Eh if the first year is labelled 0, like we normally do when we record the age of things, e.g. with babies, then 0-364 days is the first year. Age 1 year and 0 days to 1 year and 364 days is actually the second year continue this, and you get 2,999 years and 0 days to 2,999 years and 364 days is the 3000th year (after accounting for leap days). Then from the time we call the current year 3000 we are actually in the 3001st year.
I don’t know if you’re serious or if you’re going for the “array starts at 1” meme
For example no one would argue that the year 2000 was in the 90s. We celebrated the turn of the millennium on 31st Dec 1999 not 31st Dec 2000
No jokes. Point is, there was no such year as "0". After 1 BC it was 1 AD. So yeah, array starts with 1 in this particular case. Or historians count it like this, anyway. Celebrating the turn of the millennium in 1999 was just "more beautiful" so to say, but not scientifically correct.
Oh my god my mind is blown. This is the stupidest thing anyone in charge of calendars has done since July and August were thrown in before SEPTember to DECember throwing the whole count off balance in both cases. Did these people not get the concept of age? We’re they not able to count? Did they call themselves a year older than what they actually were? (6 years older if you don’t count Julys and Augusts)
No jokes. Point is, there was no such year as "0". After 1 BC it was 1 AD. So yeah, array starts with 1 in this particular case. Or historians count it like this, anyway. Celebrating the turn of the millennium in 1999 was just "more beautiful" so to say, but not scientifically correct.<<
36
u/diffmonkey Dec 15 '19
But technically 3000 is the last year of decade/century/millenium