Exception questions
in [Java Help]
|
From: Lew on 26 Mar 2010 15:21 Rhino wrote: >>> As I mentioned in the original post, the year 0 never happened - the >>> calendar went straight from the year 1 BC to 1 AD. Therefore, if someone >>> put "0" (or "00" or "000" or "0000") in a form that asked for a year, >>> they'd be inputting an invalid year. > Lew wrote: >> The year 1 never happened either. Neither did the year 100. Are you >> going to reject those years, too? > Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Of course it did. > I agree with you. In fact, I was making the very same point you are. I only point out that if year 0 didn't happen, then year 1 didn't either. You can't take one and not the other. I was using "never happened" in the same inaccurate and mistaken way that Rhino did, for a /reductio ad absurdum/ argument. Does nobody apply logic and rhetorical analysis any more? Arne Vajhøj wrote: > If you want to know what happened then look at: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)> Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Just because the naming were invented later does > not mean that something did not exist. > Exactly so. -- Lew
From: Rhino on 26 Mar 2010 16:30 > > Please reconsider. > > > "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you > summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just > enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure > readers understand when they start to read your response. Since > NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings > from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a > message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. > But do not include the entire original! " > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html > I'm sold. In fact, I've been trimming my posts for years. I've only reduced trimming recently because of the remarks I saw from someone who said trimming made it harder for Google Groups users to follow the discussion. Apparently, I misunderstood those remarks and it is not a problem after all. -- Rhino
From: Arne Vajhøj on 26 Mar 2010 20:05 On 26-03-2010 15:21, Lew wrote: > Rhino wrote: >>>> As I mentioned in the original post, the year 0 never happened - the >>>> calendar went straight from the year 1 BC to 1 AD. Therefore, if someone >>>> put "0" (or "00" or "000" or "0000") in a form that asked for a year, >>>> they'd be inputting an invalid year. > > Lew wrote: >>> The year 1 never happened either. Neither did the year 100. Are you >>> going to reject those years, too? > > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> Of course it did. > > I agree with you. In fact, I was making the very same point you are. I missed that part. > I only point out that if year 0 didn't happen, then year 1 didn't > either. You can't take one and not the other. I was using "never > happened" in the same inaccurate and mistaken way that Rhino did, for > a /reductio ad absurdum/ argument. > > Does nobody apply logic and rhetorical analysis any more? It is not a matter of rhetoric. It is a matter of facts. When applying our calendar system back in the past, then it goes ...., 2, 1, -1, -2, ... (no 0). So year 1 exists but year 0 does not. I assume it is related to the lack of zero in roman numbers. But no matter why it is such, then it is how it is. > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> If you want to know what happened then look at: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100 >> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)> Please read the text. <quote> "Year zero" does not exist in the widely used Gregorian calendar or in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. </quote> We use GregorianCalender, so: <quote> However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars. </quote> is of little relevance. Arne
From: Lew on 26 Mar 2010 21:39 Arne Vajhøj wrote: > Please read the text. > > <quote> > "Year zero" does not exist in the widely used Gregorian calendar or in > its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the year 1 BC > is followed by AD 1. > </quote> > > We use GregorianCalender, so: > > <quote> > However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it > coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it > coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and > Hindu calendars. > </quote> > > is of little relevance. It's entirely relevant because the ISO 8601 version, the one that does have a year 0, is the version implemented by java.util.Calendar. I notice on the one hand you argue for projecting the system back to prior to its invention, when you argue in favor of a year "one", but for not projecting the system back when it justifies having a year "zero". That is inconsistent. It depends on which version of the Gregorian calendar you use. Since this is a Java discussion, I'm using the one that Java uses. -- Lew
From: Mike Schilling on 26 Mar 2010 21:45 Lew wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> Please read the text. >> >> <quote> >> "Year zero" does not exist in the widely used Gregorian calendar or >> in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the >> year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. >> </quote> >> >> We use GregorianCalender, so: >> >> <quote> >> However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where >> it coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where >> it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all >> Buddhist and Hindu calendars. >> </quote> >> >> is of little relevance. > > It's entirely relevant because the ISO 8601 version, the one that > does have a year 0, is the version implemented by java.util.Calendar. From Wikipedia >>> The common BC/BCE notation, for dates that are before year 0001, is not >>> used. For instance, the year 3 BC can be denoted by ?0002.[6] (There is >>> a difference of 1 because the BC system has no year zero.) So, yes, ISO 8601 has a year encoded by the digits 0000, but that year is 1 BC.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: [ANN] RefleX 0.4.0 released Next: web service behind firewall without DNS |