I'm pretty sure there was a year zero, which was Jan 1st 2000-Jan 1st 2001, which is one year. It starts at 2000, ends at 2010, I'd call that a decade. 10 years... Maybe I'm wrong, just tell me why, you're not very clear, because there was a year 0.cleverlymadeup said:cept one small issue, there was no year 0, for this decade to count from the beginning of our time counting then 2009-2010 would be 9 years into this decadeStonkThis said:Ahem...
2000-2001 = 1 year. Still following?
2001-2002 = 2 years. Getting complicated.
2002-2003 = 3 years.
2003-2004 = 4 years.
2004-2005 = 5 years. Almost there.
2005-2006 = 6 years.
2006-2007 = 7 years. Damn we're close.
2007-2008 = 8 years. Excited yet?
2008-2009 = 9 years. Guess what's next?
2009-2010 = 10 years. Yeah. I just rocked your world.
maybe you should have read the whole thread before trying to be smart and be proven wrong pretty quickly
actually it DID got 1 BC/BCE and then 1 AD/CE there was no 0 AD/CE. both the Julian and the Gregorian Calendars don't have a year 0 in them. so simply put the year 2000 would not be part of the 21st centuryShenanigans176 said:I'd just like to point out the year 2000. How can you say that it wasn't the beginning of the 21st century? How many people across the world celebrated the "new millennium" that year? Are all of them wrong and you right? I think that to most peoples' minds it makes more sense to start something at zero. It's just how the brain works. I do like the argument made about zero AD also.
EDIT:But there was a year zero... It didn't go to 1 BC to 1 AD. Using the logic of math, like you're doing, that would be like going from -1 to 1, it just doesn't work...cleverlymadeup said:cept one small issue, there was no year 0, for this decade to count from the beginning of our time counting then 2009-2010 would be 9 years into this decade
maybe you should have read the whole thread before trying to be smart and be proven wrong pretty quickly
nope no year 0, look it upStonkThis said:I'm pretty sure there was a year zero, which was Jan 1st 2000-Jan 1st 2001, which is one year. It starts at 2000, ends at 2010, I'd call that a decade. 10 years... Maybe I'm wrong, just tell me why, you're not very clear, because there was a year 0.
Sorry, didn't know... Why are people, on the whole, illogical and just fairly stupid? Anyway, it's still more convenient to start a decade with ***0. And end.cleverlymadeup said:cept your logic is flawed and was proven wrong, we did not have a year 0, so the first decade would have been 1 - 10 not 0 - 9. therefore all subsequent decades are counted from 1 - 10 with the new one starting in 11-Orgasmatron- said:Read the rest of the thread, it's been resolved.
cept there was no year 0 AD. so your logic failsbrunothepig said:Exactly. 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Was the first decade of this calendar A.D, then year 10 was the start of decade 2. You see, simple math. It goes on.Icecoldcynic said:Well decades aren't maths. Therefore your entire point became meaningless. Right now we're in the 0x decade, and in the new year we will be in the 1x decade. Is that really so hard for you to comprehend? Are you saying the year 0 never existed and doesn't count as a year?