**From:** Kent Karlsson (*kentk@cs.chalmers.se*)

**Date:** Mon Oct 11 2004 - 08:39:56 CST

**Previous message:**Chris Jacobs: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Maybe in reply to:**Cristian Secarã: "bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Next in thread:**Mike Ayers: "RE: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*> Not counting from zero leads to weird situations at times, such
*

*> as the missing year 0 in the BC/AD system ;-)
*

Well, since you couldn't resist, nor can I...

There are (really) two systems here, not one, and the relationship is:

year X AD = year (1-X) BC

(and thus: year X BC = year (1-X) AD)

Both of the AD and BC systems (really) have zero and negative year

numbers, but in each instance one prefers to use the system where

the number, for the year in question, has a strictly positive value.

So there is no inconsistency with the whole numbers... ;-)

/kent k

*> A./
*

**Next message:**Philipp Reichmuth: "Re: List of Japanese Shift_JIS characters which are not supported in Unicode"**Previous message:**Chris Jacobs: "Re: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Maybe in reply to:**Cristian Secarã: "bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Next in thread:**Mike Ayers: "RE: bit notation in ISO-8859-x is wrong"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]**Mail actions:**[ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Mon Oct 11 2004 - 08:43:01 CST
*