And remember it is twenty-ten, not two thousand and ten.

And don't forget that this is the last year of the first decade of the second millennium, and not the first year of the second decade.

That's because there was no year 0; the calendar started with year 1.

My brothers and i had a long philosophical discussion about that this evening. While you are technically correct, we concluded that it doesn't matter that it's correct.

Numbering the decades as 00-09, 10-19, 20-29, 30-39, etc. is so much more useful that we have determined that's how the decades should be numbered. The "no year zero" argument doesn't really hold water because there was a year before 1. In fact there were lots of years before 1. It's a completely arbitrary system with an ill-defined starting point, so whatever is useful matters the most.

So, this really is the start of the 2nd decade if you want it to be!

Kelly, you're just so pragmatic :)

j razz

Kelly is just so right. The first day of 2010 means we have completed 2010 years, and are embarking on our 2011th year. I thought that was settled when I was just . . . well, a long time ago!

Actually no. The first day of 2010 means we're starting the 2010th year, not finishing it, because there was no year 0.

Well, except ... there was a year 0 which we call 1BC. An there were lots and lots and lots and lots of years before that which we've finished too.

The last half of your statement is the correct one afaic.

The "error" in not having a year 0 is just semantics, since 0 is nonquantified in a real number system. Just a placeholder. That is how it was explained to me as a child, as well as in college.

When I turn forty (hah!) I will have completed forty years and will have already embarked on my forty-first. But when I was born, I was not 0 years old. I was merely less than one. 0<x<=n, where x>0.

In order to accept that we are "beginning" our 2010th year, one would need to accept that y=x+1, and would include (-1,0) which isn't a solution in our definition of time as an absolute. (That's really just semantics too, but illustrates the presumption that 1 != 0). If I solve a quadratic f(t) = ax^2 + bx + c, all negative solutions for x get thrown away as being extraneous.

Since anno domini wasn't even devised until AD 525 (figure that one out), and by someone who had no real knowledge, using our system to pinpoint the year of his birth is totally irrelevant, anyway.

no worries mate, it's 5770 as far as i'm concerned ;-)

oh, and a happy 5770 to you all, or take your choice:

Armenian calendar 1459
Bahá'í calendar 166 – 167
Bengali calendar 1417
Berber calendar 2960
Buddhist calendar 2554
Burmese calendar 1372
Byzantine calendar 7518 – 7519
Chinese calendar 4646/4706-11-17
Coptic calendar 1726 – 1727
Ethiopian calendar 2002 – 2003
Hebrew calendar 5770 – 5771
Hindu calendars
- Vikram Samvat 2065 – 2066
- Shaka Samvat 1932 – 1933
- Kali Yuga 5111 – 5112
Holocene calendar 12010
Iranian calendar 1388 – 1389
Islamic calendar 1431 – 1432
Japanese calendar Heisei 22
Korean calendar 4343
Thai solar calendar 2553
Unix time 1262304000 – 1293839999

And remember it is twenty-ten, not two thousand and ten.

still incorrect: proper English grammar wouldn't have the "and", that's for numbers less then one. So it's "two thousand ten". :D "two thousand AND ten" would be 2000.10 or 2000 remainder 10, etc.

picky picky picky.... :)

Reminds me of an old childhood joke i first came across in a "Dennis The Menace" strip ...

Dennis: "Hey Joey, what's 1 and 1?"

Joey: "Ummmmmm, is it 2?"

Dennis: "Nope! They're numbers!"

Our birth year gets farther down the combo box list, taking longer to find, and giving more flashback memories as we scroll way past the 70's and 80's.

"But when I was born, I was not 0 years old. I was merely less than one. 0<x<=n, where x>0."

Well, according to most western thinking, you were 0 years old when you were born. 365 days later you had your 1st birthday and turned 1. So one year after birth you are 1. What's 1 - 1? Seems like 0 to me.

The Chinese start counting more or less at conception. The figure that since a person is in the womb for the better part of a year that they'll count the day of birth as completing the first year. So under that system you are considered 1 when you're born.

This illustrates the issue. You consider your 40th birthday to have completed 40 years. This only makes sense if you start counting your birth at 0. The calendar's "40th birthday" is the start of the 40th year because the calendar started at 1, not 0.

But, as you point out, the calendar's start isn't really based on act, just on guesses. The most common correction i hear is that it started 4 years too late, which would mean that the birth of Christ happened in 4BC, or in other words, 4 years before He was born. So, with a date that important in flux, who the heck cares about when decades start and end?

When I turn forty (hah!) I will have completed forty years and will have already embarked on my forty-first. But when I was born, I was not 0 years old. I was merely less than one. 0<x<=n, where x>0.

Hmmmm ... in some instances the zero is stated ... in others it is not. You would have been zero years five months old .. but I've never heard anyone say the age of a child that way.

However, when telling time in the 24 hr format, I believe the correct way to say 12:15 am (12 hr time) is zero hours 15 minutes, not "15 minutes" However my local fire department, when they dispatch anything in that first hour of the day, insists on leaving out the "zero hour" part (and it agrivigates the hell out of me)

The proof of the nonquantification of 0 was explained to me as being explained in the divide by zero failure. Now I'm going to shut up before I make a complete idiot of myself.

Ahhhh, whoever told you that was confusing the difference between arithmetic and geometric progression. In geometric progression the approach to 0 is asymptotic and can't be reached. In arithmetic progression it's linear and can be reached and passed.

Guess you all ran out of video things to fight about....

"no worries mate, it's 5770 as far as i'm concerned ;-)"

Yeah, but I'm still writing "5769" on my checks by mistake.

Well, according to most western thinking, you were 0 years old when you were born. 365 days later you had your 1st birthday and turned 1. So one year after birth you are 1. What's 1 - 1? Seems like 0 to me.

the date you're born is when you leave the womb. So the "birth date" for everyone is when you do that. Nothing to do with conception at all, or western thinking. It's the definition of the word. :)

But we're forgetting the REAL issue here: those astronauts get messed up in time way to much. They could be whole minutes off before they die!

In geometric progression the approach to 0 is asymptotic and can't be reached. In arithmetic progression it's linear and can be reached and passed.

I'm sure you meant "hyperbolic" rather than geometric because of your reference to asymptotes. Geometric progressions can certainly have zeroes as solutions, as can quads and rationals.
y = 2x is a function that defines the geometric sequence u(sub n) = 2*u(sub n-1), and (0, 0) is a solution.

But all that aside, my query is if t = 0 can be quantified in an time function, where 0 is a theoretical starting point past which all else can be quantified. I don't know the answer but I know Uncle Albert wrestled a bit with it too.

I'll think about it and get back to you in say, 5771?

'proper English grammar wouldn't have the "and", that's for numbers less then one. So it's "two thousand ten". '

As Henry Higgins said, "Why in America thay haven't used it (proper English) for years".

What is one and one? Two.
What is ten and ten? Twenty.
"And" is a synonym for "plus" in these cases, just as two thousand and ten means 2000+10 = 2010.

Check with your friends from Boston way (those that don't pronounce the "r" in "party"), and I bet that they will say that they have just left the year two thousand and nine, along with all of us in Australia and many other parts of the world.

> proper English grammar wouldn't have the "and",

This is correct for American English.

But in English English the correct form is two thousand and ten.

Mark

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT DAY IT IS AND YOU WANT ME TO DEAL WITH DECADES?

Just as December 31, 2000 marked the last day of the 20th Century, the end of 2010 will mark the end of the first decade of the 21st Century. Please note the caps on Century, because that refers to a specific entity.

While the world made a big hoopla when the date rolled over to 2000, it was still a year till the 21st Century began.

Any way, Happy New Year to all a few days late!

RalphM