The millennium mix-up

THIS refers to Mr T. Bhattacharya’s letter, “new millennium”, The Tribune, December 10.

Irrespective of the concept and methodology by which the digit zero might have “a great value” in mathematics and astrology, as stated by him, it appears rather unintelligible and illogical, in a scheme of simple arithmetical numbering of calendar years, to number the first year of the first century as year “0”, as done by him. He goes on to enunciate that the first century started with the year “0” and ended with the year 99, the second century with the year 100 and ended with the year 199 and so on, and therefore the 20th century started with 1900 and will end on 31.12.1999.

The first year of any period on a calendar is obviously is its year number 1. Therefore, in the context of the current calendar, the first year of the first century was the year 0001 and its second year was 0002 and its 100th year 0100 and so on.

Thus, the span of the first century was from the year 0001 to 0100, and of the second century from 0101 to the year 0200. Likewise, the span of the current century would be from the year 1901 to the end of the year 2000. The 20th century will end on 31.12.2000, ushering in the 21st century and the new millennium on 1.1.2001.

Any talk of commencement of these two events from 1.1.2000 is, therefore, incorrect and is apparently due to premature enthusiasm and which some greeting card establishments are already exploiting

P. C. KHANNA
Chandigarh

A QUESTION: There is an unending controversy over the starting point of the 21st century. The confusion can become quite clear by an answer to a simple question: can the year or a century start with a “zero” figure? The answer is obviously “No”.

Thus, when the first year of the first century started on the first day, it must have been written as 01.1.01, and the same ended on 31.12.01, on the completion of 12 months. The century also must be taken to have ended on 31.12.100, after the completion of 100 years, and the next century to have been started on 01.01.101.

The starting year of a century also must have the Ist year figure such as 101 or 2001, and the century also cannot start with the ending “zero” figure such as 2000.

N.R. GOEL, IAS (retd.)
Karnal

COMPUTER’S LIMITATIONS: Surely, the great “rollover” Y2K bug has created some serious misgivings. This change from 1999 to 2000 has been taken to be synchronous with the onset of a new century and a millennium. Nothing can be more anachronistic than this reckoning. Can this assumption lead us to the dawn of a new century when the ongoing 20th century is still incomplete. How can we skip full one year? One simply wonders at this purely tendentious notion which is indirectly diluting the status of cardinal numbers.

Is it some tinkering on the part of computer buffs to thrust the concept of “zero year” on the world to suit their ends? Either way one cannot allow any concept of convenience to creep in and erode a purely historical tradition.

Computer has inherent limitations as far as the reference to a date is concerned. When the year 1999 changes into 2000 it will record 00 for the new year. Unfortunately, its code has reduced ordination of numbers to a two-digit formulation. Now, passing off this 00 as the starting year of a new century makes the whole gamut an exercise in arbitrary topsy - turviness. This is simply not acceptable.

It would seem too obvious and repetitive to remark that the Christian era started in AD 1 and no year is numbered zero. As a consequence, a century has to end with the year 100 and not 99, which makes the year 2000 as the culminating year of the 20th century, and not the starting year of the next century.

H.M. SAROJ
Chandigarh

BEGINNING OR THE END: Dictionary is always dependable. It says that the millennium means a thousand years. As such, 999 cannot be 1000. A century is of 100 instead of 99 years. Every child learns in school the the numeral table starts with one and ends at 100. It is never from zero to 99. How is it then that the first century started in the year “0” and ended in “0099”, as stated by Mr Bhattacharya.

He has erroneously contradicted the views of Mr B.L. Tanwar whose letter “Row over next century”, appeared in Editor’s Mail column on 2.12.1999. According to Mr Bhattacharya, this millennium will end on 31.12.1999 and the new millennium will start on 1.1.2000. If it is so, then we need not rely on dictionary which tells us that the millennium means a thousand years.

As a matter of fact, zero has a remarkable importance in our spiritual mythologies, holy and sacred scriptures as well as astrology. Only Sanskrit scholars can do full justice to end this controversy over the millennium.

BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA
Ambala City

ZERO IS NOTHING: Despite zero having a “great value” in mathematics and astrology, it is after all a mere “0” — nothing. For example, zero growth, zero effort or zero contribution mean no growth, no effort, no contribution. So how can there be a “0” year? Zero can only be the starting point. But only 12 completed months will make a year. As such, only year 1 to year 100 will make 100 years or a century, as does a bundle of notes.

BHUPINDER SINGH
Bathinda

INDER JIT
Phagwara

WRONG BELIEF: The belief that the new millennium will start in 2000 is due to the confusion created by the Y2 K problem. The 19th century had began in 1901 and will end on December 31, 2000 (a duration of 100 years). Therefore, the new century as also the new millennium will begin on 01.01.2001 and not 01.01.2000.

The astronomers are the best time-keepers. According to the US Navy Observatory and the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, the web network has revealed that the new millennium will begin on January 1, 2001. Mathematical reasoning and deductive logic also say that the 21st century will commence on 01.01.2001.

GOPAL BHARGAVA
Delhi