upvote
For the record, the mathematically correct answer to this question is that the year 2000 was the last year of the 19th century.

The reason is that year 0 never existed. The year 1 BCE was followed by the year 1 CE.

Culturally, anthropologically, and psychologically it might be a different matter. But 2000 years had not passed before the end of that year.

reply
What makes this argument less compelling is that “year 1 AD” also didn’t exist at the time, and this isn’t a great reason to abandon the arithmetically sane approach of zero-indexed year numbering.

The calendar was back-dated 500 or so years after Jesus, by a European guy before Europe had the concept of zero, leaving us with 1-indexed years. Then, 200 or so years after that, another guy (still lacking the concept of zero) made the even less venerable decision that the year right before 1 AD would be 1 BC.

We could just decide today that 0 came right before 1 AD and was the first year of the first century AD. Then we’d just have to shift all BC dates by 1 year in all our history books.

The upside would be that arithmetic on year labels starts working again. The downside is that there are way too many history books and no one will ever do this.

Of course, the easier way out is to just decide today that either 1) the first century began in 1 BC or 2) the first century had 1 fewer year than all the other centuries.

reply
We could also just define that 0 AD = 1 BC and don't have to rewrite any BC dates.
reply
The debate is if 2000 is the first year of the 21st century or the last year of the 20th century. (btw I agree with the latter)
reply
wow, yeah, that's quite the miss on my part.
reply