The new decade
-
Try to use a simple graph to visualize your statement and you will fail.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Obiously we're not arguing the same thing. I was saying that Dionysius Exiguus[^], wasn't a Real Programmer. If he was, he would name the first year AD 0 not AD 1.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Is it possible that the first decade only had 9 years?
I'm not sure what you mean. I appreciate you pointing out that you agree. Isn't it amazing how vehemently people will defend a position that's outright wrong?
I understand that the first year was 1. I understand that 2001 was the start of a new century. I also see definitions of decade that reference x0-x9, but none that reference year 1-year 10 (other than as an arbitrary grouping). If the definition of decade is x0-x9, then it stands that the first decade was only 9 years, no? (as well as the last BC) To me that shows a problem with the x0-x9 argument.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Dirk Higbee wrote:
The decade begins and ends with your reference.
Now you're beginning to get it!!!! And since the calendar starts with 1, the decades all start with 1!!!!!
The calendar started at one but time did not. Time started at zero. That is why we don't count decades your way.
My reality check bounced.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Year 1 is the first year, but it starts at year 0.
What?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Therefore, 2010 is the BEGINNING of the next decade.
Wrong.
In 2010, you'll be in the first year of the new decade. The reason is the same as for centuries. Year 0 was the 1st year, and that's why we're in the 21st century. right now. In other words, year counting is 0-based, just like arrays in real programming languages. The only people that really have a problem with this concept is people who started their programming careers with a VB job.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
Since so many otherwise intelligent people made snarky remarks about my assertion that the decade begins in 2011, not 2010, I will explain it quite simply as follows: Premise: There are TEN years in a decade Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade Year 2 is the SECOND year of the decade Year 3 is the THIRD year of the decade . . . Year 9 is the NINTH year of the decade and here's the important part: Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11. That means that 2010 is the TENTH year of the FIRST decade of the 2000's. The second decade will not begin until 2011. Arthur C. Clarke knew the truth, and that is why he named his book 2001 A Space Odyssey, not 2000 A Space Odyssey
I don't care so much whether it's true or not but.... Your argument is self consistent at least, but did you know that if the the 1st year of the decade was 2000 (instead of 2001 as you implied) the last would be 2009, thus proving your opponents? Therefore I hope you'll understand that the 1st year of the new decade is entirely a matter of convention, and not a topic of logic at all. It's not event a topic for pedantic, mm... maybe dictionary pedantic... and even so, dictionary definition change over time, the meaning of words being no more than what the majority think it does... Anywhere, where was I? I was just irked by your supposed "logical argument" for something which has nothing to do with logic. Your wrong use of logic apart I have no care for the begining of the next decade! ;P If I had to choose I will choose 2010, as I just started to beat a life long chronic disease, next year is a fitting time for a new decade! :)
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
Since so many otherwise intelligent people made snarky remarks about my assertion that the decade begins in 2011, not 2010, I will explain it quite simply as follows: Premise: There are TEN years in a decade Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade Year 2 is the SECOND year of the decade Year 3 is the THIRD year of the decade . . . Year 9 is the NINTH year of the decade and here's the important part: Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11. That means that 2010 is the TENTH year of the FIRST decade of the 2000's. The second decade will not begin until 2011. Arthur C. Clarke knew the truth, and that is why he named his book 2001 A Space Odyssey, not 2000 A Space Odyssey
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11
Exactly. 2000 was the final year of the 20th Century, NOT the 1st year of the 21st. :thumbsup:
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11
Exactly. 2000 was the final year of the 20th Century, NOT the 1st year of the 21st. :thumbsup:
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
Out of interest, did you celebrate it as such?
-
Out of interest, did you celebrate it as such?
I don't recall celebrating either 2000 or 2001 any more or less than I do any other new year. :~ Still, I personally considered 2001 to be the first year of the 21st century.
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.
-
Since so many otherwise intelligent people made snarky remarks about my assertion that the decade begins in 2011, not 2010, I will explain it quite simply as follows: Premise: There are TEN years in a decade Year 1 is the FIRST year of the decade Year 2 is the SECOND year of the decade Year 3 is the THIRD year of the decade . . . Year 9 is the NINTH year of the decade and here's the important part: Year 10 is the TENTH year of the decade, meaning that the new decade doesn't begin until Year 11. That means that 2010 is the TENTH year of the FIRST decade of the 2000's. The second decade will not begin until 2011. Arthur C. Clarke knew the truth, and that is why he named his book 2001 A Space Odyssey, not 2000 A Space Odyssey
Except that ISO 8601 recognizes year 0000 as the first positive year as is correct. Only Luddites avoid year 0000.
-
Dirk Higbee wrote:
Certainly 1970 is not part of the 60's or it wouldn't have a seven in it.
:laugh: You clearly didn't live through the 60s, or 1970. The 60s lasted until roughly the mid 70s. (oxymoronically enough) ;P
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Yes, and the Twentieth Century began in the late 1800s.
-
Mladen Jankovic wrote:
Not if you're a Real Programmer
No! For example we/the real programmers :-D/ use zero index to access the FIRST element of some array, but it’s still the FIRST not the ZERO element.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Ahem, that would be the zeroth element. If, in Pascal for instance, I define an array with indices from -5 to +5 the first element is at index -5; there is no reason to associate the concept of "first" with an index of 1. The first year of the Gregorian Calendar began in 1582.
-
Look, open your mind instead of just defending your position: Here's a bunch of years:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30You'll notice that there are TEN years in each group. That means each group is a decade. Now what year begins the second decade that I have listed above? Notice that at the beginning of my "calendar" is year 1 because the calendar we use today began at year 1. -
aspdotnetdev wrote:
Depends on the calendar you use. Some start at 0 and some start at 1
True. If the gregorian calendar started at zero, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Prove that it doesn't.
-
The 60s ran from around 63 to around 73. The 70s from around 73 to around 82. Different parts of the country and got different mileage.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I think the 80s started earlier than that. The 70s was more like 73 to 77.
-
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:
So what decade year 0 in?
None, there is no year 0, 0 is the start point for the first year. If you have a straight line with a several segments the segment 1 starts from zero to something, but you don’t have a zero segment.
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
Segment zero starts at the zero-point (0.0, 0.1, 0.2, etc.), and it may or may not be the "first" segment.
-
Out of interest, did you celebrate it as such?
I recall Marilyn Vos Savant saying she'd celebrate both years; why pass up a party?
-
No, decade rules follow century rules. New centuries started in 1800, 1900, etc, therefore a new decade begins with 0 not 1. (This is true in binary also as the basic beginning point is 0.) So, the new decade began in 2000 and then will again in 2010, with the 1 and 0 being the determining factor. For example, the new decade began in 1980 and again in 1990 because of the 8 and the 9, i.e. the 80's and 90's. So, in conclusion 2010 starts the beginning of a new decade just as 2020 will in the future. :)
My reality check bounced.
I think you got that reversed. Centuries begin at 1, otherwise when did the first century start? Year 0? No such thing -- The year before 1 A.D. is 1 B.C. No year zero.
-
You're arguing against the dictionary definition at this point, do you care to take another swing or can we just accept that it makes a lot more sense to start counting from 0 rather than claiming the 90s went from 91-2000?
Frankly, I think "the nineties" refers to 1990 to 1999. Maybe that's subjective. But there's no question about the fact that the first year of the 9th decade (of the 20th century) was 1991, just like the first year of the 20th century was 1901, and just like the first year of the 1st century was 1 A.D. No year zero.
-
Wait a minute. Read the dictionary definition a little more carefully: "a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s." I would agree with this. But this, and the previous defintion of the word is talking about a period of time, of 10 years. I could very well say that the three decades of "1776 to 1806", and can start with any year I choose, depending on what I'm trying to convey. In fact, that's the same example as the first definition: "a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806" The point is, you're giving a starting year of the decade (the period of 10 years of interest) The problem is that, when you say "the decade", without a starting year, the only reasonable conclusion is that you're refering to the "n'th" decade of a century, i.e. 1st decade, 2nd decade. When you refer to an n'th decade of a century, then the year has to start at with the xx01, since there was no year zero.
-
Dirk Higbee wrote:
And by the way, the beginning of time did start at zero or we wouldn't count time the way we do today.
There was 1 BC, and after that 1 AD. No zeroes there :) However, as I said, no-one really cares. My general manager showed the "last slide of the decade" during our all hands meeting last week and I was ceirtanly not in a mood to stand up and ask whether this means there will be no meetings next year :)
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
There was 1 BC, and after that 1 AD. No zeroes there Smile
But 1BC to 1AD is two years so the zero is implied
