From my brother the math teacher:
Actually it has already happened 2000 years ago in the year 6 AD. It is now 2006 so it does not quite work out.
01:02:03 04/05/06 should be 01:02:03 04/05/2006.
This is the state of our mathematics.
Groan, Phil Kelsay Mathematics Teacher
________________________________
From: On Behalf Of Arthur Pemberton Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 7:04 PM I don't get it? Am I not geek enough? On 4/4/06, David Nicol wrote:
forwarded message: For those of you who like to have your time lined up like ducks in a row: Wednesday at two minutes and three seconds after 1:00AM, the time and date will be 01:02:03 04/05/06 Bill Jaeck -- David L Nicol
As I recall, there was some worry that the New Madrid fault would shift on 1:23:45 june 7, 1989, for similar reasons
Except that there was no 6 A.D. At the time of what would have been 6 A.D., there was no Gregorian Calendar to make it 6 A.D. The Gregorian Calendar wasn't adopted until 1582, and the previous Julian Calendar, while adopted in what would have been 46 B.C. on the Gregorian Calendar, would have put another number on what would have been 6 A.D. on the Gregorian Calendar.
Not to mention that A.D. is a Christian name for the period after 1 A.D. (there was no 0 A.D.) and the Julian Calendar wouldn't have had an A.D., let alone a 6 A.D.
So if your math teacher brother is correct, 01:02:03 04/05/06 has *never happened* and *never will happen*.
--- "Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO" brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov wrote:
From my brother the math teacher:
Actually it has already happened 2000 years ago in the year 6 AD. It is now 2006 so it does not quite work out.
01:02:03 04/05/06 should be 01:02:03 04/05/2006.
This is the state of our mathematics.
Groan, Phil Kelsay Mathematics Teacher
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From the Grammar Nazi: There was no year "6 AD". There is " __ BC" or "AD
__", because it's grammatically incorrect to say "the year 6 the year of our Lord". And there was no "AD 6" either, because at the time no one used a calendar based on an estimate of the year of Jesus' birth. That year would have been known as "758 AUC" or 759 depending on who you ask
On 4/5/06, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov wrote:
From my brother the math teacher:
Actually it has already happened 2000 years ago in the year 6 AD. It is now 2006 so it does not quite work out.
01:02:03 04/05/06 should be 01:02:03 04/05/2006.
This is the state of our mathematics.
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 21:36, Monty J. Harder wrote:
From the Grammar Nazi: There was no year "6 AD". There is " __ BC" or "AD __", because it's grammatically incorrect to say "the year 6 the year of our Lord".
Does that mean "$5" is wrong because it is spoken in the reverse order ("five dollars"?
-
David Nicol -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Leo Mauler -
Luke-Jr -
Monty J. Harder