2013.
What does it mean, how does it stack up and how unique is it?
For numerologists, such as ourselves, this is a most fascinating year for the numbers.
0, 1, 2, 3 are the first four digits of the Western or Arabic pattern of tracking the march of things and the passing of time. Actually, this system of counting and recording was developed by Indian mathematicians in the 5th Century, but was first counted out in change to European traders in the 10th Century by Arab merchants from Africa and the Middle East – hence the name “Arabic.” The Arabic-Indian system is a revolutionary system of count because it includes zero (0) and positional notation (1,000 rather than a symbol, like “M” in Roman Numerals). As a way of tracking the numbers, it is highly efficient, neater than beans and an important way to start our New Year with just the right assortment of glyphs. For many years now, the glyphs used in the decimal Arabic-Indian numbering system have them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 0. You can see them there at the top of your keyboard.
That’s the overview. Now, on to the year itself.
2013
I think it has been over six hundred years since the first four digits of our numbering system have all appeared individually, without a repeat, in the representation of the current year.
Let’s test this proposition.
We can’t count the first thousand years since the birth of Christ.
By way of background, our year notations are most often referred to as A.D., for “Anno Domini.” Anno Domini is Latin and is used to indicate the number of years since the “year of our Lord,” the literal meaning of A.D. Another representation you see these days is Common Era, or C.E, for the number of years since the birth of the Baby Jesus. A.D. and C.E. both have the same starting point
To restate, we can’t count the first 1,000 years to the year 1,000 A.D., because, for example, the year 123 is not represented in the Arabic system with a “0” in front, say as 0123. So, in the first three centuries, you had 123, 213, 312 and those types of 1-2-3 years, but only 3 digits and no leading “0”. After the start of the 4th Century (400 A.D.), you couldn’t even get a 1-2-3 year, because of having to use the 4-5-6-7-8-9 digits in every year, until the year 1000 A.D. So the baby year 0 to the year 1000 A.D. or C.E. are out of the race.
In the second thousand years, starting in the year 1000 A.D., in the 10th, 12th and 13th centuries, you had the possibility of a number of 0-1-2-3 years, starting with 1 and then combinations of 0-2-3 without repeats, for example 1032, 1203 and 1302. There could be no 0-1-2-3 years in the 11th century, the 1100’s A.D., because every year in that century had double 1’s, for example 1123.
So, the last 0-1-2-3 year, that I see in the past, was the year 1320. Check me on this, but I think that’s how the numbers shake out for me.
Since the year 1320, I don’t think there has been the possibility of another 0-1-2-3 year — until yesterday, January 1, 2013, the start of the year 2013 A.D. The 1400’s, 1500’s, 1600’s, 1700’s, 1800’s and 1900’s are all out because they all had digits other than 0-1-2-3. It wasn’t until the 2000’s that the possibility existed for another 0-1-2-3 year, and that possibility has just been realized. Pass the biscuits and honey, and hold the cheers applause.
From 1320 A.D. to 2013 A.D. is a grand total of 693 years.
So, we have waited 693 years for a 0-1-2-3 year.
This year, the year 2013, is that year.
Count them again: 0, 1, 2, 3.
Line them up: 2013.
This year,
Our New Year,
Is here for a whole year!!!!
The first time snce 693 years ago.
I cannot wait until the next 0-1-2-3 year.
When do you think that will be?
Keep on counting,
Grandpa Jim