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

[Pyotr Romanov]

Its a title with a heavy weight I have to bear. But 'tis a title I am proud of.
Now, excuse me. I have to go piss on babies.

Ahh, yes. You truly are expressing your faith in humanity.

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!

Oooooooh~
I never thought of it like that. Changing things into other things!
Burn 'em changed things!

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

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

Reading comprehension, learn it.

 

[SmartIdiot]

The correct end of the decade... are you kidding? Was this even worth making a thread about?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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

Reading comprehension, learn it.

i have and maybe you should learn some logic instead of trying and failing to insult me. is that all you have is to personally attack me when i've proven your theory wrong, very easily?

 

[KSarty]

2000 was the beginning of the new millenium, it stands to reason that it would also be the beginning of the new decade.

 

[Jory]

Also, a decade is just a period of 10 years. It's not like we're breaking any rules by starting it somewhere convenient. Convention implies definition in this case

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

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

Reading comprehension, learn it.

i have and maybe you should learn some logic instead of trying and failing to insult me. is that all you have is to personally attack me when i've proven your theory wrong, very easily?

Reading comprehension today, grammar tommorow!

Also, it's not really my theory, I didn't invent the decade naming system unfortunately. But yea, me and the chap up above already resolved it.

 

[TopHatTim]

I disagree with you. To me it makes sense that, for example, the seventies started in 1970. This is a bit like when people talk about the 18th century, which is in fact the 1700s.

yeah but the 18th century being 1700 is cheating...
i wonder what i was like in the year 1....and 2....and i wonder what it was like when the first person to see year 10 was like?
what did it feel like to be born before year 1?


i hate you for making me think of things like that.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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

Reading comprehension, learn it.

i have and maybe you should learn some logic instead of trying and failing to insult me. is that all you have is to personally attack me when i've proven your theory wrong, very easily?

Reading comprehension today, grammar tommorow!

Also, it's not really my theory, I didn't invent the decade naming system unfortunately. But yea, me and the chap up above already resolved it.

i've got both and all you end up doing to "discredit" me is try and fail to insult me. i used some very simple logic to prove you wrong.

also you might want to learn spelling and grammar before you go comment on that of others

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

i've got both and all you end up doing to "discredit" me is try and fail to insult me. i used some very simple logic to prove you wrong.

also you might want to learn spelling and grammar before you go comment on that of others

Congrats, you have a big e-penis. Are we done now?

 

[Batfred]

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.

Any computer science student will tell you that you start at 0 and count up. (In fact, in binary, you do start at 0 for ease of use (e.g., 0000 to 1111 is 16 numbers).)

Are you saying the year 0 never existed and doesn't count as a year?

Well, a contributing problem is that in the BC-AD (or BCE-CE) system, there is no 0BC or AD0 - the calendar goes from 1BC to AD1.

Damn, you got there first, but thank you for pointing this out. I beleive that the OP was going for pre-mezo-american maths. How ingeniously archaic!

 

[StonkThis]

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.

 

[crudus]

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.

uhhhh...no. Any base system starts at 0.

Binary: 0, 1, 10, 11, 100
Trinary: 0, 1, 2, 10, 11, 12
Octal: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10

Notice how you have to add a digit at the beginning? That means you have run out of numbers in your base and so you have to use the first and second number in your base to represent the next number. The logic in your last sentence is because it is wasting time to say "0" when counting.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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.

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

 

[Shenanigans176]

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:

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

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...

 

[Dr. Gorgenflex]

Because no one cares?

/thread

 

[zen5887]

Its easier to group thing.

When you think of the 90s you would thing 1990 - 1999

It's easier and no one really thinks to hard into these things.

There you go, three quite valid reasons =)

EDIT: Another one, in this case, culture has taken over logic. Sure it might not be the "Correct" way of doing it but everyone does and no one cares enough to change it.