Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: I want to argue about the definition of "decade" - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

I want to argue about the definition of "decade"

#1 User is offline   Don_Sakers 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 04-February 01

Posted 26 December 2009 - 08:07 AM

I'm afraid you've confused centuries with decades, and cardinal numbers with ordinal numbers. Look up "decade" in Wikipedia.

The decade of "the '60s" (i.e. 1960s) included the years 1960-1969. Similarly, the decade of "the aughties" includes the years 2000-2009.

If one refers to "the first decade of the 21st century," then one is making reference to the period 2001-2010. But we seldom talk of decades that way, and in your article you reger to "the aughties" rather than "the first decade."

I take an extended look at this matter at http://tinyurl.com/yznfpyv
0

#2 User is offline   benzopf 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 11-September 04

Posted 27 December 2009 - 08:06 AM

View PostDon_Sakers, on 26 December 2009 - 08:07 AM, said:


The decade of "the '60s" (i.e. 1960s) included the years 1960-1969. Similarly, the decade of "the aughties" includes the years 2000-2009.

If one refers to "the first decade of the 21st century," then one is making reference to the period 2001-2010. But we seldom talk of decades that way, and in your article you reger to "the aughties" rather than "the first decade."




Thank you for that pedantic look at how not to look at the last ten years. BTW, if you want to cite a reference, don't use the guffaw-inspiring "wikipedia" as your source. Wikipedia is a joke- literally.

Here's my "source":

http://www.theonion....es_750_years_of
0

#3 User is offline   outdo13 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 81
  • Joined: 27-December 07

Posted 28 December 2009 - 02:05 PM

This isn't the end of the decade. There is 1 more year to go.
0

#4 User is offline   geo3rge 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 18-January 06

Posted 28 December 2009 - 02:28 PM

View Postoutdo13, on 28 December 2009 - 02:05 PM, said:

This isn't the end of the decade. There is 1 more year to go.


This is the end of the 'oughties' -- the decade from 2000 through 2009.

It is *not* the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century. That started 1/1/2001 and runs through 12/31/2010.

It would be a while lot better for us all if the Greeks or Romans had invented the number 0. As it is, we have to suffer from lusers who think that the XXI century began on 1/1/2000.

However, you can define any decade as you wish, and the decade in question is defined as those years on the form 200x, where x ranges from 0 through 9.
0

#5 User is offline   MrLizard 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 131
  • Joined: 23-January 06

Posted 28 December 2009 - 02:29 PM

View Postoutdo13, on 28 December 2009 - 02:05 PM, said:

This isn't the end of the decade. There is 1 more year to go.


Where did you learn to count?

Jan 2000 - Dec 2000 = 1 year
Jan 2001 - Dec 2001 = 2 years
Jan 2002 - Dec 2002 = 3 years
Jan 2003 - Dec 2003 = 4 years
Jan 2004 - Dec 2004 = 5 years
Jan 2005 - Dec 2005 = 6 years
Jan 2006 - Dec 2006 = 7 years
Jan 2007 - Dec 2007 = 8 years
Jan 2008 - Dec 2008 = 9 years
Jan 2009 - Dec 2009 = 10 years

10 years = 1 decade.
0

#6 User is offline   Luis_Alejandro 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: 05-October 06

Posted 28 December 2009 - 02:44 PM

View Postoutdo13, on 28 December 2009 - 02:05 PM, said:

This isn't the end of the decade. There is 1 more year to go.

This was a loooong discussion around year 2000... Did it belong to the XXth or the XXIst century?
The fact is that we count years begining with 0. When you were born you were 0 years, 0 months, 1 day... up to the moment in which you finish your first 365 (or 366) days... and you were "a year old."

So, the first decade of the XXIst century began on January 1st, 2000 and ends on December 31st, 2009.
0

#7 User is offline   veggiedude 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 30-August 04

Posted 28 December 2009 - 02:56 PM

Quote

Where did you learn to count?

Jan 2000 - Dec 2000 = 1 year



Wrong.

Jan 2000 - Jan 2001 = 1 year.

That is why 2001 was the first year of the 21st century.

And 2010 is the last year of this decade. (Note: the last two digits '10' is the giveaway, that it is the 10th year, and there are ten years in a decade)

This post has been edited by veggiedude: 28 December 2009 - 03:03 PM

-1

#8 User is offline   geo3rge 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 18-January 06

Posted 28 December 2009 - 03:15 PM

View PostLuis_Alejandro, on 28 December 2009 - 02:44 PM, said:

View Postoutdo13, on 28 December 2009 - 02:05 PM, said:

This isn't the end of the decade. There is 1 more year to go.

This was a loooong discussion around year 2000... Did it belong to the XXth or the XXIst century?
The fact is that we count years begining with 0. When you were born you were 0 years, 0 months, 1 day... up to the moment in which you finish your first 365 (or 366) days... and you were "a year old."

So, the first decade of the XXIst century began on January 1st, 2000 and ends on December 31st, 2009.


As I noted in a previous post, there was no zero when the Western calendar was devised. The first century began in the year 1. All subsequent centuries begin with years ending in 01. This means that the first century ended in 100. Each century has 100 years.

It would have been great if there was a year 0 -- there isn't, we go from 1 BC to 1 AD. -- in which case your argument might hold some water.

Of course, this is all convention. If we wanted to start counting centuries from years ending in 00, we could do it. However, there would be one century that has only 99 years. I doubt if this will happen.

The present system works ok. It is just the ignorant or misinformed who think that centuries begin in years ending with 00.
0

#9 User is offline   wingdo 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 07-May 07

Posted 28 December 2009 - 03:57 PM

View Postgeo3rge, on 28 December 2009 - 03:15 PM, said:

View PostLuis_Alejandro, on 28 December 2009 - 02:44 PM, said:

View Postoutdo13, on 28 December 2009 - 02:05 PM, said:

This isn't the end of the decade. There is 1 more year to go.

This was a loooong discussion around year 2000... Did it belong to the XXth or the XXIst century?
The fact is that we count years begining with 0. When you were born you were 0 years, 0 months, 1 day... up to the moment in which you finish your first 365 (or 366) days... and you were "a year old."

So, the first decade of the XXIst century began on January 1st, 2000 and ends on December 31st, 2009.


As I noted in a previous post, there was no zero when the Western calendar was devised. The first century began in the year 1. All subsequent centuries begin with years ending in 01. This means that the first century ended in 100. Each century has 100 years.

It would have been great if there was a year 0 -- there isn't, we go from 1 BC to 1 AD. -- in which case your argument might hold some water.

Of course, this is all convention. If we wanted to start counting centuries from years ending in 00, we could do it. However, there would be one century that has only 99 years. I doubt if this will happen.

The present system works ok. It is just the ignorant or misinformed who think that centuries begin in years ending with 00.


Actually it's really not that hard. Decades and Centuries end in years which end with a 0. The decade began Jan 1 2001 and ends Dec 30 2010.

And now back to the top ten tech stories for a decade.
0

#10 User is offline   Don_Sakers 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 04-February 01

Posted 28 December 2009 - 05:16 PM

My oh my.

Is someone really trying to maintain that the year 1940 was part of the 1930s?

Is someone really trying to maintain that when you turn 60, you are still in your 50s?

Yes, it is technically correct that "the first decade of the 21st century" runs 2001-2010. But that's not how we ordinarily refer to decades. We generally refer to decades as cardinal numbers (10s, 20s, 30s) instead of ordinal numbers (first, second, third, etc.) When someone says "the decade," the default interpretation is the common one, ie cardinal numbers.

We do exactly the opposite with centuries, which is probably where all this confusion is coming from.

Check the first couple paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry on "decade."
0

#11 User is offline   rockosmodurnlife 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 27-September 05

Posted 28 December 2009 - 08:29 PM

View Postveggiedude, on 28 December 2009 - 02:56 PM, said:

Quote

Where did you learn to count?

Jan 2000 - Dec 2000 = 1 year



Wrong.

Jan 2000 - Jan 2001 = 1 year.

That is why 2001 was the first year of the 21st century.

And 2010 is the last year of this decade. (Note: the last two digits '10' is the giveaway, that it is the 10th year, and there are ten years in a decade)

1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 is one year
For instance if a baby were born on 1 Jan 2000, then 1 Jan 2001 would be her 1st birthday, marking the 1st year of life that has already elapsed, not the year coming. 1 Jan 2010 means 10 years have already passed and the decade is over.
1

#12 User is offline   leicaman 

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,983
  • Joined: 04-December 03

Posted 28 December 2009 - 08:32 PM

The biggest news of the year?

The Internet did not make people smarter. ;)
Eric

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
0

#13 User is offline   grbear 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 28 December 2009 - 10:57 PM

View Postrockosmodurnlife, on 28 December 2009 - 08:29 PM, said:

1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 is one year
For instance if a baby were born on 1 Jan 2000, then 1 Jan 2001 would be her 1st birthday, marking the 1st year of life that has already elapsed, not the year coming. 1 Jan 2010 means 10 years have already passed and the decade is over.


Your comment would be accurate assuming the first year was called 0.. the first year started 1/1/1 not 1/1/0.. there was no 12/31/0. As has been pointed out in many discussions where this has been argued to death, the Romans started our calendar so perhaps you can tell me what the Roman numeral is for zero.
0

#14 User is offline   rockosmodurnlife 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 27-September 05

Posted 29 December 2009 - 07:28 AM

View Postgrbear, on 28 December 2009 - 10:57 PM, said:

View Postrockosmodurnlife, on 28 December 2009 - 08:29 PM, said:

1 Jan 2000 - 31 Dec 2000 is one year
For instance if a baby were born on 1 Jan 2000, then 1 Jan 2001 would be her 1st birthday, marking the 1st year of life that has already elapsed, not the year coming. 1 Jan 2010 means 10 years have already passed and the decade is over.


Your comment would be accurate assuming the first year was called 0.. the first year started 1/1/1 not 1/1/0.. there was no 12/31/0. As has been pointed out in many discussions where this has been argued to death, the Romans started our calendar so perhaps you can tell me what the Roman numeral is for zero.

Since we're using the Roman calendar, you'd know 1 Jan 2000 is actually 1 Jan 2000 AD, so 1 Jan 1 is actually 1 Jan 1 AD and it's well known the year prior to 1 AD is 1 BC. If you followed my comment you would realize 1 BC refers to the previous year being the last year of BC and the current year being the first year of AD. 1 AD means the first year has already passed. Thus a year 0 would make no sense since it would refer to time that is not BC and is not AD.
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users