The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1900-01-12
TIE TWENTIETH CENTURY
DIR. BISHOPS ARGUMENTS TAKEN
SERIATIM.
r. II. Brotherton Makes a Clear State
ment Showing How DR.. Bishops
Reasoning is Incorrect.


The Star, 1 beg to submit the following
points, in answer to arguments brought
forth:
There is a difference in the method in
which a man records his age and the
way we number our calendar years, but
it is a difference of method only and
the result is the same. 1t is this way:
1t is true, as argued, that man can
not call himself year old until he has
one year of his life and then
he is one year old and commences his
second year. and when a man is in his
41st year he calls himself 40 years old
without taking any account of the frac-
ton of his 41st year which he has en-
tered into When he complies his Al
years, then he calls himself Al years old,
etc. But in numbering the years which
go to make up the worlds history we
have to give the year a name as soon
as we enter upon it so that all that
happens during that year as we pass
through it can be recorded as we go
along. AS we give the years their names
in numbers, and date out present era
from Christ, we must call the first year
of the era the year No 1, so as to give
1t a name, by which it can be referred
to, as soon as we enter upon it. In this
way the second month after the birth
of Christ would be the End month of the
year one and at the time when Christ
was one year. old the year one was COM
plete, and the next day he entered up
on year No. 2-the second year of his
life. Take our months which are given
names instead of numbers; some people
substitute numbers and call Jan. 10th,
1900, 1-1O-19O0, or August 10, S-10-l9O0,
August being the Sth month. II Jan
uary were called 0-10-1900, December
must be 11-10-19OO, and under that pro-
cess there would be no twelfth month
in the year.
So it is true that when a man reaches
the Tooth anniversary of his birthday
he is 100 complete years old-not when
he reaches his Tooth year; he must pass
through his Tooth year to reach the Tooth
anniversary of his birthday. When we
arrive at the year 1900 in our calendar
we are only entering upon it and have
to complete that year to finish 10 CEN
turtles, and we begin the goth century
with Jan. LIST, year 1901, the commence
ment of the year; the same as our pres
ent era began with Jan. LIST, year NO
1, at the birth of Christ.
DR.. Bishop says Suppose I count
quantity of quarters. 1 begin, not with
one, but with 0. 1 count OBS, O.5O, O.75
and then $1.00-not "one" until the
whole dollar is completed"
The Doctor uses the dollar instead of
the year for his illustration but has
failed to place before his OBS, O5O and
O.75 the dollar sign-$-which must be
in place for the number to signify mon
ey, and those figures properly written,
thus: $685. $3.50, and $0.75 are trans
lated in words:-twenty-five one-hun-
dredths of one dollar fifty one-hun-
dredths OF one dollar, etc, until one full
dollar and no fraction is reached You
can ignore the fraction of year in
mans life, but you cannot ignore the
fraction of dollar or you will lose
money on the goods. After the full
dollar is reached then slips would be
one complete dollar and twenty five
one-hundredths of a second dollar-the
dollar No. 1 is complete and dollar No
2 has been entered upon, and takes its
name Immediately as 20 cents of dol
lar No. 2, because the dollar is the
standard; although it must be complete
to make two full dollars. AS the stand
ard reckoning of our time is in years,
we must call the first year of Christs
life and the first of our present era, the
year No. /, as soon as it is entered up
on; not signifying at all that the year
is complete, but that we have entered
upon the first space of time, which we
have divided up into periods of 365 days
each and adopted that length of time as
our standard, giving it the name
year"
Taking up the claim that the first
year was called the year 0:
If our era begins from the birth of
Christ our numbering must begin there,
and the first year must necessarily be
the year /; to prove which 1 will state:
If the first year were called O, and the
next year 1, the next year 2, etc, it
would leave that first year 0 entirely
unaccounted for in our numbers. is
not a number; it is nothing; it is the
point from which numbering COM
mences. We don't commence our num-
bers with 0, we commence from 0. I
quote definitions from Webster:
Zero: Arith.-A cipher, nothing
naught.
"Naught Nothing. The arithmetical
character 0; a cipher.
cipher: 1. (Arith.) A character CO..
which, standing by itself expresses
nothing, but when placed at the right
hand of a whole number, increases its
value ten fold"
We therefore cannot give the impor-
tant space of time covered by the first
year of Christ's life, and including the
first 1865 days of our present era, the
anomalous name 0, which is not num-
Der, and such a course would leave that
year entirely out of our calendar and
unaccounted for. The 0 or zero is sim
ply a division between the end of the
year 1 b. C. and the beginning of the
year / A. D., where we commence our
present era. If the first year was called
0 it would have to be clear up to the
full and complete end of that year.
when DIR. Bishop admits himself that
the first year would be full and COM
plete. The first year (ordinaD signifies
the year No l (cardinaD. The argu-
ment put forth by DR.. Bishop makes a
distinction and difference of a whole
number between the result of a count
by cardinal Zone, two three, etc.), and
ordinal (frst, second, third, etc., num-
bers, which is not the case. Count ten
objects by the two methods and see.
No year, object or anything else can be
the No. / and also the second. If it is
the first 81 is No The legal mira Sc