A quickfire question from the ministry of misinformation.

[benryves]

I find it odd that people don't know the correct answer to this question - let's see how it goes here.

[leofox]

2001 right? That's because there's no year 'zero'.

[benryves]

Unfortunately, I might have given the game away by indicating that "most people get it wrong".
Let's just say that it looks like asking community of mathematically minded people was a bad move as they're more likely to be right.

[the_unknown_one]

I was right! *glee*

[CoBB]

Well, Ben you forgot the idea that Jesus was actually born between 8 and 4 BC, hence the 'proper' 21st century started between 1993 and 1997. You could have listed one of these possibilities to make the poll more exciting.

[koolmansam375]

i knew it was 2001 because i read it somewhere in a school magazine i think

yea i guess thats cheating tho

[benryves]

Well, Ben you forgot the idea that Jesus was actually born between 8 and 4 BC, hence the 'proper' 21st century started between 1993 and 1997. You could have listed one of these possibilities to make the poll more exciting.

I didn't mention which calendar system we were using either.
Anyway - centuries are not based around Jesus - they're based around year numbers.

[CoBB]

Hence the quotation marks. See, all my bases are covered.

[kv83]

d'oh... I was wrong

[coelurus]

I like starting things at 0, but when it comes to "regular" matters, it's always 1. The things with centuries in English can be misleading at first, here in Sweden we talk about "the years during 1900" or something like that.

[Kozak]

I don't agree with 2001 in 2000 the 21st century started just as the 1st century started in 0.

[the_unknown_one]

Thats wrong, there wasnt a year 0, so it cant be 2000!

[kv83]

Thats wrong, there wasnt a year 0, so it cant be 2000!

Of course... 'lol' ... year 0 was the year in which Jesus was (supposed to be) born. one year later it was 1 yr a. chr. and so on, and so on

First think, than talk

[benryves]

Thats wrong, there wasnt a year 0, so it cant be 2000!

Of course... 'lol' ... year 0 was the year in which Jesus was (supposed to be) born. one year later it was 1 yr a. chr. and so on, and so on

First think, than talk

Er... sadly not.
1BC was the year before Jesus was born.
1AD was the year following his birth.

They got the dates offset by a few years, but that was the original intention. Unless Mary was in labour for a long time and Jesus was born over the period of an entire year... There wasn't a year 0BC/AD.

This all assumes you use the Gregorian calendar system, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29

[kv83]

Thats wrong, there wasnt a year 0, so it cant be 2000!

Of course... 'lol' ... year 0 was the year in which Jesus was (supposed to be) born. one year later it was 1 yr a. chr. and so on, and so on

First think, than talk

Er... sadly not.
1BC was the year before Jesus was born.
1AD was the year following his birth.

They got the dates offset by a few years, but that was the original intention. Unless Mary was in labour for a long time and Jesus was born over the period of an entire year... There wasn't a year 0BC/AD.

This all assumes you use the Gregorian calendar system, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29

D'oh overruled... strange system :S they should change it