🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01bc7ad8$6fcd9580$a6db0a26@elnnharrington>, Neil
Harrington <nharr...@earthlink.net> writes

Bill Newton wrote:
>> So I actually ENTER my 'birthday' 23 hrs and 59 minutes before the
>> actual time of my birth. 
>
>Not exactly, and irrelevant anyway. It's a birthDAY, not a birthminute or a
>birthsecond. A birthday is an anniversary, nothing more. It doesn't
>precisely measure any period of time.

THAT'S precisely the point I'm making. The exact time of birth IS totally
irrelevant.  But tradition determines that a 24 hour span i.e. one day, is
nominated as a 'birthday' to celebrate, commemorate, call it what you will,
that 'instant' of birth.

Furthermore that 24 hour span will in future 'begin', regardless of actual
birthtime, at 00.01hrs on the anniversary of the 'birthday'

In other words if somebody is actually born at one minute to midnight
(23.59) hours on....lets say June 1st, the anniversary of  their birthday in
the future will be recognised as commencing immediately after midnight
(00.01 hours) May 31st and ending immediately after midnight (00.01
hours) of June 1st.

I'm sure you can now see that,( unless the precise moment of birth is
actually 00.01 hrs on any given day) birthdays are ALWAYS recognised
(and generally celebrated) in advance of the precise birthtime anniversary. 

This could of course be as much as 23hours and 59 minutes in advance,
and that's what tradition dictates.
>
>Not really. Your birthday is the anniversary of the date of your birth, and
>it lasts all day and that's that. A millennium isn't an anniversary of any
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>kind. It's a period of time. 
  ^^^^
Yes it is! In the same way that many homo sapiens celebrate...lets say
the anniversary of New Years  day every year, the anniversary of a
Millennium is identified ( and likely celebrated ) every 1000 years.

Try looking at things this way . Homo Sapiens celebrate their birthdays
annually i.e. in simple terms once every 365 days (units), to
commemorate their birth.

One full day (unit) is traditionally allocated to celebrate that instance of
birth. 

A 'Millennium' is a span of a thousand years (units), accordingly, and
based upon our ancient tradition of allocating one (unit) to celebrate,
commemorate etc, it's natural that we allocate one unit (year) for our
celebrations, commemorations, whatever, regarding the Millennium.

Now I dont really expect that we all plan to celebrate, commemorate or
party for a full year. But in applying the same formula used traditionally to
designate homo sapiens 'birthday ' you can surely see that the 'birthyear'
of the Millennium will commence immediately after midnight of December
31st 1999.

This means that one can legitimately celebrate the birth of the second
Millennium any time 'during the year 2000. And what better time than
immediately after midnight on December 31st 1999!?

>No. The year 2000 is the last year of the second millennium. As you
>yourself have correctly noted, it's not a millennium until a thousand years
>have passed. The present millennium ends when the year 2000 ends. 

Look, suppose you have a friend who was born at ...lets say 23.59 hours
on .....lets say June 1st.  You receive an invitation to attend your friends
21st birthday party, a function to be held at.... lets say 20.00 hours,
naturally on June 1st .

Presumably you would disagree with this 'timing' of your friends birthday
party, because your view is that he wouldn't actually be 21 years old until
23.59 hours on the June 1st , and therefore shouldn't celebrate being 21
years old at 20.00 hours! 

Because only AFTER that time would YOU recognise him as being 21
years old.

A pedantically correct view, but one that would be laughed out of the
house if you tried to apply it!

To fall in line with YOUR thinking would necessitate your friend holding 
his 21st birthday party the 'day after ' his traditionally recognised 
birthday i.e AFTER 23.59 hours on June 1st. In other words, on June 2nd!

Is that what you really mean?

I suspect not.

But whether you recognise it or not, that is precisely the formula you're
suggesting should be used to identify the second Millennium celebrations.

You're stating that 2000 years must have passed prior to any Millennium
celebration. Yet that is contrary to the well established and traditional
formula utilised by all and sundry in identifying 'anniversaries' for homo
sapiens.

One needs to think very clearly and logically to understand the principle of
the foregoing, and I would guess that most folk dont care one way or the
other. 

But, calculating it  based upon traditional methods of identifying
anniversaries, I believe it to be correct!

Cheers :-)
-- 
Bill Newton