Poll: The New Decade!
- Thread starter No_Remainders
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope. There must have been a year 0. Because years 0-99 were the first century. If years 1-100 were the first century, we'd have started this century in 2001. Not 2000.No_Remainders said:
I think. We may have started it in 2001 after all in which case, you're right, I'm wrong.
"The absence of a year 0 leads to some confusion concerning the boundaries of longer decimal intervals, such as decades and centuries. For example, each decade begins with a year ending in 1, not 0. The third millennium of the Gregorian calendar began on 1 January 2001, rather than the widely celebrated 1 January 2000. Likewise, the 20th century began on 1 January 1901.
This rule results from the fact that the Gregorian calendar begins with a year 1 instead of 0. Cardinal and ordinal numbering of years is therefore identical: The year 10 is the tenth year of the calendar and the end of the first decade. The year 11 is the first year of the second decade, and so on. In spite of this rule, years ending in 0, rather than 1, are commonly perceived as marking the beginning of a new decade, century, or millennium.
If the Gregorian calendar had begun with a year 0 as its first year, then the year 10 would have been the 11th year of the calendar and the first year of the second decade. Similarly, the year 2000 would have been the 2,001st year of the calendar, therefore the actual first year of the 21st century and the third millennium."
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)
'Cause a citation was requested.
This rule results from the fact that the Gregorian calendar begins with a year 1 instead of 0. Cardinal and ordinal numbering of years is therefore identical: The year 10 is the tenth year of the calendar and the end of the first decade. The year 11 is the first year of the second decade, and so on. In spite of this rule, years ending in 0, rather than 1, are commonly perceived as marking the beginning of a new decade, century, or millennium.
If the Gregorian calendar had begun with a year 0 as its first year, then the year 10 would have been the 11th year of the calendar and the first year of the second decade. Similarly, the year 2000 would have been the 2,001st year of the calendar, therefore the actual first year of the 21st century and the third millennium."
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)
'Cause a citation was requested.
... That has nothing to do with... Anything?Sneaky Paladin said:
Yeah, you're 1 year old a year after you are born.
That's common sense.
However, if you are going to count from year 1 (being the first year), including it, the 100th number is... Well... 100.
So, if you use this logic, the first century began on 1/1/1 and ended on 31/12/100.
Also, by this logic, assuming a single year cannot have a century beginning AND ending in the same year (eg: first century ended on 31/12/100 which implies the second can't have begun on 1/1/100), one must infer that the second decade started on, oh look, 1/1/101.
So unless you are going to have a "century" with 99 years, which is, obviously, a huge contradiction, we must assume that it's 1-100, 101-200, 201-300, 301-400, 401-500, 501-600, etc.
This logic can also be applied to decades also, 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, etc.
Therefore, decades/centuries/millennia can be said to BEGIN in years ending with 1, and END in years ending in 0.
Subtract 20 years from both dates, do you consider the year 1990 to not be in the 90s? Likewise, do you consider the year 2000 to not be in the 2000s?
Ok. I'll flesh it out for those of us without the ability to use any logic.Novskij said:
1/1/1 - 31/12/100
1/1/101 - 31/12/200
1/1/201 - 31/12/300
Now you geddit?
So by your logic, either there's a year zero, which we've already established there isn't or else you've decided that some decade only had 9 years... Which would mean that there was a century with 99 and a millennium with 999.Spencer Petersen said:
Sorry, but no.
Sigh.Novskij said:
Ok. A decade/century/millennium must begin on January 1st and end on December 31st.
So say a decade begins on January the 1st, year 1. It must last 10 full years.
So, 1/1/1 up to 31/12/1 is a full year. 1/1/2 - 31/12/2 is a full year also.
If you keep going, the end of the tenth year is 31/12/10. Which means that the next decade MUST begin on 1/1/11.
It's basic logic.
1 AD/CE/etc. (Anno Domini/Common Era/etc.) was preceded by 1 BC/BCE/etc. (Before Christ/Before Common Era/etc.)Novskij said:
if the decade starts in 2011, then by the same logic you're saying that the 21st century started in 2001...No_Remainders said:
As did the third millennium. Yes? What of it?Pirate Yoda Online said:
What year did our calendar start in? 1. Therefore, the end of the first decade was 10, and the end of the first century was 100, and the end of the first millennium was 1000.
Start of the seconds ones were 11, 101, and 1001 respectively.
Well there are 10 years from 2000 to 2009 including those years. Actually think about it. Where most people go wrong is they just see the 9 and go oh that's only 9 years but 2000 is the first year so 2001 is the second year and so on. The decade started January 1st 2010. Also people are saying that it starts in 2011 because 2010 still has a 0 digit but for decade you have to look at the 'tens column' because dec means 10.
Sorry if this had made me seem like I'm trying to be superior or anything. Just trying to not be confusing.
Sorry if this had made me seem like I'm trying to be superior or anything. Just trying to not be confusing.
I never said that 2000 to 2009 is 9 years. Yes, it's 10 years.Astoria said:
But, we can't argue the facts. The calendar BEGAN on year 1. There WAS NO year 0.
So from year 1 to year 10 is ten years (inclusive). Which is a decade. But then the next one must begin in 11. Add 2000 years to all that. 2001 - 2010, 2011 - 2020.