New decade ?

[nick]

OK, so just to prove (probably too late for that) how quirky I am, I cant think that a new decade is starting because to my way of thinking 2010 is the last year of a decade, not the first year - that will be 2011.

I suppose it ought to come down to whether there was a year 0, did we start with AD 0 or AD 1, I don't know, my memory doesnt stretch back that far. But I would have thought that the first decade AD ran from year 1 - year 10.

Am I the only one that sees it that way?

[Kaius]

No, im glad someone else brought this up cause i think the same lol. :P

[Sage]

Well, you wouldn't consider 1970 to be the last year of the 60s, would you?

[nick]

Well, you wouldn't consider 1970 to be the last year of the 60s, would you?
But isnt that just a convenient but inaccurate labelling system. Didnt the first century run from year 1 - year 100, in which case the last day of the 20th century was 31 December 2000 and the first day of the 21st century was 1 January 2001. Most people celebrated the millenium a year early.

[KaelKaos]

Well it went 1 BC, 0 AD, 1 AD right? So 0 AD, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 AD is 10 years! If that makes sense...

Like 2000-2009 is 10 years. It makes sense to me.. ;)

[CaptainObvious]

OK, so just to prove (probably too late for that) how quirky I am, I cant think that a new decade is starting because to my way of thinking 2010 is the last year of a decade, not the first year - that will be 2011.

I suppose it ought to come down to whether there was a year 0, did we start with AD 0 or AD 1, I don't know, my memory doesnt stretch back that far. But I would have thought that the first decade AD ran from year 1 - year 10.

Am I the only one that sees it that way?

Yes, probably. Our calendar is counted from Christ's date of death: thus, the first year of the calendar was AD 0. How would one start at 1 the day after he died? Doesn't work that way. Thus, the first decade ran from 0-9, continuing like that to the present day.

[karl]

Sorry but there was no year AD 0. The 21st century started 2001. The first thing of anything is always 1 never 0

[nick]

Well it went 1 BC, 0 AD, 1 AD right? So 0 AD, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 AD is 10 years! If that makes sense...

Like 2000-2009 is 10 years. It makes sense to me.. ;)

Yes, probably. Our calendar is counted from Christ's date of death: thus, the first year of the calendar was AD 0. How would one start at 1 the day after he died? Doesn't work that way. Thus, the first decade ran from 0-9, continuing like that to the present day.
Well wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century) disagrees with you guys and agrees with Kaius, Karl and me, apparently there was no year 0ad and hence 2010 is the last year of a decade and not the first.

[KaelKaos]

Well wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century) disagrees with you guys and agrees with Kaius, Karl and me, apparently there was no year 0ad and hence 2010 is the last year of a decade and not the first.

Wow, that's interesting. I guess it makes sense.

[The Batman]

That's like saying when a baby is born he's actually 1 years old.

[KaelKaos]

That's like saying when a baby is born he's actually 1 years old.

But he's not though, there's a whole year before '1'. So I don't understand how it's not true with the years of the calendar.

[The Batman]

You guys are thinking as if by saying it's AD 1 it's saying that's the beginning of the first year but it isn't the 1 names the END of the year. We aren't counting what year it is we're counting how many years have passed since AD 1

[nick]

What I'm saying, on the basis of the wiki article, is that the first possible AD date was 01-Jan-0001, not 01-Jan-0000, because there was no year 0.

[Perseus]

You can't really prove if there was a year AD O or not.
I think it starts at zero because it makes more sense. I just don't think it goes 1 BC and then AD 1. Now that I think about it, zero would be the middle point before AD.

[nick]

You can't really prove if there was a year AD O or not.
I think it starts at zero because it makes more sense. I just don't think it goes 1 BC and then AD 1. Now that I think about it, zero would be the middle point before AD.
Yes but presumably its not a question of logic, its a question of fact. Either there was a year 0 or there wasnt. I dont know, wikipedia says not but is not a completely reliable source.

[karl]

Yes, but 0 to 1 is the first year so it's AD 1, and it did go 1 BC to AD 1

[mrmcdonaldduck]

i agree with nick, but i think the whole thing of the millenia starting in 2010 is stupid.

But, there was no year 0, but just a year one. I asked all of my history teachers that, and they all say that there is no year zero

[Perseus]

Yes, but 0 to 1 is the first year so it's AD 1, and it did go 1 BC to AD 1

Do you have proof of this? Because that is all your saying without backing it up.

[OneManArmy]

Technically it's still this decade, but formally it's a new decade. Saying 2000 is still the 90's, and 1990 is still the 80's is just very weird, don't you think?

[nick]

Technically it's still this decade, but formally it's a new decade. Saying 2000 is still the 90's, and 1990 is still the 80's is just very weird, don't you think?
No, not at all. The opposite, saying its a new decade when patently it isnt until next year is just wierd,

[Perseus]

No, not at all. The opposite, saying its a new decade when patently it isnt until next year is just wierd,

So, saying the 70's when 1970 is not included is weird, as well, since 70's means 1970-79, not 1971-80.

[CaptainObvious]

Well wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century) disagrees with you guys and agrees with Kaius, Karl and me, apparently there was no year 0ad and hence 2010 is the last year of a decade and not the first.

What you're arguing is essentially that years are or should be counted as discrete chunks. Thus, it makes sense to regard the first year of the common era as CE 1, and the last year before that as BCE 1.

However, time is not discrete, it is continuous. Think about it this way: define a starting point, an instant in time at which to start the calendar.

3 months later, how many years have elapsed? 0.25
6 months later? 0.5 have elapsed
and 12 months later: finally, 1 year has elapsed.

1 year elapses from a unique starting point that is number 0.x, and that is why the first year should be 0. Astronomical dating makes sense in this regard superior to the Gregorian calendar.

It is very interesting because you're right that if labelled as they seem to be, we may have elapsed one fewer year on the books than if the more sensible continuous method were used; then, it would not yet be a new decade. However, I feel like the dates we're counting from are inexact anyways, so this discussion may ultimately be philosophically a little more involved.