » Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:03 pm UTC

stickler wrote:
CharlieP wrote:1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1)

I used to remember it as BC=Before Christ and AD=After DChrist.
But the lack of year 0 means that it was "One year before Christ", and a year later it was "One year after Christ". :?
What happened to the missing year?


I'm guessing everybody was too drunk to remember.

User avatar
Soup
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:47 pm UTC
Location: The Comfy Chair

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Soup » Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:15 pm UTC

CharlieP wrote:[Y]ears used to begin on 25 March.


Interesting, and if true, treeishly RELATED to the beginning of Time and upcoming Timeversadip.
Waiting for it...

Go username5243, musthavebeenmykarma, Rakhal, thunk!!

popman
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:38 pm UTC

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby popman » Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:40 pm UTC

Has anyone considered just using as many digits in the year as needed when it comes to computers?
It kind of worked with UTF8.


Also, does anyone else want to start using three digit years (11/03/014), or is it just me?
www.crashie8.com

Mikeski
Posts: 1096
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Mar 11, 2014 7:59 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:I wouldn't be so confident that we could get the general population to use zero-based indexing, though I'm pleased to see innovations like Platform 0 at King's Cross station in London.

There are places where we implicitly index from zero. Some buildings have a "Ground floor, first floor, second floor, etc" elevator controller, making the ground floor the zeroth floor. Others count "ground, second, third, etc".

Then we throw it off by getting superstitious and skipping the 13th floor in both systems. (Or the 4th floor, or whatever numbers are spooky in your culture.)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby ucim » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:25 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:
orthogon wrote:I wouldn't be so confident that we could get the general population to use zero-based indexing, though I'm pleased to see innovations like Platform 0 at King's Cross station in London.

There are places where we implicitly index from zero. Some buildings have a "Ground floor, first floor, second floor, etc" elevator controller, making the ground floor the zeroth floor. Others count "ground, second, third, etc".

Then we throw it off by getting superstitious and skipping the 13th floor in both systems. (Or the 4th floor, or whatever numbers are spooky in your culture.)
France does it right though:
Image

(no redundakitty this time, sorry)
Spoiler:
elevator from IMG_6839.JPG
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9094
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:29 pm UTC

I miss the redundakitty like I miss floor #2.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26739
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:31 pm UTC

Is that a common thing in all of France, or just one building? Because the US isn't always consistent in numbering below-ground floors, and it wouldn't surprise me to occasionally find a building that simply used negative numbers. We're not always that consistent above ground, either, especially in buildings with a mezzanine level or with street-level entrances on multiple floors due to hills or whatever. And the building I currently work in has a 13th floor that is actually numbered as such, though admittedly that is quite rare.

I explain to students that typical numbering in the US treats the ground itself as 0, so the interval above that is the first floor (but would perhaps be better thought of as the first interfloor space). In the UK and other places, in contrast, the whole height of the entrance level is 0, so you have to go up once to get to the first floor.

Anyone who's played Minecraft in a way that requires paying attention to coordinates has probably run into similar confusions. The origin is at the corner of a block and coordinates are measured in floating-point numbers of "meters" from that point, so because you're usually in the middle of a block instead of on the edge you're always at (positive or negative) number-point-something and usually ignore the -point-something. Which can get confusing when you find yourself digging a mineshaft at "negative zero" or something like that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Klear » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:58 pm UTC

The building I live in used to have ground floor, above it was a mezzanine, and only after another flight of stairs you got to the first floor.

Our elevator was reconstructed recently though, and we've lost the extra floor as a result =/

Edit: The basement is and was labeled as -1 though. Here it's either that, or a single letter abbreviation, though the -1 is getting more popular since most elevators these days have digital displays.
Last edited by Klear on Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:01 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby ucim » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:I miss the redundakitty like I miss floor #2.
Yanno, I never noticed that! (Even when I was there!) It's from (iirc) the Islamic or Arabic museum in Paris. Here's another, from the hotel Auberge de la Commanderie in San Emillion (France):
Spoiler:
Image
So BlitzGirl, you get your second floor. And another floor, the minus floor. That was a sort of split-level; the upper part of the breakfast area.
gmvaliuk wrote:Is that a common thing in all of France, or just one building?
I didn't see it everywhere, but often enough to be notable.
Spoiler:
who sez.jpg
elevator from IMG_7002.JPG
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9094
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:53 pm UTC

The minus floor! Is everything backward there?
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:21 pm UTC

I'm not really sure if it's reasonable to change a calender because it makes some programmers jobs slightly easier.
gmalivuk wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Which doesn't really matter. "Queen Elizabeth II" is still "Queen" even if she has only a twentieth of the subjects that Jesus has.
Everyone agrees the Queen Elizabeth II is indeed a queen, but we don't all agree that Jesus was LORD. And even if I agree that Jesus is some people's LORD, I don't have to like a year numbering system based on his birth any more than I'd like one based on the reign of QEII.

I don't think changing two labels changes the calendar system so profoundly that it can no longer be considered to be based on the birth of Jesus. Although I understand we're moving into Theseus' ship territory here.

I'm not opposed to switching calendars (preferably to something more sensible), but I don't think this argument sticks to change just those two labels.
stickler wrote:
CharlieP wrote:1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1)

I used to remember it as BC=Before Christ and AD=After DChrist.
But the lack of year 0 means that it was "One year before Christ", and a year later it was "One year after Christ". :?
What happened to the missing year?

It's the first year after Christs birth and the first year before, where the birth of Christ is considered an instant. This is obviously not realistic as it probably took some time before little Jesus was born, which could be considered year 0, although I hope it didn't last a whole year.

On the other hand, we can always go with wishful thinking for Mary's sake that it actually was over in an instant, that would really be a miracle.
Mikeski wrote:
orthogon wrote:I wouldn't be so confident that we could get the general population to use zero-based indexing, though I'm pleased to see innovations like Platform 0 at King's Cross station in London.

There are places where we implicitly index from zero. Some buildings have a "Ground floor, first floor, second floor, etc" elevator controller, making the ground floor the zeroth floor. Others count "ground, second, third, etc".

Then we throw it off by getting superstitious and skipping the 13th floor in both systems. (Or the 4th floor, or whatever numbers are spooky in your culture.)

I think the floor difference is also a difference of what is counted. In Dutch we say "verdieping" or "etage", but both refer to elevated platforms (if a building has 2 etages this technically (though not always practically) means it has 2 elevations above ground level). This means they are counted as ground level until the xth elevated floor.

I'm just not sure about the situation in France.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Coyne » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:46 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
stickler wrote:
CharlieP wrote:1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1)

I used to remember it as BC=Before Christ and AD=After DChrist.
But the lack of year 0 means that it was "One year before Christ", and a year later it was "One year after Christ". :?
What happened to the missing year?


I'm guessing everybody was too drunk to remember.

I've read that the A.D. referred to the dominance of the Lord over sin, hence, 1 A.D. was the first year of his dominance. Retroactively, therefore, 1 B.C. was the last year before the year of--the first year before his dominance. Therefore no zero year, which sort of makes sense from that perspective.
In all fairness...

speising
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby speising » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:50 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:
Klear wrote:
stickler wrote:
CharlieP wrote:1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1)

I used to remember it as BC=Before Christ and AD=After DChrist.
But the lack of year 0 means that it was "One year before Christ", and a year later it was "One year after Christ". :?
What happened to the missing year?


I'm guessing everybody was too drunk to remember.

I've read that the A.D. referred to the dominance of the Lord over sin, hence, 1 A.D. was the first year of his dominance. Retroactively, therefore, 1 B.C. was the last year before the year of--the first year before his dominance. Therefore no zero year, which sort of makes sense from that perspective.


tell me, if 24.12.0001 was the day jesus celebrated his first birthday (nominally), what was the date a year earlier, when he was born?

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1100
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: 1340: "Unique Date"

Postby Coyne » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:11 am UTC

speising wrote:
Coyne wrote:
Klear wrote:
stickler wrote:
CharlieP wrote:1. There was no Year "0" (1 BC preceded AD 1)

I used to remember it as BC=Before Christ and AD=After DChrist.
But the lack of year 0 means that it was "One year before Christ", and a year later it was "One year after Christ". :?
What happened to the missing year?


I'm guessing everybody was too drunk to remember.

I've read that the A.D. referred to the dominance of the Lord over sin, hence, 1 A.D. was the first year of his dominance. Retroactively, therefore, 1 B.C. was the last year before the year of--the first year before his dominance. Therefore no zero year, which sort of makes sense from that perspective.


tell me, if 24.12.0001 was the day jesus celebrated his first birthday (nominally), what was the date a year earlier, when he was born?


Still 1. And besides, his birthday wasn't December 24 anyway. We don't really know what it was, but the Bible is quite clear that he was born in the spring. Not only that, but Bible scholars are pretty sure the church got the year wrong, too: his birth was more likely somewhere from 7 to 2 B.C.

Suppose that, on August 29 of this year, the country collapses and we form the great nation Enigmat, and furthermore that we keep the same months and year. Wouldn't we declare, "This is the first year of the great nation Enigmat, year 1." Wouldn't that year still begin January 1, even though our nation was formed August 29? Of course it would: January 1, 1 A.P. (after perfection), the year during which our great nation was perfected.

(In fact, this is the way we do it. The bicentennial celebration back in '76 started on January 1, but independence was declared July 4, 1776.)

I suppose we could say the preceding year was "2013 O.C." (old calendar), but it was also the first year before 1 A.P.. So wouldn't it be possible we would also call it 1 B.P?

It all depends on politics...and we know how those are, never ask scientists, mathematicians or programmers for something sensible...
In all fairness...


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndrewGPaul and 43 guests