The new decade
-
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.No, the calendar we use today did not begin at year 1. The calendar we use today began at year 1582. [^]
-
Decades are determined by their time periods, i.e. the 30's. 40's and 50's. Certainly 1970 is not part of the 60's or it wouldn't have a seven in it. And by the way, the beginning of time did start at zero or we wouldn't count time the way we do today. The beginning of time was the first year but it was not a whole year until a year had past. At six months it would have been year .5. :-D
My reality check bounced.
-
maybe not, but what authority do you show (my understanding agrees with yours, but I can't give a reference) Is it possible that the first decade only had 9 years? :wtf:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Look at the lower right portion of your task bar. :-D ( If you're using Windows. )
I can't believe there is even a debate on this. It's pretty common knowledge, and I didn't know there were people out there that believed this. How can anyone even be involved with computers, let alone programming and not know that when you count out ten digits you start with 0?! To put your own arguement to it: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 That's how computers do it because that is what makes sense and what is logical. The whole 1BC and 1AD arguement is lame because each one took 365 days to complete. That passage of time was called 1AD but it did indeed start with zero. BTW - Arthur C. Clarke must have realized his folly calling it 2001 instead of 2000 because his sequel was called 2010 and not 2011.
-
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
-
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?
-
nice. Kind of puts the nail in the coffin of 'ol Richard's argument. Now the question is, will he go on believing what he does, thus we continue to avoid his programming?
-
ChrisBraum wrote:
But 1BC to 1AD is two years
Nope, one year. After Dec 31st 1 BC comes January 1st 1 AD. There is 1 year between i.e. Jun 1st 1 BC and Jun 1st 1 AD
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Nope, one year. After Dec 31st 1 BC comes January 1st 1 AD. There is 1 year between i.e. Jun 1st 1 BC and Jun 1st 1 AD
That's interesting! Where can I info on this?
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Nope, one year. After Dec 31st 1 BC comes January 1st 1 AD. There is 1 year between i.e. Jun 1st 1 BC and Jun 1st 1 AD
That's interesting! Where can I info on this?
-
The last year of the 19th century was 1899. The first year of the 20th century was 1900. When runners are all lined up to race the clock is set at zero. When you were born the minutes of your life started ticking, from zero.
My reality check bounced.
I think what confuses people is that values of time and date have different meanings. When we say that time is 1:01 it means that 1 hour and 1 minute of a day already PASSED. With date when there is 01.01.01 it means that we are living/an event took place DURING the first day of the first month of the first year... It does NOT mean that the first day or month or year has already passed. If you say that a decade completes on 01.01.10, then tell me this, does a period of 10 months, starting from the beginning of a year, complete on 1st of October?
-
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?
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
Wrong.
Right. 2010 - 2019 is a ten year period, hence it's a decade. It will probably be known as the 'tens', perhaps the 'teens' (though that would be a little harsh on 2010, 2011 and 2012). 2020 - 2029 will be a decade known as the 'twenties' and so it goes. Good luck convincing people otherwise! ;)
-
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
Someone said it earlier that the yahoo's that invented the calendar way back are in an era where man didn't quite grasp the concept of zero. Modern man has grasped that concept and that's why it's pretty common that when you count out ten digits it start at 0 through to 9. If modern man invented the calender there would indeed be a 0AD. 2001 is defined as the first year of the 21st century but that's because the yahoo's back then fraked everything up from the beginning. Based on their frak up, I'm going to agree and continue to follow suit with 2001 being the beginning of the century but all other logical thinking dictates zero as being the start of any set of ten (decade or otherwise). Thinking otherwise is very antiquated and quite frankly (sorry to offend anyone), stupid. Why don't you guys get into 21st century with your thinking and logic and quit using "1AD" or "21 century starts at 2001" as a basis for your arguements. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is the way it goes for decades or whatever. It still floors me that any computer geek (especially programmers) thinks this way. My wife is no where near a computer geek and she even gets it right. :rolleyes:
-
Decades are determined by their time periods, i.e. the 30's. 40's and 50's. Certainly 1970 is not part of the 60's or it wouldn't have a seven in it. And by the way, the beginning of time did start at zero or we wouldn't count time the way we do today. The beginning of time was the first year but it was not a whole year until a year had past. At six months it would have been year .5. :-D
My reality check bounced.
"And by the way, the beginning of time did start at zero or we wouldn't count time the way we do today. The beginning of time was the first year but it was not a whole year until a year had past. At six months it would have been year .5" You are making a fairly fundamental error here and confusing ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers. This is pretty common because the way we refer to years is actually based on ordinal numbers, but we say them as we would cardinal numbers, i.e. we just say 2009 instead of saying the 2009th year. We also count time in different ways depending on the context. For example, when we are timing a race, we start at zero and count elapsed time, but when counting days in a month, we start at one and label each day with an ordinal number. The latter method is what we use for counting years. We started at 1 AD and applied an ordinal number to each year from there on. So, 1 AD was year number one, the first year, not when one year had elapsed. In short, the original poster is correct and 2010 is the last year of the 201st decade AD, not the first year of the 202nd decade AD. Having said that, I find it easier to refer to decades in the way most people do, ie. the 80s, 90s, noughties, etc. It just seems right in the case of decades, but when it comes to centuries I will scream as loud as the next pedant.
-
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.
Richard, I understand the confusion that is represented by this thinking, however, I have a simple series of questions. 1. What is the purpose of the columns while writing numbers? (i.e. ones, tens, hundreds) 2. How exactly would you write '10' in the ones column? 3. How exactly would you write '2' in a binary ones column? 4. How exactly would you write '16' in a hex ones column? The point of my questions is to demonstrate a mathematical principle on enclosure. The idea of the base that is used to represent numbers dictates the ability to represent the same values within that numbering system. Thus, since all of our years are base 10 we use the mathematical representation of ones, tens, hundreds and so on. Therefore, since it is not possible to contain a 'ten' within the ones column we are required to increment the tens column and the decade is truly from '0' to '9'. Hope this helps.
'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control,mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country! from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?' - Jay Leno
-
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:
Premise: There are TEN years in a decade
That is the standard definition. And a century has 100 years.
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
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.
No that conclusion does not follow. Neither your definition nor the standard dictionary defines what year the 10 years must start or end in. The same is true for a century. Thus one can just as well claim that 2008 is the beginning and end of both a decade and century. Why both? Because the span of years can be different as one chooses.
-
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
Premise: There are TEN years in a decade
That is the standard definition. And a century has 100 years.
Richard Andrew x64 wrote:
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.
No that conclusion does not follow. Neither your definition nor the standard dictionary defines what year the 10 years must start or end in. The same is true for a century. Thus one can just as well claim that 2008 is the beginning and end of both a decade and century. Why both? Because the span of years can be different as one chooses.
jschell wrote:
defines what year the 10 years must start or end in.
I'm talking about the first decade of the 21st century. There is no room for arbitrary definition of when the first decade of the 21st century begins. It's true that you can call any ten years a decade, but there is ONLY ONE FIRST DECADE of the 21st CENTURY of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR. Duh!!
-
jschell wrote:
defines what year the 10 years must start or end in.
I'm talking about the first decade of the 21st century. There is no room for arbitrary definition of when the first decade of the 21st century begins. It's true that you can call any ten years a decade, but there is ONLY ONE FIRST DECADE of the 21st CENTURY of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR. Duh!!
-
jschell wrote:
defines what year the 10 years must start or end in.
I'm talking about the first decade of the 21st century. There is no room for arbitrary definition of when the first decade of the 21st century begins. It's true that you can call any ten years a decade, but there is ONLY ONE FIRST DECADE of the 21st CENTURY of the GREGORIAN CALENDAR. Duh!!
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Richard Andrew x64 wrote:</div>I'm talking about the first decade of the 21st century.</blockquote> First that is not what the post that I responded to said. It started with a definition of decade, a standard one, and then from that attempted to conclude that it could only refer to what you did in fact state more precisely in the above statement. Second the usage does in fact often provide a context that either defines the period, or it is meaningless to require that it be precise. Consider as an example that this past weekend I saw the first "best of the year 2009" articles. So what does that mean given that the year is not in fact over? Is it a precise measurement between 12/26/2008 to 12/25/2009 which is in fact a 'year' or does it represent a partial year minus a few days, or is it just ignoring the last couple days of the year as being unimportant or known via supernatual powers? Or is it simply not important given the content of the articles? And does it really matter if someone decides to get extra drunk this new years or waits until next year to do so? One shouldn't attempt to require precision of terms in which the context doesn't require precision regardless. I care how my bank computes the interest on my mortgage but it shouldn't matter to me if the xmas card that they send to me arrives a week before xmas or a week after.
-
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
"Listen now to a further point : No mortal thing has a beginning, nor does it end in death and obliteration : There is only a mixing, and then a separating, of what was mixed. But, by mortal men, these processes are named : 'beginnings' " Empedocles
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
