Why is there no year zero between one BC and one AD?

First, you are using old terms. The modern terms are B.C.E and A.C. Which means, before common era and after common era.

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

Because Dionysius Exeguus did not include a year 0 when he devised his tables. It is not math.

Sand Dunes wrote:

First, you are using old terms. The modern terms are B.C.E and A.C. Which means, before common era and after common era.

You literally didn’t answer my question.

lol at ignorance wrote:

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

Because Dionysius Exeguus did not include a year 0 when he devised his tables. It is not math.

My question was why this choice was made. Like what was his underlying logic?

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

First, you are using old terms. The modern terms are B.C.E and A.C. Which means, before common era and after common era.

You literally didn’t answer my question.

You literally didn't use the correct terms.

Probably pretty difficult to understand, but the use of zero as a number was not widespread in Europe at this time. It was, let's say, philosophically difficult as a concept.

we know that Dionysius was familiar with and used the symbol for zero and we do not have a definitive explanation for why he did not use it here, but it is likely that it was not a considered decision not to, but simply was not a common usage.

This will tell you what you want to know op https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_Exiguus#Anno_Domini, but you're going to have to use your brain to figure out why there is no year 0 based on the information in the article. If you're at least 12 and attending school in the US, you should have the tools to figure it out.

Wasn't that "Jahr Null" in Man in the High Castle?

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

we call that time period "Easter"

Sand Dunes wrote:

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

You literally didn’t answer my question.

You literally didn't use the correct terms.

It's literally possible for two sets of terminology to both be correct.

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

Fool, when you start counting do you start with 0?

counting along wrote:

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

Fool, when you start counting do you start with 0?

In computer science you do

Racket wrote:

counting along wrote:

Fool, when you start counting do you start with 0?

In computer science you do

What does computer science have to do with counting years?

In computer science you have time. So, hour #1 would be year 1, month 1, day 1, hour 1. Not, Year 0, month 0, day 0, hour 1.

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

Your error is assigning -1 to the last year of BC.

If you can comprehend the existence of Zero between Pure Hate and Pure Love, then you will become an even greater runner than me.

https://imgur.com/a/2EeykUM

Mouth Breather wrote:

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

Your error is assigning -1 to the last year of BC.

The OP obviously wants to go back in time to 2017. He must have screwed up 2018 something awful.

-1, 0, 1 wrote:

I’m no mathmortician, but I’m pretty sure that 0 falls between -1 and 1.

You are correct...0 falls in between -1 and 1...in general counting.

Regarding years, however, there's a difference. Try a search on the web...there's some good articles about the "logic" you want to understand.

-- for example.

Extract:

"...neither the number zero, nor even the concept of nothingness, existed in 6th century Europe when a monk named Dionysius Exiguus came up with anno domini, the year numbering system (calendar era) we use today."

That article also indicated there is no Roman numeral for zero; Dionysius used Roman numerals when numbering calendar years.

-1 is the year before Christ was born. 1 is the year He was born (AD = Anno Domini = Latin for " year of the Lord").

Put it in running terms. If you have a 5 mile loop from your house that you normally run clockwise, the 1st mile is not mile 0. If you run it backward, you can think of that mile as mile 5 or mile -1 as in the calendar comparison. Either mile that you cover from your house has a numerical value of 1 or -1, not 0. The 1st 400 of a 1600 is just that, the 1st, not the 0 400.

both are acceptable wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

You literally didn't use the correct terms.

It's literally possible for two sets of terminology to both be correct.

How do you figure?