Michael, Bill, Karl Cc sirs:
Several years ago, I had some interesting idea’s exchange with Bill Ellis  the author of YEAR “0000” vs QUERO. And now Michael’s ******
>Bill Ellis: I think we both mean the same thing a YEAR ZERO of =365.242188669781 days in period of span passage (time). This can be imagined as (Year 1);
block of Year /+Q];
(Year +1) to be the understood >as the duration {Q=000011 TO 00001231} in continuation of YEAR 0001 thro current date from ‘the instant BEGINNING’ to go in opposite directions. I think this
is being >done in Julian Day count is myimpression!
>Thus, it is a block of ONE YEAR between Year 1 & +1 which in NOT COUNTED, causing confusion? (337th). >Brij Vij 20190411H 23:35 (decimal). ****** Insertion desired me to Explsin my view point of including YEAR “0000” in the count system for calendars, if deemed fit to implement, along with my INVENTED cycle of 2*(448yrs/5541 Moons) discussed during my communications with CALNDRL listserv. Karl has been kind to confirm this Year 2019 has a Divide SIX(6) Leap Week per my ideas discussed; this being 337th LWk if my counting has been ‘correct’! I thank you Karl for reconfirming! I display (above) my idea of “0000” Year I.e. 1 (0) +1; years as I conceived. So this is a period of YEAR 0000 (or Quero =365.24218 9669781 days) FROM EITHER WAY OF BCE/AD count of years ; in a similar way like the Night/Day change for date. To me, this appears a way to resolve ‘anomaly of Year ‘0000’. My Regards, Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF ✈️. Friday, 2019 April 12H15:44(decimal) Sent from my iPhone 
Dear Brij et al When I think of year 0, I have a problem. IMO, if you look at time on a number line, 0 cannot be an interval, merely an infantestimal point on the line dividing the positive values from the negative values. So if you are going to consider the first year as 0 starting from the zero point, then wouldn't there have to be a year 0 on the other side of the zero point to balance out the number line?? Walter Ziobro On Friday, April 12, 2019 Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote: Michael, Bill, Karl Cc sirs:
Several years ago, I had some interesting idea’s exchange with Bill Ellis  the author of YEAR “0000” vs QUERO. And now Michael’s ******
>Bill Ellis: I think we both mean the same thing a YEAR ZERO of =365.242188669781 days in period of span passage (time). This can be imagined as (Year 1);
block of Year /+Q];
(Year +1) to be the understood >as the duration {Q=000011 TO 00001231} in continuation of YEAR 0001 thro current date from ‘the instant BEGINNING’ to go in opposite directions. I think this
is being >done in Julian Day count is myimpression!
>Thus, it is a block of ONE YEAR between Year 1 & +1 which in NOT COUNTED, causing confusion? (337th). >Brij Vij 20190411H 23:35 (decimal). ****** Insertion desired me to Explsin my view point of including YEAR “0000” in the count system for calendars, if deemed fit to implement, along with my INVENTED cycle of 2*(448yrs/5541 Moons) discussed during my communications with CALNDRL listserv. Karl has been kind to confirm this Year 2019 has a Divide SIX(6) Leap Week per my ideas discussed; this being 337th LWk if my counting has been ‘correct’! I thank you Karl for reconfirming! I display (above) my idea of “0000” Year I.e. 1 (0) +1; years as I conceived. So this is a period of YEAR 0000 (or Quero =365.24218 9669781 days) FROM EITHER WAY OF BCE/AD count of years ; in a similar way like the Night/Day change for date. To me, this appears a way to resolve ‘anomaly of Year ‘0000’. My Regards, Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF ✈️. Friday, 2019 April 12H15:44(decimal) Sent from my iPhone 
Walter, sirs:
>So if you are going to consider the first >year as 0 starting from the zero point, then >wouldn't there have to be a year 0 on the >other side of the zero point to balance out >the number line??
IMO it has been like ‘Date change at mid night’; 23:59. Midnight 00:01 (i.e. like +/ 00h:00m). To me there is NOTHING LIKE 0/+0. Either side of ZERO, there has to be something! How do we ‘balance out the number line [ shunya, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 &10; and to continue count 11,12,13,...... etc]? You may agree, I am just an ordinary Audidact, a self studied person struggling in foreign domain for the Reform of my Calendar ideas? Regards, Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.),IAF ✈️
Friday, 2019 April 12H15:95 (decimal)
Sent from my iPhone
Image.jpeg (89K) Download Attachment 
Would a starting year of 0001 work with Brij's calendar? Paula On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 6:57 PM Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Paula, listserv sirs:
IMO, yes Why Not?
From year ‘0000’ through 0896, 1792, .....Y2688 in 3 cycles of 896years! 128years Cycle produces MY=(365+31/128)= 365.2421875 Days; and so is 7*128=896yrs giving Mean Year=7*(52+159/896)=365.242 1875 days =7*(52+1/6+39/2688) days.
I have demonstrated that my 896/2=
448yrs/5541 Moons with slight addition of 0.49287326 day CONSUMES ITSELF ONE MOON over a period of about One cycle of Precesdion,...
This is in about 26842 years, as also projected during my demonstration of results discussing at CALNDRL listserv!
I thank you for your interest in my projected results. Regards,
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), ✈️
Friday, 2019 April 12H16:69 (decimal)
Sent from my iPhone

Paula, listserv sirs:
> =7*(52+1/6+39/2688) days
There is a typo mistake, perhaps autocorrect. This should read:
Mean Year =7*(52+1/6+29/2688) days to give 365.2421875 days.
My appology, from where ever this mistake occurred.
Regards,
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ ((Retd.), IAF ✈️
Friday, 2019 April 12H17:36 (decimal)
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
[quote] When I think of year 0, I have a problem. IMO, if you look at time on a number line, 0 cannot be an interval, merely an infantestimal point on the line dividing the positive values from the negative values. So if you are going to consider the first year as 0 starting from the zero point, then wouldn't there have to be a year 0 on the other side of the zero point to balance out the number line?? Walter Ziobro [/quote] No problem about that. The calendar starts at the beginning of year 0 Year 0 continues for the next year, when year 1 starts. Year 1 (retroactive I assume) ends when year 0 starts. There wouldn't be any problem, and it would make more sense than going directly from 1 to 1.. Yes, it would be asymmetrical, in the sense that, from the calendar's beginning at the beginning of year 0, it would look different on the two sides of that point, because one side has a year 0 and the other doesn't. But 0 is just one of the numbers on the numberline. Michael Ossipoff 16 Sa 0100 UTC Walter Ziobro Image.jpeg (89K) Download Attachment 
In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
No. 0 is the same as 0. 0 is by definition neither a negative nor a positive number, so you only need one 0 of any sort. But calendars can't have them, because any new era is year one of that era.
Jamison 23 Germinal CCXXVII, Horse Chestnut Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote: [quote] When I think of year 0, I have a problem. IMO, if you look at time on a number line, 0 cannot be an interval, merely an infantestimal point on the line dividing the positive values from the negative values. So if you are going to consider the first year as 0 starting from the zero point, then wouldn't there have to be a year 0 on the other side of the zero point to balance out the number line?? Walter Ziobro [/quote] No problem about that. The calendar starts at the beginning of year 0 Year 0 continues for the next year, when year 1 starts. Year 1 (retroactive I assume) ends when year 0 starts. There wouldn't be any problem, and it would make more sense than going directly from 1 to 1.. Yes, it would be asymmetrical, in the sense that, from the calendar's beginning at the beginning of year 0, it would look different on the two sides of that point, because one side has a year 0 and the other doesn't. But 0 is just one of the numbers on the numberline. Michael Ossipoff 16 Sa 0100 UTC Walter Ziobro 
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Michael, Walter Cc sirs:
>So if you are going to consider the first year as 0 starting from the zero point, then >wouldn't there have to be a year 0 on the other side of the zero point to balance out >the number line??
In this context, 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 *3 represent the equivalent of Number Line; to mean there cannot be ANY THINGH Like “ 0 “; if at we consider such a situation it need be thought as “ /+ zero “ to Mean a block like ZERO appearing either side of [/0/+]
or
“zero 🥽 plus”.IMO, This BLOCK(🥽) need be thought =One Year of 365.242189669781 days, is ‘0’! Perhaps, this might clear confusion of
‘zero’ in Calendars. For any cycle, there is to be a *start & end* of number in years, thus conceptually “ /+ zero “ .
It also, need be felt as Full One Year, in the absence of ‘0’ count in calendars “1 +1”?
Regards,
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF ✈️
Friday, 2019 April 12 H22:35 (decimal)
Sent from my iPhone

Brij, Michael, Walter, and calendar people, Starting with a year 0 and making every year after that a positive number and making every year before a negative number would make a whole lot more sense than making the year before year 1 1. If you were to do graphing with x/y coordinates, there would just be one zero where the x & y axis intersect. If you move one space to the right for example on the x axis, you get 1. If you were to move a space backwards on the x axis instead you get 1 not 0. Paula On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 1:21 AM Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

In reply to this post by Jamison Painter
Dear Calendar People
A calendar does not need a start at all, just one date whose day is defined. It can have years counted as far back as one wishes. Which year comes before year 1, year 0. Then which year comes before year 0, year 1, etc. I don't see any good reason to depart from this and doing so would muck up the year arithmetic as the BC/AD system does. It does have symmetry but the symmetry is about a year (year 0), rather than an instant. Karl Saturday Beta April 2019 Original message 
In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Dear Paula st al But zero is a point, not an interval. A year with 365+ days is not a point If the interval between point 0 and point +1 is year 0, then what is the interval between point 0 and point 1? Walter Ziobro On Saturday, April 13, 2019 Paula Spart <[hidden email]> wrote: Brij, Michael, Walter, and calendar people, Starting with a year 0 and making every year after that a positive number and making every year before a negative number would make a whole lot more sense than making the year before year 1 1. If you were to do graphing with x/y coordinates, there would just be one zero where the x & y axis intersect. If you move one space to the right for example on the x axis, you get 1. If you were to move a space backwards on the x axis instead you get 1 not 0. Paula On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 1:21 AM Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Dear Karl et al It seems to me that there needs to be a consistency to the way we handle intervals of time If, for instance, we have a year 0, then shouldn't January be month 0, and the first day of the month be day 0, like the Mayans? Walter Ziobro On Saturday, April 13, 2019 K PALMEN <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Calendar People A calendar does not need a start at all, just one date whose day is defined. It can have years counted as far back as one wishes. Which year comes before year 1, year 0. Then which year comes before year 0, year 1, etc. I don't see any good reason to depart from this and doing so would muck up the year arithmetic as the BC/AD system does. It does have symmetry but the symmetry is about a year (year 0), rather than an instant. Karl Saturday Beta April 2019 Original message 
In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
PAULA:
But if you start with Year 0, you are starting with nothing. That is a logical impossibility. If we call call a baby "6 months old, we mean he is living through his first year. Well, now that I think about it, I guess you might be able to call a society six months old. Maybe you have a point, actually. Jamison Paula Spart <[hidden email]> wrote: Brij, Michael, Walter, and calendar people, Starting with a year 0 and making every year after that a positive number and making every year before a negative number would make a whole lot more sense than making the year before year 1 1. If you were to do graphing with x/y coordinates, there would just be one zero where the x & y axis intersect. If you move one space to the right for example on the x axis, you get 1. If you were to move a space backwards on the x axis instead you get 1 not 0. Paula On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 1:21 AM Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Dear Karl et al Thinking about this point some more, it occurrs to me that on some tables of lunar epacts, the supposed new moon is indicated with an asterisk (*), and the first day after that is day 1 of the lunar month Perhaps in similar fashiln, December can be considered the * month, as it contains the solstice ( or Nativity, if you prefer), and January is the first whole month after that point Walter Ziobro On Saturday, April 13, 2019 Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Karl et al It seems to me that there needs to be a consistency to the way we handle intervals of time If, for instance, we have a year 0, then shouldn't January be month 0, and the first day of the month be day 0, like the Mayans? Walter Ziobro On Saturday, April 13, 2019 K PALMEN <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Calendar People A calendar does not need a start at all, just one date whose day is defined. It can have years counted as far back as one wishes. Which year comes before year 1, year 0. Then which year comes before year 0, year 1, etc. I don't see any good reason to depart from this and doing so would muck up the year arithmetic as the BC/AD system does. It does have symmetry but the symmetry is about a year (year 0), rather than an instant. Karl Saturday Beta April 2019 Original message 
In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
I can kind of see how a baby is living his first year, and is not called one. So a society, say, the French, should not have called their first year one (1), (I). But they did, because that is what they knew. Those who began using BC/AD did not understand the concept of zero the way we do. For example, one can count as high as one likes in Roman numerals, but there is no 0 in the system. There is a way to write 1,000,000,000, (M with two dashed lines over the top), but no way to write zero. So Denis the Short used one for the time after Christ's birth, and minus one for the time before it. And the French, using Roman numerals, used I, of one. The Cambodian Khmer Rouge used "Year Zero", as they began their murderous regime.
It should be noted that the Romans used our 753 BC as year I, because Rome was founded that year, and they counted time in part From the Founding of the City (Ad Urbe Condite, AUC). They also counted time using the reigns of Emperors. There was also a system of Indictions, or 15 years, that was used for taxation and other important events in the Roman Empire. Some places used Indictions up to the 16th Century. But I believe that only one society, that of the aforementioned Khmer Rouge, has ever used the Year Zero concept. Regards, Jamison. 24 Germinal CCXXVII, Arugula K PALMEN <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear Calendar People A calendar does not need a start at all, just one date whose day is defined. It can have years counted as far back as one wishes. Which year comes before year 1, year 0. Then which year comes before year 0, year 1, etc. I don't see any good reason to depart from this and doing so would muck up the year arithmetic as the BC/AD system does. It does have symmetry but the symmetry is about a year (year 0), rather than an instant. Karl Saturday Beta April 2019 Original message 
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Walter, What you're saying makes perfect sense. It's like what I said about the x coordinates on the graph. You go forward you get "1" backwards you get "1" We need to call the previous years something. If 2020 is Year 0000 then 2019 is 1 & 2018 is 2, just like 2021 is 1 & 2022 is 2. Paula On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 6:32 AM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Dear Walter and Calendar People
I disagree. Zero is number not an interval or a point. But like other numbers, it can label a point or an interval (of time). Why treat 0 different from other numbers? Karl Sunday Beta April 2019
Original message 
In reply to this post by Jamison Painter
Dear Calendar People
PAULA SAID: "Starting with a year 0 and making every year after that a positive number and making every year before a negative number would make a whole lot more sense than making the year before year 1 1." I REPLY: Why start at all? The labelling of years with negative numbers, zero and positive numbers works without the idea of a start. Karl Sunday Beta April 2019 Original message 
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Dear Walter and Calendar People
I disagree, because year 0 is preceded by year 1, but the same does not apply to January numbered 0. No consistency is gained from numbering the months so. I think the idea of a start year causes this confusion. Why have a start year? Karl Original message 
Free forum by Nabble  Edit this page 