🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<oCI3dDA5...@notwen.demon.co.uk>...
> 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.

No, it commemorates the DATE of the event. Nothing more. You're trying to
load birthday with a precision it cannot possibly bear, and never was
intended to bear.
 
> Furthermore that 24 hour span will in future 'begin', regardless of
actual
> birthtime, at 00.01hrs on the anniversary of the 'birthday'

Right. Just keep in mind that this has nothing to do with exactly one year
passing, which very often is not the case. It *only* has to do with the
calendar date of the original event. Your trying for great precision here
is sort of like trying to measure a donut with a micrometer. You just
aren't going to get a result that means much.
 
> 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.

Well, midnight is 00:00, but otherwise you're correct. Why get so involved
with minutes, though? June 1 is the birthday in that case. Period. We all
understand when the day begins and ends; no need to keep stressing that
over and over. It doesn't mean anything, Bill.
 
> 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. 

No, not at all. By "precise birthtime anniversary" I understand you to mean
"exactly one year to the minute after birth," is that right? If that were
the case, in the example you've given the first "precise birthtime
anniversary" would be about 5:45 a.m. June 2, not on June 1 at all, unless
it were a leap year. The next year it would be later in the morning of June
2, again assuming not a leap year. And so on. But the *birthday* in each
case would still be celebrated on June 1.

> This could of course be as much as 23hours and 59 minutes in advance,

If it were a leap year it could be more than that, in certain cases.

> >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.

No it's not, Bill. New Years Day is a day celebrating a calendar event. A
millennium is not a day and not a celebration of anything. It's a thousand
years, period.
 
> 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.

Except for leap years.
 
> 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.

No, Bill. This has already been gone over so many times by myself and
others I don't understand why you're still having difficulty with it. I'll
try one more time and then give it up.

1. A millennium is one thousand years. 
2. There never was a year 0.
3. The first year of the first millennium was year 1.
4. The second year was year 2, and so on.
5. The thousandth year was year 1000.
6. The first millennium did not end until that 1000th year was finished.
7. The 1000th year was finished on the last day of the year 1000.
8. The second millennium started on the first day of the year 1001.
9. And so on.

> This means that one can legitimately celebrate the birth of the second
> Millennium any time 'during the year 2000.

No. This *is* the second millennium, Bill. It started on the first day of
1001. (See above.) If you want to celebrate the approaching *end* of the
second millennium you can do that in the year 2000 if you like. 

> >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. 

I see I'm repeating myself already. Why do I get the impression you're not
really paying attention here?
 
> 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! 

Bill, you keep getting yourself all tied up in knots with these attempts at
meaningless precision. A birthday is only the celebration of a calendar
date, Bill. Nothing else. Forget 23:59 vs. 20:00. If you were born on June
1, June 1 is your birthday. 
 
> 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?

In most years, as I've already mentioned at least twice, it would in fact
be June 2 when another year had passed. That has nothing to do with
anything. It's only the celebration of a calendar date, Bill. 
 
> 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.

Correct.

> Yet that is contrary to the well established and traditional
> formula utilised by all and sundry in identifying 'anniversaries' for
homo
> sapiens.

No, it's the same. You weren't one year old when you were born, were you?
Your first birthday was one year after your birth. If you live to be 2000,
your 2000th birthday will only come when 2000 years have passed since your
birth.
 
> 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. 

<sigh>

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

Better redo those calculations, Bill.

Neil