why do people not know the correct end of the decade?

[ProfessorLayton]

Does it matter? No use worrying about something so meaningless.

 

[OmegaXIII]

I always figured that years used a slightly different numerical system, take the first ever decade as an example. From the first day technically you would be in year 0 until 365 (for sake of argument) days had passed. Hence the count begins from 0 so from year 0 to year 1 is one year and thus decades end with the turning of a new multiple of 10.

But the calendar used by most of the world today didn't have a year 0. it started in year 1. Doesn't make logical sense from a counting viewpoint, but it offsets the decade number to be numbers that end in 1, not a 0.

Ah i see where you're coming from there. You are correct that by the Gregorian calendar the decades would end with the 11's but numerically the argument i proposed is true also. It depends how you label the first year.

To answer the question posed by this post then, i would assume most people consider a decade by numerical standards rather than by the Gregorian calendar

EDIT: Also bear in mind that time is entirely relative. A year is only 365 days because we say it is. We may not count from 0 but thats because we consider 1 a definite beginning, there is nothing to stop you starting counting from 0.1 - using the same principle as the first iteration of time being a day and not a year. Different paradigms are applied to different numeric systems.

 

[Daveman]

"because shut up..." see yugioh abridged for details...
and yeah, actually everything does start from zero actually whatever system you use, stop trying to confusle me when I'm drunken!!!

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

yes, until you realize that I can say its been a decade since '99 today. From the beginning, decades would end in 1 because there WAS NO ZERO. So the official decades that are widely used would be from the beginning, and the beginning was 1, not 0. 11-1 = 10; 11+10 = 21; 21+10 = 31...

Yea, I get where you're coming from now, but that doesn't mean that the year named 2010 isn't 10 years after the year named 2000 and therefore the end of the decade. It may not be the end of the 2001st decade, but it's the end of the 2000s. That's just how Modern Western culture rolls.

Shut up and go get drunk at a party. If you're thinking about THIS on new years instead of doing that, you are a very confused person.

I'm not confused, I just don't have any friends.

 

[Shru1kan]

Alright, glad we could all figure this out. Handshake, anyone?

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Okay think of it this way:

In a game, you start with zero points. Let's say you gain 10 points. Now you're on another 'decalevel' of points. You gained ten, and now you're back to 0, but with a 1 preceeding it, to represent that you gained 10. I can't even think of a game where the points started at 1.

Then you ARE right, years ARE different. They got from 1BCE to 1CE.

Okay, let's imagine that the last year of BC is simply considered the 0th year of AD. There, now you are no longer baffled by the mystical decades system, and everyone is happy.

Finally, peace among men!

 

[theklng]

whoever said that adding to the original total is right. we do implicitly have 0 in any system of counting, but 0 is an odd figure. it is essentially nothing, which means logically you could add it to everything.

1 + 0 = 1

also, i have a faint idea that OP was trolling hard.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

Alright, glad we could all figure this out. Handshake, anyone?

I think we learnt a lot, even though my brain is now weeping.

 

[Shru1kan]

Oh you guys... we've already solved the debate. Don't start it up again.

 

[ninjapenguin981]

If you look back through the past decades wouldn't it be slightly stupid to have the 70s start in 71 and not 70. Hmm, yeah people need to think things through more.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

IT IS CHRISTMAS BREAK.


GET THIS MATH OUT OF MY SIGHT!



Sorry.

My brain is on a strict atrophy basis during Breaks, and after D&D this afternoon, it is not getting there!


(So many Search rolls... Fucking lighthouse...)

 

[vacuumbrand]

its easier to say the 70's 80's etc. rather than the 81+'s. also most people arent math students. its not like it really matters anyway

Ah, I remember the 80 91 's. Good times...
But seriously, I agree with you.

 

[Earthmonger]

We didn't restart our calendar system when Cthulhu or Bart Simpson first appeared, so I don't know why we based it on another fictional character. 2010? 2011? Doesn't matter, nobody knows what year it really is right now anyway.

 

[ScarlettRage]

Because ten is a nice round number.

yuppers
who cares about being right when you have a nice round number?

 

[Zer_]

0 Didn't exist back then, but fractions did.

The calender actually starts at 0.00000000000000001. (Durrr). But yeah, a decade means that 10 years have passed, not we're ON our 10th year. Big difference here.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

also the that question is rather dumb cause at the time they weren't counting down to year 0, they had a vastly different dating system, even according to the Jews we are somewhere in the years 4000 or something

5770, actually.

i knew it was up there somewhere

We've already had this thread, you're wrong. Let me break it down.

2000-2001 = year 1
2001-2002 = year 2
2002-2003 = year 3
2003-2004 = year 4
2004-2005 = year 5
2005-2006 = year 6
2006-2007 = year 7
2007-2008 = year 8
2008-2009 = year 9
2009-2010 = year 10, boom decade

You could say that in your arguement the decade starts in 2001, but in real life it doesn't start in 2001, it starts in 2000, we started counting from 0 not 1 and 0-1 = 1 year as explained above.

except there was no year zero, so your whole argument is wrong, the Common Era started with year 1 and NOT year 0 it went 1 BCE and then 1 CE with no 0 CE in the middle

 

[thylasos]

How come people aren't aware that our notation of history is entirely arbitrary?

 

[Altorin]

you're wrong.

the difference is the fact that presumably there was a 0 year.

On your 10th birthday, you have been alive for 1 decade. 10 years, when you're only just turning 10. not when you've finished being 10. You were alive for a year before you were 1 year old.

Dates are the same way. the very first decade in AD would have been year 0-10 AD. The year didn't start at 1, it started at 0 AD

 

[Caligulove]

its the same deal with last century being the 20th century, even though the 2000s ended that century. A lot of people also assume that there was a year zero though. And when it comes to the way the calender is kept, there isnt (possibly conflicting with theories about perceptions of time for some people)

2009 brings up to the end of the 2010th year on the calender. so technically 2010 is the 2011th year in progress.... I dont see the issue?
You dont even need to be a math student to do that.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

also the that question is rather dumb cause at the time they weren't counting down to year 0, they had a vastly different dating system, even according to the Jews we are somewhere in the years 4000 or something

5770, actually.

i knew it was up there somewhere

We've already had this thread, you're wrong. Let me break it down.

2000-2001 = year 1
2001-2002 = year 2
2002-2003 = year 3
2003-2004 = year 4
2004-2005 = year 5
2005-2006 = year 6
2006-2007 = year 7
2007-2008 = year 8
2008-2009 = year 9
2009-2010 = year 10, boom decade

You could say that in your arguement the decade starts in 2001, but in real life it doesn't start in 2001, it starts in 2000, we started counting from 0 not 1 and 0-1 = 1 year as explained above.

except there was no year zero, so your whole argument is wrong, the Common Era started with year 1 and NOT year 0 it went 1 BCE and then 1 CE with no 0 CE in the middle

Read the rest of the thread, it's been resolved.