>Dec 31, 5 BC and Dec 31, 5 AD are nine years apart.
Just as I said -- it entirely depends on the dates you select -- I selected two dates 10 years apart, you selected two dates nine years apart. You could just as easily have selected two dates that are 9 and a half years apart. The point being that a year is a span in time not a point in time. Years are counted by ordinal numbers, not cardinal numbers.
I think we're in agreement here, I think.
Had to look up for cardinal numbers, though. Cardinal numbers are what are also known as counting numbers, aren't they? If so, then, cardinal numbers are being used for years, not ordinal numbers. Or, I still don't get it? :)
My stand on this is that it wasn't wrong to start counting at year 1. It is understood, for example, that on year 2005, June 30, 2,005 less one-half years have approximately gone by, disregarding hours. Likewise, had we started with year zero, on the same date, 2,004 plus half-years had gone by. The natural thing would have been to start at year zero and use fractional year during year one and subsequent to that. But fractions are hard to envision. Therefore, it wasn't so bad afterall to start at 1, and keeping in mind that the whole year hadn't gone by until Dec 31.
So, do you think we should go back 1 year or leave it as it is?