What do you think about the year „0“?
What do you think about the year „0“?
Possible answers are (for example):
I have no idea what you are talking about. 
I am talking about the year “0” (“Zero”) and its meaning, especially its calendrical significance.
I guess it would depend on who’s calender you are using. I am not much into arbitrary assignments. I suspect that the concept of “year zero” would be tough for most people, educated or not, during that time in all parts of the world. So most calender attempts would begin with “year one”. Now that world domination through systematic technology has taken over, new calenders will include “year zero” to meet the dictated world standard (ISO). “The Emperor has spoken”.
The year 0 has significance for a very important reason, beyond the choices You have demarked. It is the year of Christ’s birth. Marry Christmas!
The year “0” is generally accepted everywhere, isn’t it?
The question as the topic of this thread refers also to the phenomenon that a year “zero” is or is not like the other years. Actually the year “zero” has zero days, zero months, zero weeks, zero days, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds; so the year “zero” is merley something like the number zero.
Yes, it is, at least it was planned, because today it is more likely to assume that Christ was born five or seven years before the year zero. But the intention was to mark Christ’s birth, yes.
Arminius, it depends what calculations are used. According to Joesphus’ You may be correct. However, another calculation by Dionysus the Little, the date can be perfectly aligned, fixing His birth @ December 25, 1BC, and his circumcision @ Jan 1, AD 1.
I referred to astronomers, who interpreted the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn as the “Star of Bethlehem”. This conjunction took place in the year 7 to 5 BC.
5 out of 2000 + years,- without having my calculator with me-is roughly a ± 2% divergence from 0. So the net effect, can easily be ascribed to the various ways it may be interpreted. It is surprising that such minimal error can be sustained through all the annals of passed time.
But nevertheless, the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn as the “Star of Bethlehem” is not a sure evidence.
You’re both wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29
If you’re talking about the calandar system most commonly used in the west (it sounds like you are, but correct me if I’m wrong), there is no year 0.
No, you are wrong.
I am not saying that the year “zero” exists, because I am saying that the year “zero” is not like the other years, and this means that the year is merely similar to the mathematical number zero, thus the year “zero” does not exist like the other years. That is what I am saying. Thus I am right.
Compare also the only one vote which is mine: “1) The year ‘0’ is no year like the other years.” |=>#
Compare also the quotation marks I always put when referring to the year “zero”. |=># |=># |=>#
But I am also saying that the year “zero” is accepted, namely as a mark (Christ’s birth) but not as a year like every other year. Thus the year “zero” does not exist as a year but as a mark (and otherwise it is like nothing or like the number zero).
Maybe you said that in a different post, and I don’t know whether it’s right or not because it doesn’t really seem particularly meaningful to me.
But what you said in the post was that year 0 was intended to mark Christ’s birth. Year 0 wasn’t intended for anything, because the calendar we’re talking about doesn’t have a year 0.
Yes, for example in this post:
Yes, and that is what I said. I said that the year “0” or “zero” (please note the quotation marks!) is not like the other years (they consist of 365 or 366 days), but it is a mark (Christ’s birth) which was put by the Christian (Catholic) Church. That is the reason for the distinction of ante Christum (before Christ) and post Christum (after Christ).
You are wrong. The distinction of ante Christum (before Christ) and post Christum (after Christ) was intended (see above). That does not require a year but a mark, namely “0”.
That might have been a feasible argument if Jesus were supposed to have been born on Jan 1 or Dec 31, so that you could somehow say he was born between 1 BC and 1 AD. But that’s never been thought of as his birth date.
In fact, the person who decided when year 1 AD was going to be decided it to start 1 week AFTER Jesus’ birth (or what he thought was the date of Jesus’ birth, rather). It was never meant to be 0.
This thread should also or especially be about the number zero and its usefulness. When the church introduced the calendar with the “year zero” it was meant as a mark, to show the difference, the holy distinction:
The “year zero” can’t really be a year just because of the definition of “zero” but it can be a mark, can make a distinction. That is what I am saying. And the church used it in exactly that way.
If one has years before Christ and years after Christ, then one can count backwards into the infinity and forwards into the infinity. The church could say that it was Jesus as the hub of the world who makes the difference, the holy distinction.
But my interest is the number zero - in both a natural sense and a cultural sense.
Zero can be interpreted as nothing / nothingness, as the beginning of the universe (“big bang”), although that beginning must be mathematically/logically false because of the definition of “zero”, as a cultural mark (i.e. the Occidental calendar), and of course as a mere number.
[size=200]
Merry Christmas![/size]
[size=200]Merry Christmas![/size]
No sweet Rumi. The 0 is not a year, it is the timeless moment before creation…it is the standstill before the ad continuum. Do you see that emptiness within that zero? It was perfect and then came the chaos being represented with the number 1. lol
Actually, there never was a year 0, right, but a putative interpretation creates this seeming dilemma.
The fact is, the calendar which differentiates AD from Bc eas created much later, after Christ’s birth, before that the Roman or the Common calendar did not exist. The Romans had a calendar which originated from the time of Rome’s founding. The zero was a putative interpretation, and it did become an existential enumeration of the passage of time, but only asa post script. So those who said Christ was born in year zero, were both, right and wrong.
Arc, the zero You are talking about is the one which nihilized time, because time becomes the funtion of the limites to the nearness to the original creation, hence, where time expands toward infinity as the limits are reached to the beginning. At .0000000000000000000000000000009999999999999999999999-to wihin the critical point, there is an instant where time annihilates, therefore nullifyig the concept of the creation, or the origin of the world.
Threfore, there is no beginning, and it seems, no end.