Cal Club Autocross Forums

Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

Craig Naylor wrote:Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

Surprisingly, I've got to agree with Gio on this one.

George Schilling wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

Surprisingly, I've got to agree with Gio on this one.

Looks like you are all correct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kristoffer Gjevre wrote:

George Schilling wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

Surprisingly, I've got to agree with Gio on this one.

Looks like you are all correct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not exactly. We are in the 11th year of the 21st century and this is the first year of the new decade. The first year of the this decade will end on 12/31/10 when the clock strikes 12 midnight and we have completed the year.

Although any 10 year period could be called a decade, I don't think this is what Craig was referencing.

tisk, tisk, you got a boo-boo in your statement to on the Century comment too.

Thought the modern calender was created post the BC/AD era, the first year of the calender is 1 not 0. The first Decade
therefore would be AD 1-10, 11-20 etc. as you continue this forward this decade (and Century) started 1/1/2001, even though the media and tourist industry decided amongst themselves to start it a year earlier (the century that is) this time around. Same goes for the decade.

So far as that Wikipedia link goes, Notice how there is a citation for this usage (above), but the one that Gio has attempted to use states specifically "citation needed"... that's because it hasn't self prophesied yet, even on the internet where everything is correct!

I know some people work better with word pictures. You probably first learned this in preschool. Just use your fingers to count. If it fits on your fingers of both hands (assuming you have the normal number), on the first round it's in the same decade. If you need to start again, or move to your toes, you've changed decades.

What was this thread about again? Wiki? Decade?

Craig Naylor wrote:Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

WRONG. Mathematics has no argument. The first number is 0 not 1. Thus 0-9 are ten digits. Year 2000-2009 is a decade. The new decade is 2010-2019. 2010 is the first year of this new decade. Thus Craig........you fail...again. Happy New Year.

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

WRONG. Mathematics has no argument. The first number is 0 not 1. Thus 0-9 are ten digits. Year 2000-2009 is a decade. The new decade is 2010-2019. 2010 is the first year of this new decade. Thus Craig........you fail...again. Happy New Year.

Wrong! Gio, we don't start counting anything with 0 in base 10. The first millennium and the 20th century ended at 12:59:59 on December 31, 2000. We are in the 10th and final year of the first decade of the 21st century.

Technically, 0 is not an integer. Zero stands for the absence of quantity. While zero is the starting point of physical measurement it is not the where we begin to count objects or periods of time.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

WRONG. Mathematics has no argument. The first number is 0 not 1. Thus 0-9 are ten digits. Year 2000-2009 is a decade. The new decade is 2010-2019. 2010 is the first year of this new decade. Thus Craig........you fail...again. Happy New Year.

Wrong! Gio, we don't start counting anything with 0 in base 10. The first millennium and the 20th century ended at 12:59:59 on December 31, 2000. We are in the 10th and final year of the first decade of the 21st century.

Technically, 0 is not an integer. Zero stands for the absence of quantity. While zero is the starting point of physical measurement it is not the where we begin to count objects or periods of time.

This is good news. Apparently I'm not 56 yet and can live another year as a 55 year old until I have I have completed my 56th year. Oh wait a minute, I have. Unless of course life begins at one. Man, this is confusing. Be sure this is on the agenda Mike. We should debate and vote on it.

I'll take gratuitous arguments with no obvious answer for $1000, Alex.

Someone please let me know if this get's on the agenda. I foresee a fist fight and I want to watch

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Craig Naylor wrote:Fail!
Try again...

it would be the first meeting of the last year of the decade.

WRONG. Mathematics has no argument. The first number is 0 not 1. Thus 0-9 are ten digits. Year 2000-2009 is a decade. The new decade is 2010-2019. 2010 is the first year of this new decade. Thus Craig........you fail...again. Happy New Year.

Wrong! Gio, we don't start counting anything with 0 in base 10. The first millennium and the 20th century ended at 12:59:59 on December 31, 2000. We are in the 10th and final year of the first decade of the 21st century.

Technically, 0 is not an integer. Zero stands for the absence of quantity. While zero is the starting point of physical measurement it is not the where we begin to count objects or periods of time.

Bob, you are wrong again. Zero is absolutely a number and it IS an integer, a "natural" integer to be exact but the only one that is NOT positive within the range 0..9. It is although "even", not "odd". I program for a living so please don't say that "zero" is not something that is used to "count". Talk to "C" programmers when you talk about "arrays". They always start out at "ZERO"

Did Pope Gregory XIII know about zero?

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
Wrong! Gio, we don't start counting anything with 0 in base 10. The first millennium and the 20th century ended at 12:59:59 on December 31, 2000. We are in the 10th and final year of the first decade of the 21st century.

Technically, 0 is not an integer. Zero stands for the absence of quantity. While zero is the starting point of physical measurement it is not the where we begin to count objects or periods of time.

Bob, you are wrong again. Zero is absolutely a number and it IS an integer, a "natural" integer to be exact but the only one that is NOT positive within the range 0..9. It is although "even", not "odd". I program for a living so please don't say that "zero" is not something that is used to "count". Talk to "C" programmers when you talk about "arrays". They always start out at "ZERO"

But C programmers didn't write the calendar and counting in computer languages is an irrelevant argument here. I'll have to try that method of counting at the grocery story and see if they buy that the first apple is 0.

George, you started your first year at 0, you didn't finish it at 0, as Gio is suggesting the 20th century did.

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
Wrong! Gio, we don't start counting anything with 0 in base 10. The first millennium and the 20th century ended at 12:59:59 on December 31, 2000. We are in the 10th and final year of the first decade of the 21st century.

Technically, 0 is not an integer. Zero stands for the absence of quantity. While zero is the starting point of physical measurement it is not the where we begin to count objects or periods of time.

Bob, you are wrong again. Zero is absolutely a number and it IS an integer, a "natural" integer to be exact but the only one that is NOT positive within the range 0..9. It is although "even", not "odd". I program for a living so please don't say that "zero" is not something that is used to "count". Talk to "C" programmers when you talk about "arrays". They always start out at "ZERO"

But C programmers didn't write the calendar and counting in computer languages is an irrelevant argument here. I'll have to try that method of counting at the grocery story and see if they buy that the first apple is 0.

George, you started your first year at 0, you didn't finish it at 0, as Gio is suggesting the 20th century did.

No they didn't write the calendar but we're talking mathematics.

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote: No they didn't write the calendar but we're talking mathematics.

Where in mathematics does it say that the first object being counted is called zero?

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote: No they didn't write the calendar but we're talking mathematics.

Where in mathematics does it say that the first object being counted is called zero?

-->ZERO

In comp sci., zero is usually the starting point, ala C programming, not 1. Granted most people do not start counting at 0, but 1.

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote: No they didn't write the calendar but we're talking mathematics.

Where in mathematics does it say that the first object being counted is called zero?

-->ZERO

In comp sci., zero is usually the starting point, ala C programming, not 1. Granted most people do not start counting at 0, but 1.

We're not talking about computer science, which I've already pointed out; the use of zero within C has no relation to what's being discussed.

We're counting years, with the first year of the 1st Century AD being 1 or 0001. That makes 2000 the last year of the 20th century and the second millennium. Just because it's more convenient to think in terms of the '80s or '90s or '00s doesn't change the fact that the 2,001st year is the beginning of the 21st century and the third millennium.

I wonder how long this will go on for. It's quite entertaining. I have some math textbooks if you guys want to borrow it and start posting up citations

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:

Giovanni Jaramillo wrote:

Bob Beamesderfer wrote:
Wrong! Gio, we don't start counting anything with 0 in base 10. The first millennium and the 20th century ended at 12:59:59 on December 31, 2000. We are in the 10th and final year of the first decade of the 21st century.

Technically, 0 is not an integer. Zero stands for the absence of quantity. While zero is the starting point of physical measurement it is not the where we begin to count objects or periods of time.

Bob, you are wrong again. Zero is absolutely a number and it IS an integer, a "natural" integer to be exact but the only one that is NOT positive within the range 0..9. It is although "even", not "odd". I program for a living so please don't say that "zero" is not something that is used to "count". Talk to "C" programmers when you talk about "arrays". They always start out at "ZERO"

But C programmers didn't write the calendar and counting in computer languages is an irrelevant argument here. I'll have to try that method of counting at the grocery story and see if they buy that the first apple is 0.

George, you started your first year at 0, you didn't finish it at 0, as Gio is suggesting the 20th century did.

After taking my Engineering hat off, I have to agree with Bob. I am an Engineer and have been coding for years in many languages so I get the point that "0" is a REAL number in the same sense that "-45" is a number.

However, the relevant point here is that while zero is a REAL number it is not a COUNTING number. There, everyone is correct

This site explains it better than I can
http://www.bibletime.com/theory/counting
"Because current year numbers are so large it doesn’t make much difference, but technically speaking modern year numbers are expressed using Counting Numbers. 2010 is the counting number assigned to the specific year 2010. There was no year "0" because counting numbers have no such number. The first year in this series was the year "1".

If a date from within 2010 were converted into a Real Number, ready to be drawn on a Cartesian coordinate system graph, the time in question would be 2009.X where X represented the time inside 2010."

Theo Osifeso wrote:However, the relevant point here is that while zero is a REAL number it is not a COUNTING number. There, everyone is correct

Good work Theo. I like an outcome where everybody's right.

Ok, high school grad here, no math, no science. However, in terms of logic, it seems to me that the 365 (or so) days of the year 2000 were not part of the decade of the "90's". So, if one counts that period of time as being the beginning of the "0's" decade, then it follows that 2010 begins the next decade. How would that not be correct?

0's
1's
2''s'
|
8's
9's
= 10 years

Steve Towers wrote:Ok, high school grad here, no math, no science. However, in terms of logic, it seems to me that the 365 (or so) days of the year 2000 were not part of the decade of the "90's". So, if one counts that period of time as being the beginning of the "0's" decade, then it follows that 2010 begins the next decade. How would that not be correct?

0's
1's
2''s'
|
8's
9's
= 10 years

It would be correct. However, there was no year 0. 1BC was immediately followed by 1AD.

....
2010 BC
2009 BC
|
3 BC
2 BC
1 BC
1 AD
2 AD
3 AD
|
2009 AD
2010 AD

"A Year zero does not exist in the widely used Gregorian calendar or in its predecessor, the Julian calendar. Under those systems, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

I think we start counting at zero. Zero is where you start before you begin counting things. When you have a thing, you have "one" thing. Just before that, you had zero things - which IS a quantity.

When you are born, you are "zero" years old. When you do cross over your birthdate/time, you start your second year - as a one year old for the remaining whole year.

So in my mind, the decade starts at 2010 which is the start of our arbitrary 2011th year since year "zero" which is totally irrelevant since it's just a result of calling this year "2010". This decade started 20 days ago and is a zero-year-old and will remain so until one year has passed when we start the second year of the decade on Jan 1st 2011.

Any C programmer will tell you everything ends at zero, as well.

Now, let's talk about how Null does not equal Null!