Apples and Oranges
Peter Willard
Beable van Polasm <bea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:83v2go$m8h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This question came up because I was drawing a
> graph of disk i/o, kilobytes/second against
> time. At the lower left corner, I was wondering
> whether to put two zeroes, or whether one would
> do. Is "zero kilobytes per second" the same as
> "zero seconds"?
Since you want to put it in the lower left corner, try using
a -0 and two o's. Then, you're totally OK.
Beable van Polasm
circles:
"You can't compare apples and oranges". Obviously
this is false, because of course you can compare
apples and oranges. For example, oranges are
orange, and apples are green. Oranges are sort
of spherical, and apples are... ummmm... apple
shaped! Ok, there are some difficulties in
comparing apples and oranges. But anyway, here
is a question for people who claim that you
simply cannot compare apples to oranges:
"Is zero apples the same as zero oranges?"
This question came up because I was drawing a
graph of disk i/o, kilobytes/second against
time. At the lower left corner, I was wondering
whether to put two zeroes, or whether one would
do. Is "zero kilobytes per second" the same as
"zero seconds"?
cheers
beable van polasm
--
Beable van Polasm is incredibly wealthy, handsome,
talented and funny! He has a really cute, intelligent,
funny, rich girlfriend! Everybody loves Beable!
http://members.xoom.com/_______/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
dann...@here.com
<pe...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>Beable van Polasm <bea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:83v2go$m8h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> This question came up because I was drawing a
>> graph of disk i/o, kilobytes/second against
>> time. At the lower left corner, I was wondering
>> whether to put two zeroes, or whether one would
>> do. Is "zero kilobytes per second" the same as
>> "zero seconds"?
Makes me wonder: "What next?"
Once you establish the units, usually named in a central position on
the axes of a graph, the number comparison disappears; you have only
pure number. Put one zero. It's neater, and everyone *will*
understand what you mean, unless they're a bit flaky.
Dan.
Mike Lugo
> circles:
> "You can't compare apples and oranges". Obviously
> this is false, because of course you can compare
> apples and oranges. For example, oranges are
> orange, and apples are green. Oranges are sort
> of spherical, and apples are... ummmm... apple
> shaped! Ok, there are some difficulties in
> comparing apples and oranges. But anyway, here
> is a question for people who claim that you
> simply cannot compare apples to oranges:
> "Is zero apples the same as zero oranges?"
>
> graph of disk i/o, kilobytes/second against
> time. At the lower left corner, I was wondering
> whether to put two zeroes, or whether one would
> do. Is "zero kilobytes per second" the same as
> "zero seconds"?
Zero apples is definitely the same as zero oranges - it's not anything.
Remember, zero times anything is zero - consider "apples" as some quantity,
and "oranges" as another.
However, even though this seems intuitively obvious, the same logic leads to
0 kb/sec = 0 sec, which seems a bit strange. I guess it's because apples
and oranges are "similar" entities, but kb/sec and seconds are not. But if
you put the zero right in the corner where it apparently could belong to
either axis, then you're OK.
Mike
Sarah Cherlin
<ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>
>Beable van Polasm <bea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:83v2go$m8h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> This question came up because I was drawing a
>> graph of disk i/o, kilobytes/second against
>> time. At the lower left corner, I was wondering
>> whether to put two zeroes, or whether one would
>> do. Is "zero kilobytes per second" the same as
>> "zero seconds"?
>
>Zero apples is definitely the same as zero oranges - it's not anything.
>Remember, zero times anything is zero - consider "apples" as some quantity,
>and "oranges" as another.
Is not. 0 apples = 0 oranges would render impossible the state of
having only one kind of fruit.
Fruit ain't a quantity. Fruit is a FLAVOR.
>However, even though this seems intuitively obvious, the same logic leads to
>0 kb/sec = 0 sec, which seems a bit strange. I guess it's because apples
>and oranges are "similar" entities, but kb/sec and seconds are not. But if
>you put the zero right in the corner where it apparently could belong to
>either axis, then you're OK.
No way, dude! You have to start at 1! You can't start at zero because
zero means 'nothing' and you can't start at something that doesn't
exist! You have to start at 1 because that's the FIRST NUMBER. I hope
this helps!
--
Today's word is: 'filch'
** Less than 6 days, 22 hours 51 minutes and 9 seconds til the start
of the Second Millennium!
Ray
Merry Christmas
Ray
On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 06:08:01 GMT, Beable van Polasm
<bea...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I have heard the saying a lot in mathematical
>circles:
>"You can't compare apples and oranges". Obviously
>this is false, because of course you can compare
>apples and oranges. For example, oranges are
>orange, and apples are green. Oranges are sort
>of spherical, and apples are... ummmm... apple
>shaped! Ok, there are some difficulties in
>comparing apples and oranges. But anyway, here
>is a question for people who claim that you
>simply cannot compare apples to oranges:
>"Is zero apples the same as zero oranges?"
>
>This question came up because I was drawing a
>graph of disk i/o, kilobytes/second against
>time. At the lower left corner, I was wondering
>whether to put two zeroes, or whether one would
>do. Is "zero kilobytes per second" the same as
>"zero seconds"?
>
Mike Lugo
Sarah Cherlin <sche...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ja296s0b3q2m1i17m...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:55:58 -0500, "Mike Lugo"
> <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Zero apples is definitely the same as zero oranges - it's not anything.
> >Remember, zero times anything is zero - consider "apples" as some
quantity,
> >and "oranges" as another.
>
> Is not. 0 apples = 0 oranges would render impossible the state of
> having only one kind of fruit.
How?
> Fruit ain't a quantity. Fruit is a FLAVOR.
Maybe "quantity" wasn't the right word. "Unit" was the right word: apples,
or oranges, could be analogous to meters, joules, watts, and such entities.
> >However, even though this seems intuitively obvious, the same logic leads
to
> >0 kb/sec = 0 sec, which seems a bit strange. I guess it's because apples
> >and oranges are "similar" entities, but kb/sec and seconds are not. But
if
> >you put the zero right in the corner where it apparently could belong to
> >either axis, then you're OK.
>
> No way, dude! You have to start at 1! You can't start at zero because
> zero means 'nothing' and you can't start at something that doesn't
> exist! You have to start at 1 because that's the FIRST NUMBER. I hope
> this helps!
Can't start at zero? I'm sorry, but last time I checked, lots of people
were starting at zero. You yourself in your signature say we're approaching
the second millennium - so how are you counting?
Mike
Sarah Cherlin
<ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>
>Sarah Cherlin <sche...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:ja296s0b3q2m1i17m...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:55:58 -0500, "Mike Lugo"
>> <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Zero apples is definitely the same as zero oranges - it's not anything.
>> >Remember, zero times anything is zero - consider "apples" as some quantity,
>> >and "oranges" as another.
>>
>> Is not. 0 apples = 0 oranges would render impossible the state of
>> having only one kind of fruit.
>
>How?
How? I dunno. It's your rule. Maybe you should just go up to people
who have apples but no oranges and tell them that since they have zero
oranges that means they have zero apples so you have to take their
apples away to keep the universe from exploding. I expect they'll be
happy to oblige.
>> Fruit ain't a quantity. Fruit is a FLAVOR.
>
>Maybe "quantity" wasn't the right word. "Unit" was the right word: apples,
>or oranges, could be analogous to meters, joules, watts, and such entities.
>> >However, even though this seems intuitively obvious, the same logic leads to
>> >0 kb/sec = 0 sec, which seems a bit strange. I guess it's because apples
>> >and oranges are "similar" entities, but kb/sec and seconds are not. But if
>> >you put the zero right in the corner where it apparently could belong to
>> >either axis, then you're OK.
>>
>> No way, dude! You have to start at 1! You can't start at zero because
>> zero means 'nothing' and you can't start at something that doesn't
>> exist! You have to start at 1 because that's the FIRST NUMBER. I hope
>> this helps!
>
>Can't start at zero? I'm sorry, but last time I checked, lots of people
>were starting at zero.
Yeah, and so lots of people doing it somehow makes it right? If
everybody started counting with numbers that some person made up,
would you do that too?
>You yourself in your signature say we're approaching
>the second millennium - so how are you counting?
What, are you going to tell me you're one of those people who think
the second millennium doesn't begin til 2001? Because you're WRONG!
HA-HA!
--
Today's word is: 'piffle'
Less than 5 days, 7 hours, 22 minutes and 1 second til the start of
the Second Millennium!!!
Mike Lugo
> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 00:04:02 -0500, "Mike Lugo"
> <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sarah Cherlin <sche...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >news:ja296s0b3q2m1i17m...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 23:55:58 -0500, "Mike Lugo"
> >> <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Zero apples is definitely the same as zero oranges - it's not
anything.
> >> >Remember, zero times anything is zero - consider "apples" as some
quantity,
> >> >and "oranges" as another.
> >>
> >> Is not. 0 apples = 0 oranges would render impossible the state of
> >> having only one kind of fruit.
> >
> >How?
>
> How? I dunno. It's your rule. Maybe you should just go up to people
> who have apples but no oranges and tell them that since they have zero
> oranges that means they have zero apples so you have to take their
> apples away to keep the universe from exploding. I expect they'll be
> happy to oblige.
You said that (and I quote:) "0 apples = 0 oranges would render impossible
the state of
having only one kind of fruit." You're the one that said it, so you should
explain it. It doesn't make sense to me.
> >> >However, even though this seems intuitively obvious, the same logic
leads to
> >> >0 kb/sec = 0 sec, which seems a bit strange. I guess it's because
apples
> >> >and oranges are "similar" entities, but kb/sec and seconds are not.
But if
> >> >you put the zero right in the corner where it apparently could belong
to
> >> >either axis, then you're OK.
> >>
> >> No way, dude! You have to start at 1! You can't start at zero because
> >> zero means 'nothing' and you can't start at something that doesn't
> >> exist! You have to start at 1 because that's the FIRST NUMBER. I hope
> >> this helps!
> >
> >Can't start at zero? I'm sorry, but last time I checked, lots of people
> >were starting at zero.
>
> Yeah, and so lots of people doing it somehow makes it right? If
> everybody started counting with numbers that some person made up,
> would you do that too?
OK, that's true - if I had started counting at pi, or negative eight, or
something like that it would be a little strange. But without zero, what
are you going to call the number that you have when you don't have anything
at all?
> >You yourself in your signature say we're approaching
> >the second millennium - so how are you counting?
>
> What, are you going to tell me you're one of those people who think
> the second millennium doesn't begin til 2001? Because you're WRONG!
> HA-HA!
No, the THIRD millennium begins in five days. The SECOND millennium began
999 years and 360 or so days ago. What I meant was that if the approaching
millennium (2000-2999) is the second millennium, then the current millennium
(1000-1999) is the first millennium, and the millennium before that (0-999)
is... the zeroth millennium! So you espouse zero-based counting and
ridicule me for it at the same time.
Mike
Heather Anne Nicoll
> You said that (and I quote:) "0 apples = 0 oranges would render impossible
> the state of
> having only one kind of fruit." You're the one that said it, so you should
> explain it. It doesn't make sense to me.
Division by zero.
Error.
Please reboot.
--
Heather Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.dslonramp.net/~darkhawk/
"If we're all going somewhere, let's get there soon.
This song's got no title, just words and a tune." - Elton John
Mike Lugo
Heather Anne Nicoll <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1e3g3ls.1d7gwjp1wy3slrN%dark...@mindspring.com...
> Mike Lugo <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>
> > You said that (and I quote:) "0 apples = 0 oranges would render
impossible
> > the state of
> > having only one kind of fruit." You're the one that said it, so you
should
> > explain it. It doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Division by zero.
> Error.
>
> Please reboot.
Well, I see that dividing by zero gives "apples = oranges" which is
obviously false - but isn't that why you can't divide by zero?
Mike
spot the robot
If you have three apples and no oranges than clearly you have NO apples and NO
oranges, with three apples left over. The reason you can't divide by zero is
because the symbol for infinity was left out of the ASCII character set by
mistake.
Peter Willard
spot the robot <a@a.a> wrote in message
news:386b9556...@enews.newsguy.com...
OH IT WASN'T A MISTAKE!!!11 "They" are trying to KEEP infinity
away from "US" so that "THEY" can have infinity all to
"themSElves". HOW MANY AMERICANS CAN EVEN FIND INFINITY ON A MAP
THESE DAYS???////
Peter Willard
Mike Lugo <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote in message
news:s6dj5sj...@corp.supernews.com...
>
<snip>
> OK, that's true - if I had started counting at pi, or negative
eight, or
> something like that it would be a little strange. But without
zero, what
> are you going to call the number that you have when you don't
have anything
> at all?
>
blank space? Of course, you're just ignoring the EMPTY SET FLUX
that yields a +0 or a -0, indeterminately.
Mike Lugo
Peter Willard <pe...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:848cs...@news2.newsguy.com...
If I used a blank space, that would just be another symbol for zero.
Mike
Lee Rudolph
"Recall from \S6.6 that a _partition_ of a non-negative integer k
is an unordered sequence I = i_1,...,i_r of positive integers with
sum k. .... This composition operation is associative, commutative,
and has as identity element the vacuous partition of zero which we
denote by the empty symbol ."
--Milnor and Stasheff, _Characteristic Classes_
Lee Rudolph
Beable van Polasm
"Mike Lugo" <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>
> Heather Anne Nicoll <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:1e3g3ls.1d7gwjp1wy3slrN%dark...@mindspring.com...
> > Mike Lugo <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You said that (and I quote:) "0 apples = 0 oranges would render
> impossible
> > > the state of
> > > having only one kind of fruit." You're the one that said it, so
> > > you should explain it. It doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> > Division by zero.
> > Error.
> >
> > Please reboot.
>
> Well, I see that dividing by zero gives "apples = oranges" which is
> obviously false - but isn't that why you can't divide by zero?
If I may be so bold as to reword this:
Lugo's Law of Division: You can't divide by zero, because
otherwise apples would equal oranges.
ZAP! POW! Calculus was RUINED! Differential calculus must
be reorbited to stop apples from equalling oranges!
APPLES ARE THE MASTER RACE! KILL THE EVIL ORANGES! ALL
APPLES ARE CREATED EQUAL! ORANGES WERE CREATED TO SERVE
APPLES!
I think you might be a FRUITIST! Like Simon Clark!
Poot Rootbeer
>If I used a blank space, that would just be another symbol for zero.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I0think0you0mean:000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
"If0I0used0a0blank0space,0that0would0just0be0another0symbol0for0zero."0
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Hope0this0helps.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-Poot000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Mike Lugo
Beable van Polasm <bea...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:84941c$1n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <s6ep7od...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Mike Lugo" <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > Heather Anne Nicoll <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:1e3g3ls.1d7gwjp1wy3slrN%dark...@mindspring.com...
> > > Mike Lugo <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You said that (and I quote:) "0 apples = 0 oranges would render
> > impossible
> > > > the state of
> > > > having only one kind of fruit." You're the one that said it, so
> > > > you should explain it. It doesn't make sense to me.
> > >
> > > Division by zero.
> > > Error.
> > >
> > > Please reboot.
> >
> > Well, I see that dividing by zero gives "apples = oranges" which is
> > obviously false - but isn't that why you can't divide by zero?
>
> If I may be so bold as to reword this:
> Lugo's Law of Division: You can't divide by zero, because
> otherwise apples would equal oranges.
>
> ZAP! POW! Calculus was RUINED! Differential calculus must
> be reorbited to stop apples from equalling oranges!
>
> APPLES ARE THE MASTER RACE! KILL THE EVIL ORANGES! ALL
> APPLES ARE CREATED EQUAL! ORANGES WERE CREATED TO SERVE
> APPLES!
>
> I think you might be a FRUITIST! Like Simon Clark!
>
can't divide by zero because it leads to contradictions. And you don't
actually divide by zero in differential calculus, you just approach it.
Mike
Sarah Cherlin
<ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
>No, the THIRD millennium begins in five days. The SECOND millennium began
>999 years and 360 or so days ago. What I meant was that if the approaching
>millennium (2000-2999) is the second millennium, then the current millennium
>(1000-1999) is the first millennium, and the millennium before that (0-999)
>is... the zeroth millennium! So you espouse zero-based counting and
>ridicule me for it at the same time.
My work here is done.
--
Today's word is: 'thwart'
Less than 4 days, 1 hour, 37 minutes and 19 seconds til the start of
the Second Millennium!!
Chris Franks
What I meant was that if the approaching
> millennium (2000-2999) is the second millennium, then the current millennium
> (1000-1999) is the first millennium, and the millennium before that (0-999)
> is... the zeroth millennium! So you espouse zero-based counting and
> ridicule me for it at the same time.
If you were really experiencing zero-based counting, then the first day
of the new Millennium would be Zerouary the zeroeth, 2000.
But, since the first day is January first, not Zerouary zeroeth, the 3rd
millenium can't begin until 2001, especially because the first one would
be only 999 years long by your incorrect reasoning.
--
Let's learn to count:
The 1st decade: years 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and 10.
The 1st century: years 1 through 100 inclusive.
The 1st millenium: years 1 through 1000.
The 2nd decade: years 11 through 20.
The 2nd century: years 101 through 200.
The 2nd millennium: years 1001 through 2000.
The 20th century: years 1901 through 2000.
The 21st century: years 2001 through 2100.
The 3rd millennium: years 2001 through 3000.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/millennium.html
Chris Franks
> My GOD, you're right! A brief glance at any Mercator Projection map
> of the world makes it clear that SANTA CLAUS is the one who's been
> keeping INFINITY for HIMSELF! Him and the PENGUINS.
^^^^^^^^
YM " crows" HTH
Nick Bensema
Chris Franks <chris_...@agilent.com> wrote:
>--
>Let's learn to count:
>The 1st decade: years 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and 10.
>The 1st century: years 1 through 100 inclusive.
>The 1st millenium: years 1 through 1000.
>The 2nd decade: years 11 through 20.
>The 2nd century: years 101 through 200.
>The 2nd millennium: years 1001 through 2000.
>The 20th century: years 1901 through 2000.
>The 21st century: years 2001 through 2100.
>The 3rd millennium: years 2001 through 3000.
> http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/millennium.html
That .signature has 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 lines.
--
Nick Bensema <ni...@io.com> ICQ#2135445
~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Lugo
Chris Franks <chris_...@agilent.com> wrote in message
news:386905...@agilent.com...
> Mike Lugo wrote:
> What I meant was that if the approaching
> > millennium (2000-2999) is the second millennium, then the current
millennium
> > (1000-1999) is the first millennium, and the millennium before that
(0-999)
> > is... the zeroth millennium! So you espouse zero-based counting and
> > ridicule me for it at the same time.
>
> If you were really experiencing zero-based counting, then the first day
> of the new Millennium would be Zerouary the zeroeth, 2000.
> But, since the first day is January first, not Zerouary zeroeth, the 3rd
> millenium can't begin until 2001, especially because the first one would
> be only 999 years long by your incorrect reasoning.
True. So it's a mixture of one-based and zero-based counting.
karl malbrain
>
> spot the robot <a@a.a> wrote in message
> news:386b9556...@enews.newsguy.com...
> <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Heather Anne Nicoll <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1e3g3ls.1d7gwjp1wy3slrN%dark...@mindspring.com...
> > >> Mike Lugo <ml...@thelabelguy.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > You said that (and I quote:) "0 apples = 0 oranges would
> render
> > >impossible
> > >> > the state of
> > >> > having only one kind of fruit." You're the one that said
> it, so you
> > >should
> > >> > explain it. It doesn't make sense to me.
> > >>
> > >> Division by zero.
> > >> Error.
> > >>
> > >> Please reboot.
> > >
> > >Well, I see that dividing by zero gives "apples = oranges"
> which is
> > >obviously false - but isn't that why you can't divide by zero?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If you have three apples and no oranges than clearly you have
> NO apples and NO
> > oranges, with three apples left over. The reason you can't
> divide by zero is
> > because the symbol for infinity was left out of the ASCII
> character set by
> > mistake.
>
> OH IT WASN'T A MISTAKE!!!11 "They" are trying to KEEP infinity
> away from "US" so that "THEY" can have infinity all to
> "themSElves". HOW MANY AMERICANS CAN EVEN FIND INFINITY ON A MAP
> THESE DAYS???////
If you're willing to take the time to explain the PROJECTIONS, you'll find
that ANYONE can be taught where the `infinity' lies on a map, and further,
exactly who has been keeping it from whom ever since. Karl M
Jeremy E. Cook
Bravo! Bravo!
I dunno kids, I was initally taught that everything starts with ONE,
not ZERO. Then came computer programming, which DOES start counting in
Zero. Personally, I think that real life is the more correct......
David DeLaney
Well, gee, whitespace is bad, mmmkay, but making it into Orbitz is ridiculous.
Dave "Mike can't tell whether beable is being facetious! Hooray!" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Chris Franks
>
> I dunno kids, I was initally taught that everything starts with ONE,
> not ZERO. Then came computer programming, which DOES start counting in
> Zero. Personally, I think that real life is the more correct......
If you are counting years, you may have noticed that you are not 10
years old until AFTER you have lived 10 complete years after your
birth. I have never heard a parent say that their child is zero years
old; they might be 2 weeks old, or 5 months old, or 4-1/2 years old, but
never zero years. I have never seen any birth certificate which says
that someone was born on the zero th day of any month, nor have I seen
any month whose number is zero. I can only conclude that the calendar
does not have a day, month, or year zero, so the 20th century cannot end
until after 31 December, 2000.
Daniel Buettner
[ snip ]
> I can only conclude that the calendar
> does not have a day, month, or year zero, so the 20th century cannot end
> until after 31 December, 2000.
It does, however, have a zero hour, zero minute AND zero second!!!1!
Therefore, I can only conclude that our time system DOES in SOME
circumstances COUNT from ZERO!!!!1!! Otherwise, the day would start
at 1:01:01, and we KNOW that is a load of BULLOCKS!!1!
HTH,
--
~
~
~
"Daniel Buettner" line 4 of 4 --100%--
Peter Willard
> Jeremy E. Cook wrote:
> >
> > I dunno kids, I was initally taught that everything starts
with ONE,
> > not ZERO. Then came computer programming, which DOES start
counting in
> > Zero. Personally, I think that real life is the more
correct......
>
> If you are counting years, you may have noticed that you are
not 10
> years old until AFTER you have lived 10 complete years after
your
> birth.
Cultural Imperialist! Some places give the kid a year's credit
for time in utero.
> I have never heard a parent say that their child is zero years
> old; they might be 2 weeks old, or 5 months old, or 4-1/2 years
old, but
> never zero years.
But, if you wrote ages out in the format of
years/months/weeks/days, as monstrous as that would be, it would
read "0 Years" for the newborn. I betcha there is one hospital
or insurance company that does in fact have a form with an age in
years blank that must be filled out with a "0" if the age is less
than one...
Short, serious question: Is this millennium thing a confusion
between the ordinal and cardinal uses of numbers? I forget what
ordinal and cardinal actual mean, so I dunno.
Mike Lugo
Chris Franks <chris_...@agilent.com> wrote in message
news:386A3E...@agilent.com...
> Jeremy E. Cook wrote:
> >
> > I dunno kids, I was initally taught that everything starts with ONE,
> > not ZERO. Then came computer programming, which DOES start counting in
> > Zero. Personally, I think that real life is the more correct......
>
> If you are counting years, you may have noticed that you are not 10
> years old until AFTER you have lived 10 complete years after your
> old; they might be 2 weeks old, or 5 months old, or 4-1/2 years old, but
> that someone was born on the zero th day of any month, nor have I seen
> does not have a day, month, or year zero, so the 20th century cannot end
> until after 31 December, 2000.
Parents don't say their kids are "zero years old" because to say that would
make their kid sound worthless. Find a parent of a newborn and ask them to
give you their child's age in whole years. If the kid is less than one year
old, they won't know what to say, because they realize intellectually that
the child is zero but they don't want to say it.
Of course, in some cultures (China?) you're one year old when you are born.
Maybe this whole thing is cultural.
And I never actually tried asking the question above to a new parent... but
that's what I think would happen.
Mike
Mike Lugo
<bma...@iglou.com> wrote in message news:386a...@news.iglou.com...
>
>
> On 1999-12-28 chris_...@agilent.com said:
> >If you were really experiencing zero-based counting, then the first
> >day of the new Millennium would be Zerouary the zeroeth, 2000.
> >But, since the first day is January first, not Zerouary zeroeth,
> >the 3rd millenium can't begin until 2001, especially because the
> >first one would be only 999 years long by your incorrect reasoning.
>
> can have another one if we can just figure out when Zerouary Zeroeth is!
My best interpretation is that Zerouary Zeroeth, 2000 is equivalent to
November 30, 1999 (and so we missed it). Zerouary is the zeroth month, that
is, the month before January 2000, which would be December 1999. But
December Zeroth, 1999 would be the day before December first, that is,
November 30, 1999.
Mike
V-man
>not ZERO. Then came computer programming, which DOES start counting in
>Zero. Personally, I think that real life is the more correct......
In computer programming, you *address* using zero (this began in C I
beleive, maybe comes from comp hardware engineers). That is different then
counting. You could also count starting at zero. That's your choice.
When a baby is 12 months old, the baby is 1 year old. Agree?
When we reached year 1000, we are at millenium 1.
When we will reach year 2000, we will be at millenium 2. Agree?
The word here is truncation.
Jim Menard
No, the word there was "here".
--
Jim Menard ji...@io.com http://www.io.com/~jimm/ BeOS developer #1283
"Even anarchists have an agenda." -- Keith Beal
Chris Franks
>
> Short, serious question: Is this millennium thing a confusion
> between the ordinal and cardinal uses of numbers? I forget what
> ordinal and cardinal actual mean, so I dunno.
I don't think so. I think it is more of a confusion about counting
and odometers. At a car factory, the odometer is set to all zeroes
when the car comes off the production line. By the time it hits the
car carrier, it could have a mile or 2 on the "clock". As 99,999.9
rolls up out of sight and the zeroes roll in, the car really has gone
100,000 miles (within odometer error). But when humans or years start,
you don't get credit for year one until you have finished it. You are
IN the first year all year, but you are not a year old until it's
over. 2000 [pronounce it twenty-hundred to make the concept easier]
is the hundredth year of the 20th Century A.D., but the hundred years
aren't up until it is over.
After YOU have lived 100 years, Willard Scott [or his descendant] will
send you a nice card.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/millennium.html
Chris Franks
>
> When a baby is 12 months old, the baby is 1 year old. Agree?
Agree
>
> When we reached year 1000, we are at millenium 1.
Disagree. At the end of 1000, start of 1001, then we have finished
millennium 1.
In the first year, year 1, we started millennium 1.
> When we will reach year 2000, we will be at millenium 2. Agree?
Disagree. At the end of 2000, the start of 2001, we will have
finished millennium 2, and be starting millennium 3.
>
> The word here is truncation.
How does the word apply here?
m...@no.spam.please
> Peter Willard wrote:
> >
> > Short, serious question: Is this millennium thing a confusion
> > between the ordinal and cardinal uses of numbers? I forget what
> > ordinal and cardinal actual mean, so I dunno.
>
> I don't think so. I think it is more of a confusion about counting
> and odometers. At a car factory, the odometer is set to all zeroes
> when the car comes off the production line. By the time it hits the
> car carrier, it could have a mile or 2 on the "clock". As 99,999.9
> rolls up out of sight and the zeroes roll in, the car really has gone
> 100,000 miles (within odometer error). But when humans or years start,
> you don't get credit for year one until you have finished it.
This is the wrong way to look at it. Cars start out at zero, but
centuries don't in the Gregorian calendar. If people are talking about
some other calendar that's fine, but it has nothing to do with
celebrating Y2K according to the Gregorian calendar.
All calendars are cultural, but this is our culture and we shouldn't
get confused about that. We might start eating our babies or
something. Pointing out that Aztecs are in the bazillionth cancun of
their bong doesn't change how our calendar works.
You're right, don't let them kid you.
Peter Willard
<m...@no.spam.please> wrote in message
news:m3n1qt1...@no.spam.please...
>
> All calendars are cultural, but this is our culture and we
shouldn't
> get confused about that. We might start eating our babies or
> something. Pointing out that Aztecs are in the bazillionth
cancun of
> their bong doesn't change how our calendar works.
>
> You're right, don't let them kid you.
Just the sort of mentality we've come to expect from emacs users!
Sarge
<chris_...@agilent.com> wrote:
> Agree
> In the first year, year 1, we started millennium 1.
> How does the word apply here?
Then I am over 30,000 years old.
Sarge
><chris_...@agilent.com> wrote:
>
>> Agree
>> In the first year, year 1, we started millennium 1.
>> How does the word apply here?
Then I bleated...
Then I am over 30,000 years old.
But I forgot to mention that the word is CHNEEZE.
m...@no.spam.please
And why not? Emacs has its own builtin calendar, after all. If you
put forth the minimal effort of learning the key sequences necessary
it will tell you quite plainly "It's not the millenium, dammit!".
Since you're apparently one of the Great Unwashed, and can't be
expected to have learned the proper incantation, here's a macro that
will do this for you:
(fset 'INTMD
[?I ?t ?' ?s ? ?n ?o ?t ? ?t ?h ?e ? ?m ?i ?l ?l ?e ?n ?i ?u ?m ?, ? ?d ?a ?m ?m ?i ?t ?! return])
Sorry about the long line. Emacs rebuked me for that, so we're both
right here.
Or are we both wrong here? I keep getting mixed up about that.
m...@no.spam.please
> "Peter Willard" <pe...@drizzle.com> writes:
>
> > <m...@no.spam.please> wrote in message
> > news:m3n1qt1...@no.spam.please...
I forgot to say that I'll be on a trip for a while, so if you prove me
wrong and I don't respond, that's why. Not because you proved me
wrong. Really.
John Weidner
> away from "US" so that "THEY" can have infinity all to
> "themSElves". HOW MANY AMERICANS CAN EVEN FIND INFINITY ON A MAP
> THESE DAYS???////
>
I can find infinity on my map of Virginia, but I did have to draw it on the
map myself before I could find it.