Tristuskhan 20:14 10-28-2010
I got to 1AD in my Getai campaign!
Oddly I got thru a year 0, I thought you were supposed to go straight from 1BC to 1AD, historically.
Could anyone confirm.
Cheers
Fluvius Camillus 20:20 10-28-2010
Originally Posted by Tristuskhan:
I got to 1AD in my Getai campaign!
Oddly I got thru a year 0, I thought you were supposed to go straight from 1BC to 1AD, historically.
Could anyone confirm.
Cheers
Hardcoded?
It probably would be a pain to teach this system that the logical order of counting does not apply here (-272 to +14).
~Fluvius
hard-coded behaviour
It seems that common mistake, believing year 0 is a real year, but in truth, year 0 is a hypothetical year
Cambyses 19:42 11-01-2010
hypothetical? how?
Doesn't exist at all XD
From 1 BC calendar goes to 1 AD ^^
Originally Posted by Arjos:
Doesn't exist at all XD
From 1 BC calendar goes to 1 AD ^^
OMG, jesus was never born!!!!!
Lysimachos 11:07 11-02-2010
Originally Posted by Blxz:
OMG, jesus was never born!!!!!
AD means Anno Domini, Year of the Lord. So, the fact aside that there probably was a miscalculation, the year 1 AD was supposed to be Jesus' birthyear. It makes sense there is no year 0, because the year before 1 AD was the year before christ, 1 BC.
The Romans didn't even have a number zero. Obviously, they understood the concept of nothing, but it was not part of their numerical system. Zero wouldn't be "invented" until the 10th century A.D. In any case, when counting you start at one, not zero.
The B.C./A.D. counting system was introduced in the dark ages, but it would still be some time before Arabic numerals (including the zero) would make their way to Europe. As Lysimachos wrote, the dark-age scholars didn't quite get the calculation right, though, as events mentioned in the New Testament occur at dates that do not make sense if Jesus was born in the year 1.
Absolutely, but I think the Indians used zero way before the 10th century, and after the Arabs got in contact with them they brought that concept to the Mediterranean...
And for Jesus, the historical figure, there are few years believed to be his birthyear...
Originally Posted by Arjos:
Absolutely, but I think the Indians used zero way before the 10th century, and after the Arabs got in contact with them they brought that concept to the Mediterranean...
The
Wikipedia article says that symbol 0 for zero was invented by the Chinese scholar, but gives him an Indian name (or more likely an Indianized version of his name). I was thinking of the Persian scholar who gave it the name that would eventually mutate to zero; he apparently didn't invent it and the text is vague on whether it was him who introduced it into the Arabic numeral system.
Interestingly there was a symbol for zero in the Classical world, and evidence suggests that the Olmec culture in middle America was using symbols for zero as early as the 4th century BC. A late Roman text uses a word, nulla, that continued into the dark ages, eventually in abbreviated form, N. So I guess the scholars who set up the A.D./B.C. system did have a symbol for zero, even if it wasn't properly integrated into the numeric system.
4th century BC that's impressive, the world has lost so much thanks to the "discovery" of America...
But whoever invented the BC/AD system did good by not using 0, a year 0 is meaningless...
The concept of zero certainly helps math, but has no sense...
Been meaning to reply, but I keep forgetting. This problem is easy to deal with. While we are very unlikely to have another formal EB1 release, I'll make the change in our internal build and perhaps XSamatan can make it available as a bug fix.
Originally Posted by Atilius:
... I'll make the change in our internal build and perhaps XSamatan can make it available as a bug fix.
Problem fixed and integrated into our internal build. Another issue delayed matters, but that has also been fixed. If we can manage it we'll make this available.
Originally Posted by Atilius:
Problem fixed and integrated into our internal build. Another issue delayed matters, but that has also been fixed. If we can manage it we'll make this available.
The issue wasn't surprising since a computer would go from one minus to zero to one plus, but was this issue EB-specific or one gone unnoticed by CA's programmers?
Ok guys, i don't wanna make the teacher, but the calendar "AD" start at the year of the DEATH of Jesus, not the day he's born! He's born in 32 BC (following that statement!) sono year "0" dosen't means he wasn't born, but rather that he never died!
johnhughthom 23:11 01-10-2011
Originally Posted by Duguntz:
Ok guys, i don't wanna make the teacher, but the calendar "AD" start at the year of the DEATH of Jesus, not the day he's born! He's born in 32 BC (following that statement!) sono year "0" dosen't means he wasn't born, but rather that he never died!
You do realise BC means "Before Christ"? So basically you are saying he was born thirty two years before he was born? Anno Domini (AD) means "Year of our Lord" which makes more sense as year of his birth than death. There is no universally accepted date for Jesus' birth, most theories range between seven and four BC.
Well the years, in history, started to be counted from his death. that's how the calendar is based. Now, no one can be sure as, as you said, no oficial teory is out.
Lysimachos 19:34 01-11-2011
Originally Posted by Duguntz:
Ok guys, i don't wanna make the teacher, but the calendar "AD" start at the year of the DEATH of Jesus, not the day he's born! He's born in 32 BC (following that statement!) sono year "0" dosen't means he wasn't born, but rather that he never died!
Would you care to share where you got that idea?
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO