Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Archives :: News :: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant

New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Posted by Nathan on 1 January 2000, 01:00 GMT

Sources at the U.S. Naval Observatory, the official time keepers for the United States of America, were perplexed to see that there was no roll over to the 21st century or the third millennium at 00:00:00 GMT. Insiders speculate that the new millennium was not Y2K compliant. Official statements have not been issued yet, but our sources are confident they can have the problem solved within a year: in time to roll over the century and millennium with 2001.

Okay, you have all heard about Y2K and the millennium. But maybe some of you don't know why people are saying the new millennium doesn't start until 2001.

The year-numbering system the Julian and Gregorian calendars use was invented in A.D. 562 by a Roman monk named Dennis the Short. Now, he obviously didn't have too much going for him as he couldn't come up with a better nickname than "the Short." He decided that, since Luke 3:1 from the Bible stated "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,...the word of God came onto John the son of Zacharias [John the Baptist, who announced the coming of Jesus], and Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age." He knew when the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (an old Roman emperor) was, so he decided that that year was anno Domini 30. That's also why some people complain that the year A.D. 2000 should have been around A.D. 1997 or so.

There are now two reasons that there is no year A.D. 0. The first is logical: if Jesus was born, that is the first year of our Lord or A.D. 1. The year before that was, of course, 1 B.C. The other reason is quite simply common sense: Dennis the Short was a Roman monk, and the Romans had no numeral zero, neither much of a concept of zero at all. So our friend Dennis could not have started at A.D. 0 because for him it could never have existed.

The staff of ticalc.org wishes you a safe and happy new year! :)

Update (Nick): Here's my explanation for exactly why the millennium doesn't start until 2001.
Think back to kindergarden, when you were taught to count numbers. What number did you start with? 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. and so on. You started with 1. Therefore, it's logical to assume the new millennium starts on 2001 as well.
Another way of thinking of it: The Julian calendar was invented by the Romans. As a result, Roman numerals were used to name years for a very long time (they still are in many cases, movies and TV shows instantly come to mind). What's the Roman numeral for zero?


The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.

Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Jaguar Kenz Account Info
(Web Page)

Okay, I'm here to explain exactly why I think the millennium, of course, started January 1, 2000.

First of all, the Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582. According to the calendar, there was no year 0, nor 1, nor 2, ..., nor 1581. Why? Because the calendar was adopted in 1582.

Secondly, that first argument falls the fact that the Romans created the Gregorian calendar, and while the Romans had no symbol for zero, there must not have been a year zero.

Thirdly, the Julian calendar was named after Julius Caesar, and guess what? Many scholars agree that Julius Caesar lived before Christ, and thus, he could not have had a year 0 ad, because Christ wasn't born yet.

Okay, that pretty much strikes down the 'Romans had no zero' comment.

Now, imagine there was NO year zero. Then, in 1 ad he was zero years old. In 2 ad, he was 1 year old. In 3 ad, he was 2 years old. That is fairly queer, and I just used it to show an example of how stupid it would be.

Yet another comment: C and C++ programmers are taught to count from zero. And, many famous mathematicians counted from zero, leading to many jokes nowadays. One such person is Von Neumann (my apologies to him if I misspelled his name).

Support: The mathematical society of the US and Russia pretty much agree 2000 is the new millennium. Source: Kvant magazine and its English counterpart Quantum.

Non-support: The US Naval Observatory. But really? What do they know? They base their actions on the fact there wasn't a year 0. Guess what? There wasn't a year 1, or 2, or 3...or 1581: see above.

I can also bring up the 200 is prettier argument. Truly, you must agree, 2000 is rounder than 2001. To all you numeroligists, I truly hope you agree.

Somewhere above, someone mentioned that we shouldn't base things on what WE (small group) think, but what the majority of society (collective) thinks. This is EXTREMELY WRONG. I could easily bring up the Holocaust, which not only the majority thought was OK, it also competes with the fact that there is a God, because why would he kill so many people?

[And don't say that only Jews were killed. There were plenty of Christians and others. In one church slaughtering, 400 were killed, and guess what: 382 were Christian.]

Oh well, I'm getting off-topic, but that's my explanation. Try to argue, please do, and I'll try my best at your side.

     1 January 2000, 23:59 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Jaguar Kenz Account Info
(Web Page)

In my imagine there was no zero part, I refer to 'he.'

He, of course, is Christ. Sorry for the confusion.

     2 January 2000, 00:04 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Jaguar Kenz Account Info
(Web Page)

In short, what I would like to say is:
1) Neither the Julian calendar nor the Gregorian calendar could have accounted for the year zero, b/c:
Julian calendar was created before the birth of Christ
Gregorian calendar was first adopted in 1582

2) Whether 2000 or 2001 is the new millennium is a matter of OPINION. That is because it cannot be proven this way or that by 1).

     2 January 2000, 00:25 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Ig0r  Account Info

Well, I'd say the US Naval Observatory is pretty important, considering that their hydrogen and cessium clocks are the standard measure of time in the US (along with the cessium clocks in Colorado).

     2 January 2000, 01:10 GMT

Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Jaguar Kenz Account Info
(Web Page)

Well, important is important...but their [very accurate] clocks still cannot tell you if there was a year 0.

     2 January 2000, 02:19 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Schleeb Ferman  Account Info

Hmm, It would almost seem that by what you're stating, if there were no years between 0-1582, then wouldn't the new millenium not be till, oh, well, 2583? (I hope that's right, if not you should get what I'm saying). And this would be y1k, sorta, it would be the first millenium from when you say we had years.

Now I know that was rather silly, but I'm bored, and I find all the squabbling silly, does it really matter that much to all of you?

Well, hopefully you'll all atleast agree that it is a new year, in some form or another, so Happy New Year to you.

     2 January 2000, 02:52 GMT

ikecam  Account Info

LOOK! This not a matter of what is or is not logical or intilegent or consistant. This is a matter of simple FACT. The first year on the callendar WAS 1 AD. This has nothing to do with your opinion is concerning the matter. 1+2000=2001. Even if the rest of your comment made any sense at all, it wouldn't matter. The millenium starts next year.

     2 January 2000, 03:20 GMT

Jaguar Kenz Account Info
(Web Page)

I'm looking. But guess what, neither the Julian nor Gregorian calendars could even account for the years 2 bc to 2 ad...so, it is not a FACT that the first year on the calendar was 1 ad.

(Also, the first year on the calendar was NOT 1 ad, because we do refer to bc dates also...)

Julian calendar couldn't account for those years because it was made before Christ was born, and secondly the Gregorian calendar couldn't account for those years because it was made 1582 years later.

Also, my example: Imagine there was no year 0 and the calendar started with 1 ad...then Christ was 0 years old in 1 ad, 1 year old in 2 ad, 2 years old in 3 ad...now that's pretty screwed up. Agreed?

And please spell millennium correctly.

     2 January 2000, 18:04 GMT

Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Rgb9000  Account Info

Well...I dont care about all that. If we all get to have an excuse for a mellinium party twice, sure?
And did they have this same thing in year 999AD?
And a late
Happy many colored multicultural nondenominational religous holiday!
For those who celebrate christmas hanaka cwanza teht and ramadahn

     2 January 2000, 04:17 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Kaivan Khoshroo  Account Info
(Web Page)

Doesn't anyone die???

     2 January 2000, 04:22 GMT

Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Nathan Haines  Account Info
(Web Page)

In A.D. 1000 (C.E. if "anno Domini" offends anyone), no one cared--with the exception of very small fanatical groups).

The last century was celebrated in A.D. 1901, not 1900. There was no controversy a hundred years ago: common opinion said the century started in 1901.

That means that common opinion is contradictory. So both are correct? Your logic is flawed.

     2 January 2000, 07:29 GMT

Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
Nathan Haines  Account Info
(Web Page)

I'm very sorry, RGB. I'm watching a movie, and the last part of my comment about logic wasn't directed to you, but rather to some others higher up.

The movie is rather distracting, and I also need to get something to drink. Moderating comment boards is hard work!

     2 January 2000, 07:34 GMT

Re: Re: Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant
tom42 Account Info

You're wrong if you say that common opinion in 1900 said that the century started in 1901, it was the exact same case that we have today. Looking at the January 2000 issue of Scientific American, I found in the "50, 100 and 150 Years Ago" article, this quote from the January 1900 issue: "In the daily press we find a fierce epistolary battle raging between those who believe that the year 1899 marks the close of the 19th century and those who hold that not until 1901 shall we cross the threshold to the new era. It seems so difficult to dunerstand that 1800, 1900, 2000, designates not the beginning, but the end of a century. It is evident that there never was a year 0, that the century must begin with a 1. A hundred years ago the same wordy war was waged; a hundred years hence it will be renewed." It's somewhat disturbing how the arguments in this comments section and the ones here are exactly the same, what a difference a century makes. In any case though, I think that we should forsake the Gregorian calender entirely and create a metric year system, see my arguments in the Y2K survey comments.

     4 January 2000, 23:30 GMT

Re: New Millennium Not Y2K Compliant

I realize it's a few weeks after the fact, but here's my 4/25 bit(assuming what my mom told me so many years ago was true and 2 bits=a quarter).

There is no year zero. Whether you do it by physical reasoning or Roman/Arabic numbering systems, I don't care.

The year zero is a transition phase, it never had a formalized term, since people didn't know it was a transition until the AD was created later. It is a general acceptance, but not a reality. Year zero is the fraction of a second between BC and AD, for some unknown(to me) reason.

By simple numbers, we do start with a 1, and not a zero. However, there are fractions of 1. We can say 2000 is the begnning of the millenium, I believe, if we figure the rollover of numbers signifies a new system. The nineties started on Jan 1, 1990. The 2000's started Jan 1, 2000. If you want to say 2001 is the beginning of the millenium, go ahead. I won't stop you. However, I personally view the minutes after the y2k thing as the first few moments of the millenium, because I personally accept fractions of a whole. I mean, you can have a slice of pizza, and consider that as real, even though it isn't the whole pizza, can't you? (Bad analogy--sue me).

The beginning of the millenium can be considered as different for everyone. The question is do we accept fractions or not?

And as for everyone whining about the religions. Who cares. The reason the government isn't telling us about those UFOs I saw last night is because of whiny brats like you who will realize the error of religion, and go raping(msp?) and pilleaging in a fit of frustration and anger.

But y2k left my computers working(:-( ), so I didn't go out to do that, so give me a call and I'll join!

     14 January 2000, 18:15 GMT
1  2  3  4  5  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2011, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer