The new decade
-
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
-
Dirk Higbee wrote:
You weren't born 1 year old were you?
No, you are not 1 year old, but you are living in your FIRST year. The time you take your first breath is the first second of your year 1, not the first second of your year ZERO. It’s exactly the same with the decades: 1970 is in the 70’s because in the first day of 1970 the seconds of the next 1971 are ticking.
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.
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
No, you are not 1 year old, but you are living in your FIRST year. The time you take your first breath is the first second of your year 1, not the first second of your year ZERO. It’s exactly the same with the decades: 1970 is in the 70’s because in the first day of 1970 the seconds of the next 1971 are ticking.
Your First year starts at 0 and ends at 1 Your second year starts at 1 and ends at 2 ...... Your ninth year starts at 8 and ends at 9 Your tenth year starts at 9 and ends at 10 which is also the end of your first decade and the beginning of your second The day you turn 100 is the end of your first century and the beginning of your second.
-
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 disagree. A decade starts whenever you like, e.g. 1st April 1862 to 31st March 1872 is a decade. Since everyone (with a few loony exceptions) wants calendar decades to start on 1st January _nnn_0, then that's when they start. There is no arguing against that simple (and semantic) logic, but I'm sure that there are those who would try to say that the only *real* decade is one that starts on 1st January _nnn_1 (meaning that 1st April 1862 to 31st March 1872 is not a *real* decade -- which it quite obviously is). Birthdays are my bug-bear. You're a certain number of years old for an entire year, then suddenly you're an entire year older -- and it happens on an arbitrary day (well, your mother might not remember it as being arbitrary, but you know what I mean). I always have to work it out, before telling people how old I am, because age years don't match up with calendar years. You can't just deduct your birth year from the current (or any other) year, to get your age, which isn't even a proper integer (an integer age would increment six months after your birthday). Why not say that on the first 1st January after your birth, you're in your second year, the following January, your third year, etc? It would save me having to count on my fingers, every time I have to fill my age in on a form. You can still have birthday parties, etc; just exclude the age-digit increment from the festivities.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You have constructed a direct proof. The logic is correct, however your initial assumption that centuries start with xx00 is incorrect. Therefore your result is not proven. Centuries start with xx01. There was no Year 0. Years are 1-based. At some point in history we had a zero event, after which we started the first year (Year 1 AD, or Year 1 CE, your choice, unless you're Muslim, Jewish or anyone else who uses a different Zero Event). At the END of that year, we started Year 2. Eventually we get to Year 10 at the END of which we've completed 10 years. The NEXT decade starts at Year 11. The 1st century (1 - 100) The 2nd century (101 - 200) ... The 20th century (1901 - 2000) The 21st century (2001 - 2100) In other words, we're using Z+, the set of positive integers. It's no wonder that so many people have problems with this. It took mankind centuries to come to grips with the concept of 0. In fact, it wasn't until fairly recent in human history that 0 was accepted as a number at all. Maybe it will help if you use the clock. In English 2:30 AM is 2:30 AM. In German I could say that the time was halb drei == half of three. Why? because 12:00 AM to 12:59 AM is the FIRST hour. The END of the first hour/start of the second hour is 1:00 AM, etc.
-Sean ---- Fire Nuts
Sean Cundiff wrote:
Centuries start with xx01. There was no Year 0. Years are 1-based.
You would be right if the the Julian calandar was started at point zero as 1. However it was only put into action in 45 AD and the Gregorian calandar some 1200 years later.Dates prior to point zero are simply an extension backwards from these dates and thus the 0 at zero point is implied.
-
Dirk Higbee wrote:
You weren't born 1 year old were you?
No, you are not 1 year old, but you are living in your FIRST year. The time you take your first breath is the first second of your year 1, not the first second of your year ZERO. It’s exactly the same with the decades: 1970 is in the 70’s because in the first day of 1970 the seconds of the next 1971 are ticking.
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.
http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/cal_art.html[^] The system of numbering years A.D. (for "Anno Domini") was instituted in about the year 527 A.D. by the Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus, who reckoned that the Incarnation of Jesus had occurred on March 25 in the year 754 a.u.c., with his birth occurring nine months later. Thus the year 754 a.u.c. was designated by him as the year 1 A.D. It is generally thought that his estimate of the time of this event was off by a few years (and there is even uncertainty as to whether he identified 1 A.D. with 754 a.u.c. or 753 a.u.c.). The question has been raised as to whether the first Christian millennium should be counted from 1 A.D. or from the year preceding it. According to Dionysius the Incarnation occurred on March 25th of the year preceding 1 A.D. (with the birth of Jesus occurring nine months later on December 25th), so it is reasonable to regard that year, rather than 1 A.D. as the first year of the Christian Era. In that case 1 A.D. is the second year, and 999 A.D. is the 1000th year, of the first Christian millennium, implying that 1999 A.D. is the final year of the second Christian millennium and 2000 A.D. the first year of the third.
-
Look at the lower right portion of your task bar. :-D ( If you're using Windows. )
Looking at the right portion of my task bar (Windows 7 / fr-FR) : - Current month is december 2009 (Click) -> Switched to year view 2009 (Click) -> Switched to decade view (2000-2009) (Click) -> Switched to century view (2000-2099) and decade are ([2000-2009],[2010,2019]...,[2090,2099] So?
-
I think the 80s started earlier than that. The 70s was more like 73 to 77.
