※ 引述《Oikeiosis (怎麽啦)》之铭言： : 推 TCDE:有没有人认为单纯只是当时的民间计数观念处於自然数的关系？ 06/20 14:59 : 推 sgracee5566:能不能有哪个头脑比较清楚的可以从历法开始探讨 06/21 00:11 : → xiaoa:要怎麽说才是"头脑比较清楚"? 数值"零"比历法还晚出现... 06/21 19:58 : → Oikeiosis:讨论历法跟这个问题没有关系啊 跟头脑清不清楚也无关 06/21 22:56 : 推 sgracee5566:看得出来你在回答问题前完全没试着查资料 06/22 00:49 : 推 Equalmusic:wiki 上说这是一个叫做 Gregorian calendar 的历法 06/22 01:26 我相信你看的是中文维基 既然如此就不须特地翻译成英文 : 推 xiaoa:即使是我们比较熟悉中国历法, 也是元年、元旦开始, 接下来就 06/22 06:22 : → xiaoa:是二年、二月、初二. 现代有新纪元计法, 刻意把第0年算进去 06/22 06:24 : → xiaoa:但是也没有每世纪的第一天为 X1年1月1日 06/22 06:26 : → xiaoa: 改变^^ 不懂跟历法有什麽关系, 你知道就说说看嘛 06/22 06:28 你这句话似乎与前几楼的说法疯狂矛盾 更甚至前一楼的说法就有很大的错误 Dionysius Exiguus (c.470–c.544) introduced the anno Domini era, which he used to identify the several Easters in his Easter table, but did not use it to date any historical event. When he devised his table, Julian calendar years were identified by naming the consuls who held office that year — he stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior [Flavius Probus]", which he also stated was 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".[1] How he arrived at that number is unknown. He invented a new system of numbering years to replace the Diocletian years that had been used in an old Easter table because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians. Bede (c.672–735) was the first historian to use a BC year, and hence the first one to choose 1 as the origin of the BC era, thus 1 BC, in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical history of the English people, 731). Bede did not sequentially number days of the month, weeks of the year, or months of the year, but he did number many of the days of the week using a counting origin of one in Ecclesiastical Latin. Previous Christian histories used anno mundi ("in the year of the world") beginning on the first day of Creation, or anno Adami ("in the year of Adam") beginning at the creation of Adam five days later (the sixth day of Creation week), used by Africanus, or anno Abrahami ("in the year of Abraham") beginning 3,412 years after Creation according to the Septuagint, used by Eusebius, all of which assigned "one" to the year beginning at Creation, or the creation of Adam, or the birth of Abraham, respectively. Bede continued this earlier tradition relative to the AD era. In chapter II of book I of Ecclesiastical history, Bede stated that Julius Caesar invaded Britain "in the year 693 after the building of Rome, but the sixtieth year before the incarnation of our Lord", while stating in chapter III, "in the year of Rome 798, Claudius" also invaded Britain and "within a very few days … concluded the war in … the fortysixth [year] from the incarnation of our Lord".[2] Although both dates are wrong, they are sufficient to conclude that Bede did not include a year zero between BC and AD: 798 查个资料并不会很难喔 你看我还帮你节录下来了 ^.< 资料来源是哪里就当做给你训练查资料功力的作业罗 看我人多好 ^.< 尽管当时的人们没有「零」的数字 但依然会使用「零」的概念 （前面的引文就有了喔 没看到的话快回去翻字典看文喔 ^.<） 事实上 以第零年纪元的还有一个例子: Anno Mundi http://www.lewisdt.com/research/tab5.gif 但这个例子有点违反逻辑就是了 因为事实上 Anno Mundi 有所谓的 Creation year 而 Adam was "born" in the year 0 AM 所以要说原po的问题是因为「没有自然数0」 好像对又好像有点不太对 http://www.lewisdt.com/research/biblicalchronology.html （我想你的查资料功力太差劲了所以这个资料来源一定要附上给你看） -- 这些资料....并不难查吧？ -- 如果你像我一样没料，那你就乖乖推文吧。 NY-Yankees --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.119.135.118 少鬼扯了 year zero条目非常明显 真的有看英文维基早就会发现了 只想做表面工夫装懂被呛也只是刚刚好而已 咦...所以Adam是Creation满一年後出生? 是我对圣经普遍常识的理解有错误吗? ^^^^ 还是没查资料嘛 "一些"一定没错 只不过有查资料的人会用其他词去陈述 像是天文学家 ^.< 因为你没看我的引文 ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 08:24) 唉...刚修文你就破功了 英文维基百科在查公元时应该是很轻易能连到Year Zero条目的 至少我花不到五分钟就连到这个资讯了 ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 08:26) 1. 我查了很多条目 不像你只查了一个条目就急着出来说嘴 2. 你也没看连结是写什麽 Anno Domini是後面论述才要用的 跟前面的Year Zero基本上关系不大 3. http://ppt.cc/_F-J 明明就是能轻而易举的查到的资料 如果我有冤枉你们两个的地方麻烦请告诉我 4. 你这两句话让我觉得你的程度比想像中更低弱 你可以先在网页ctrl+f看看有没有关键字的 ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 08:58) 5. 我後来想起来我是在 Christian Era 连到 Year Zero 条目的 这样的路径事实上证明是快多的 ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 09:01) ^^^^^^^^^^ 我也没很期望你看完就会知道就是了 咦...? 我以为附连结的用意一部分是因为对原作的尊重 另一部分则是进阶阅读勒? 因为他们对於「零」的概念为「nothing」而非所谓的「zero」 干你娘 都讲到这样乾脆我直接把网页翻译给你看算了 ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 09:49) 你没发现因为Bede这个白痴 所以AC 0永远被定调不存在了吗？ (在历史学家编年方式上) ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 10:02) 而且我才想起来是你问我跟历法有什麽关系我才po这篇给你看的唉 到底为什麽AD要从一开始计算 干你娘你去问那些历法学家阿 从古罗马历就是这样了 干你娘Bede(672~735)自己重编历法也不想编进去 阿干你娘我是会知道为什麽喔 引文也暗示说考证不到为什麽没有使用第零年 干你娘你就是不能体会到这使历法学者的默契就是了? ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 10:07) ※ 编辑: sgracee5566 来自: 140.119.135.118 (06/22 12:37)