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

[VGStrife]

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

Deal, glad i could help from at least a logical standpoint

 

[Zombie_Fish]

I have no idea what the OP means by no counting system not starting at 0, seeing as the two most commonly used digital counting systems (binary and denary) do start at 0. I mean, even hexadecimal starts at 0. People start counting at one because people are taught at a young age to do so, when they start learning to count (and pretty much the only time when they are fully dependant on counting in order to solve problems with maths). This is because back then, it isn't necessary to learn about 0 and any negatives in maths, as trying to teach the possibility of negative values to a six year old would prove far too complicated to be worth it.

Ask any competant student in A Level Physics/ Electronics/ Computing to start counting in binary and they will go "Hmm, let me see... 0, 1, 10, 11..." I have no idea where you got the thought into your head that binary doesn't start at 0, seeing as the value 0 is incorporated into all digital systems that rely on binary (which is every digital/ software system in a computer) and all of those systems have the value at the start.

EDIT: It appears that this thread was /thread'd before I could write this post up. Oh well, life goes on.

Whistles off into the background...

 

[Shru1kan]

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

Deal, glad i could help from at least a logical standpoint

Yeah I walked away to go eat dinner after that post and was like "*facepalm* really....?"

 

[VGStrife]

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

Deal, glad i could help from at least a logical standpoint

Yeah I walked away to go eat dinner after that post and was like "*facepalm* really....?"

Lol, I am the worst ever for things like that, and Ive studied for like 16 years

Hunger can make us do crazy things....

 

[Raven's Nest]

this is something i've noticed for a long while now, it's the fact that people think that going from 2009 to 2010 signifies the end of the decade. the same thing happened going from 1999 to 2000, they thought it was the end of the millennium.

the thing is they are WRONG. any math student or person studying math will be able to explain how to count in base 10 aka the decimal system. you start at 1 and end at 10 before the next iteration comes up, aka 11. you don't start counting at 0 any counting system, even binary. start counting and i'm going to bet you start at 1 and not 0.

so i'm just wondering why people think the decade starts in 2010 instead of the correct year of 2011?

It doesn't have much to do with maths. The measurement of time and mathmatical addition are different... Why do you not seem able to realise that?

It makes far more sense to consider the end of a decade with the passing of the final second of 9th year. Technically, you do actually start counting from 0 chronologically. Like when you use a stopwatch and stop it at half a second the time reads 0.5 indicating that the first whole second has started and will be counted as a full second when the time reaches 1.0

The same principle applies when you are born, you are not considered one year old, because you haven't lived for a year yet. You can reach one millisecond old almost instantly yes but obviously years take longer. The moment you reach 10 years old you will have completed 10 whole years, and will have started the next set of ten years should you choose to continue counting in tens.

The way we refer to the starting of a new decade as a chronological marker is just different to what a decade of numbers is. Blame the guys who make up the English language not us mere mortals...

 

[JediMB]

This whole thing could be resolved if we were just allowed to push back the numbering of all the B.C. years to make room for a 0. Unfortunately I suspect that certain religious organizations might object, since that would be much too logical for their taste.

...

 

[Talvrae]

We may all count from 1. But that doesn't mean we didnt have a 0 AD.... Mathimatically argued with decimal, yes, you're correct, but historically, we had a year 0.

And besides, I like even numbers more than odd numbers.

There wasnt any O AD sorry.... my History teacher learned me that in Highschool... he is technically right about the millenia, decades, things but to be fair everyone stopped conthing decades as starting at 1+ instand of 0+ years ago... Only historian still consider the 1+ system

 

[Carlston]

this is something i've noticed for a long while now, it's the fact that people think that going from 2009 to 2010 signifies the end of the decade. the same thing happened going from 1999 to 2000, they thought it was the end of the millennium.

the thing is they are WRONG. any math student or person studying math will be able to explain how to count in base 10 aka the decimal system. you start at 1 and end at 10 before the next iteration comes up, aka 11. you don't start counting at 0 any counting system, even binary. start counting and i'm going to bet you start at 1 and not 0.

so i'm just wondering why people think the decade starts in 2010 instead of the correct year of 2011?

Because mostly this type of stupidity is suckled by the media.
The same people who call anything that fires full auto a "Machine gun." ignoring the differences of Assault rifles, submachine guns, machine pistols ect.

And calls anything over 6 inches long with a single edge a "Samurai Sword"

They are reporters to the tards of the world and must dumb everything down.

 

[Cherry Cola]

[small]and some people still think math is witchcraft[/small]

Seriously?
Explain yourself.

Please?

Math IS witchcraft. Just look:

1 + 1 is supposed to be 11. You just put them together, right?

But if we use a little math, it becomes:
1+1=2.

They just turned into a 2! WITCHCRAFT!

 

[Nevyrmoore]

I really don't wish to go through 4 pages of dross. Could someone kindly tell me if someone has pointed out to the OP how base 10 actually works?

Because from where I'm standing, he's doing it wrong.

 

[Standby]

I'm starting to think you're trolling.

So, your age is not a count of years? The year is not a count of how many have passed since the common era began? Why not make the next year year 50000, if we aren't counting up in order?

You can be 0 years old.

EDIT: Just because it follows a different convention to ordinary counting, does not mean it's completely arbitrary. Why are you so reluctant to accept that sometimes, that's just how things work?

When you're born though, you aren't '1' already are you?

 

[Ph33nix]

because the media is retarded.

 

[DRTJR]

because the media is retarded.

Quoted for truth

 

[brunothepig]

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?

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.

 

[The Unspool]

Wrong, that is not how math works.

Numbers do start at 0 and you do count from 0, that is why you aren't born 1 year old. Also, think about rounding, you round at 5, rounding at 5 only makes sense if the first half of a set of ten is from 0-4.99999 and the second is from 5-9.999999.

A decade is 10 years, once you reach 2010 it indicates that we have COMPLETED 10 years 2000-2009 (count em, 10).

Furthermore, just so we're clear, a decade is really any 10 year cycle, so every instant we are completing a decade that we started this very same instant 10 cycles around the sun ago.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Your logic is flawed.

 

[Yeq]

Because it is the next decade in 2010. Regardless of mathematical arguments, it is. Common usage makes it so, and it doesn't matter what the "correct" answer is, the decade starts in 2010 because everybody thinks it does, and our method of measuring the calendar is a human device as defined by humans.

 

[The Unspool]

Because it is the next decade in 2010. Regardless of mathematical arguments, it is. Common usage makes it so, and it doesn't matter what the "correct" answer is, the decade starts in 2010 because everybody thinks it does, and our method of measuring the calendar is a human device as defined by humans.

This.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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

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

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?

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.

cept there was no year 0 AD. so your logic fails