source file: mills2.txt
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 20:31:59 +0200

Subject: Re: millenium

From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)

>Would you even go further and
>call this the first millenium - because we have not yet completed the
>second?

   There's no real reason why the labeling of a century (or whatever) must
match its number in sequence.  It's perfectly fine, for example, to call
the 20th century the one all of whose years begin with 19.  Or for that
matter to call the first year "the year of the dog", or the year 82b
hexadecimal.




>Your interval-counting example is a good one.

   Thanks.




>The value 0 is not always meaningful for musical purposes, however.
>Consider a harmonic series over the fundamental n. The series goes: (1n,
>2n, 3n ...).

   Those are multiplicative factors rather than additive displacements like
intervals are nominally used for.  So yes, in that multiplicative context,
0 doesn't make much sense.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
           with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:35 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06146; Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:35:32 +0200
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 22:35:32 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06134
Received: (qmail 22258 invoked from network); 1 Jun 1997 20:34:20 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 1 Jun 1997 20:34:20 -0000
Message-Id: <970601163229_-128473765@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu