# Re: Don't want to start a year 2000 debate, but...

```>regard
>the 1st century as anamoly having only 99 years (year 1
>through 99 inclusive).  That way, subsequent centuries
>would begin at 100, 200, 300, etc. while still having
>100 years each.  Thus the new century would indeed begin
>at 2000.

Using that method, then yes, each new century after the first would
start at a zero instead of a 1.  But then Arthur C. Clarke's book title
wouldn't make sense, and an even bigger problem would be what to call each
century.  The first century would end at 99, but then the 2nd century would
go from 100 to 199.  That doesn't make any sense at all.  How could it be
the 2nd century (which means 200) when it ends at 199?  And of course that
means that the 20th century REALLY doesn't start until the year 2000!
Mathematical convention rightly counts one hundred (or one thousand) as
an entire unit-from 1 to 100 or 1 to 1000.  Not zero to 99.  I don't really
see why a century or a millennium can't mean the same thing, especially
since the method Glen related would require a one-time suspension of
accepted rules.
(But hey, I'm a rebel-I think the US should switch to the metric system
cold turkey and just get it over with!)

-T.A. Curtis, suspending his sig file (for now) and this discussion.
Thanks for your forebearance, everyone.  :-)

```