Guest Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 So I had a thought - rare I know What was the first palindromic date - maybe it's controversial or simply ambiguous - Put your logic in too pls or just leave yourself open for arguments/discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Maybe you want to define some restrictions on the palindrome because... 00:00:00 0 (being the "absolute 0" of time) As in the beginning of time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Maybe you want to define some restrictions on the palindrome because... 00:00:00 0 (being the "absolute 0" of time) As in the beginning of time... interesting - what year would that be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 14, 2008 Report Share Posted June 14, 2008 How about in mm/dd/yyyy System: 10/10/0101 in dd/mm/yyyy system: 10/10/0101 same: Oct 10th year 0101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted June 14, 2008 Report Share Posted June 14, 2008 m/d/y: 10/1/101 Oct 1st, 101 d/m/y: 10/1/0101 Jan 10th, 101 or simply d/m/t or m/d/y/; 1/1/1 Jan 1st, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 14, 2008 Report Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) Why define a palindrome its self explanatory! Maybe you want to define some restrictions on the palindrome because... 00:00:00 0 (being the "absolute 0" of time) As in the beginning of time... Just to reiterate as no reply to above - The Gregorian calendar goes fron 1 BC to 1AD but there is more to it than that as far as recorded data goes How about in mm/dd/yyyy System: 10/10/0101 in dd/mm/yyyy system: 10/10/0101 same: Oct 10th year 0101 m/d/y: 10/1/101 Oct 1st, 101 d/m/y: 10/1/0101 Jan 10th, 101 or simply d/m/t or m/d/y/; 1/1/1 Jan 1st, 1Well you would think so but... NO! Let me know if you find a coin with that date - I'll say it's a forgery ! I think this is gonna be interesting....there is no year 0101 or 00101 or.... etc Leading zeros do not apply we are not in 002008 Edited June 14, 2008 by Lost in space Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 14, 2008 Report Share Posted June 14, 2008 (edited) we're going into BC then maybe something like November 11, 11111 BC 11/11/11111 Edited June 14, 2008 by A.Syn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 bonanova Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 Well you would think so but... NO! Let me know if you find a coin with that date - I'll say it's a forgery ! I think this is gonna be interesting.... Who said anything about coins? Do you want to re-word the OP? "What non-forged coin currently on display in some museum displays the earliest palindromic date?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 akaslickster Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 year #1? It actually was never counted from the beginning of what we call time.??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 Who said anything about coins? Do you want to re-word the OP? "What non-forged coin currently on display in some museum displays the earliest palindromic date?" Can't reword, can't edit! regarding coin I simply meant it's not possible to find a date 1/1/1 printed, stamped, etc on any material at that time - and yes I'm being cheeky! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 Really it depends on what sort of calander one is using and when one's concept of time begins. If one's concept of time is by Christian standards (which most of us use) then it starts at 1 A.D. and goes up in value. Although, to go backwards from 1 B.C. would also be going up in value. It's a very broad question and needs some guidlines to go by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I was originally going to give my answer based on the start of the Gregorian Calendar, until my research led me to see that the first day in the use of the Gregorian Calendar was around October 15, 1582 (or 10/15/1582). I then used the following convention to find the next palindrome: MM/DD/YYYY, but no leading zero for Month or Day if it is a single digit Using this convention, I believe the first palindromic date after 10/15/1582 would be 10/6/1601. I would consider this a feasible answer, although, with such an open-ended question, I would consider many answers to be feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 (edited) how about 9/9/9999 B.C. Edited June 16, 2008 by mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Guest Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 I was originally going to give my answer based on the start of the Gregorian Calendar, until my research led me to see that the first day in the use of the Gregorian Calendar was around October 15, 1582 (or 10/15/1582). I then used the following convention to find the next palindrome: MM/DD/YYYY, but no leading zero for Month or Day if it is a single digit Using this convention, I believe the first palindromic date after 10/15/1582 would be 10/6/1601. I would consider this a feasible answer, although, with such an open-ended question, I would consider many answers to be feasible.AD became acceptable from 527 when the pope John 1 had confimation of JCs birth according to Dionysius Exiguus but it was October 1582 that pope Gregory put the Gregorian Calendar into accepted usage and correction (October had the least festive dates) how about 9/9/9999 B.C.man would have witnessed date wise form 28000 BC according to bone carvings with lunar cycles on them - is 9999BC the farthest we go! is that the correct use of PALENDROMIC dating - it's still ambiguous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Guest
So I had a thought - rare I know
What was the first palindromic date - maybe it's controversial or simply ambiguous - Put your logic in too pls or just leave yourself open for arguments/discussion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
13 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.