TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-05 > 1052804829


From: Richard Brogger <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Problem with early dates
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 00:47:09 -0500
References: <1c3.963736d.2bee9243@aol.com><001d01c3172b$5728f380$6401a8c0@charliexii><1052755455.8812.5.camel@localhost.localdomain><3EC01F36.B8873564@infoave.net><1052785751.8813.12.camel@localhost.localdomain>


Gordon Banks wrote:
>
> I wonder what it would take to make the BC dates regular. Why not just
> accept a minus sign in front of the date? Whatever arithmetic functions
> are used to do the calculations in TMG should still work with negative
> integers. You then are left only with the problem that there is no year
> 0.

Hi Gordon,

Negative integers would be better than what we have. I can't imagine
it would take much to deal with the fact that there is no year zero.
(+5)-(-5) = 10 but since a year is missing, subtract one and give 9 as
the answer.

One thing seems to be constant regardless of what calendar is used. A
day is one revolution of the planet. Different cultures use different
events to mark the start of a day but it is still one revolution. What
constitutes a week, month or year has varied with time and place. Even
narrowing the discussion to when the Gregorian calendar was adopted is
pretty wild. Since the only thing that seems to be a constant is the
day, it seems natural to number the days. Time can be easily included
by using a decimal fraction and it is much easier and less prone to
errors to subtact one number, like 2,452,211.144, from another like
2,452,379.288. Another advantage to Julian days is that they are not
influenced by time zones.

Richard Brogger

This thread: