... in that comment Gene. What seems obvious "today" didn't even exist back then. Larry didn't hide the year zero, there just wasn't one.

Besides, I'm not so sure the timekeeper's comment is right anyway:

".. a year designated 1 would be preceded by year 0, which would be
preceded by year -1 ..."

No doubt, in reverse mathematical progression, numbers would be counted +1, 0, -1 etc. But, does that mean there would be a "year 0". I think not. If there was, the total time passing from the start of year -1 to the end of year +1 would be three years. But, the concept of zero is that there is none of whatever you are counting. If I have one chip, I have one. If I have zero chips, I don't have one. Why then would have have "one" year when I have "zero"?

In my (old-broken down chippers) opinion, even if we include zero in the progression of time from -1 to +1, we still only have two years because the zero point represents NO TIME, not one year. Zero by definition is a nullity, nothing of whatever is being represented.

Pick any arbitrary point in time to illustrate the point, let's say your birthday, Gene (whatever that happens to be). The 365 days immediately preceding your birth were the first year before you were born (or -1 B.G.). The 365 days after your birth were the first year after you were born (+1 A.G.). Would you say that the 365 days before your birth were the zeroth year B.G. and the 365 preceding that year the first year before you were born? I think not.

Or think of it this way, if you have an older sibling who was born 365 days before you, would you say he (or she) was born one year before you? Or zero years before you?

Better go looking for that tined kitchen utensil! <g> ----- jim o\-S