1980 finished off the decade that started in 1971, as in first year of the 1970s, since a decade/century/millenium can't start on a zero because zero is just that - nothing. There was no 'the year Zero'.

Anyway, that's that. So Gazza was right - five different decades.

Quote
tumblingdice
But for looking at decades ex. 60's, 70's 80's ect. you go by the years themselves and not the century counter. Good example is would you count 1980 as part of the 70's? No you would not. The 70's went out with 1979 and the 80's began with 1980. A bit silly to not consider 1980 as part of the 80's actually.

There is no such date as the year zero. The first year AD is the year 1 AD.

So the first decade spans the years 1-10 A.D. Therefore the first decade of the present millennium runs from 2001 to 2010. Not 2000 to 2009. The second millennium ended on 31 December 2000, not 1999. So the first year of the 80s is 1981. Not 1980.

Skipstone and Doxa are correct - its just common parlance to refer to decades by the number that is followed by a zero...70's (1970-79), 80's (80-89), '00's. Even if its technically wrong.

Strictly speaking, the Stones have had UK number 1's in four decades (60s, 70's, 90's, 00's). If they have another one between 2011 and 2020 it'll be five.

For those who don't take these definitions literally, it's five already. The '00s being the exception.

Quote
skipstone
1980 finished off the decade that started in 1971, as in first year of the 1970s, since a decade/century/millenium can't start on a zero because zero is just that - nothing. There was no 'the year Zero'.

Anyway, that's that. So Gazza was right - five different decades.

The 1970's started with the year 1970. The zero is zero but it has a 7 before it, meaning 70 (1970's) likewise the 2000's started with 2000 and the 2010's with 2010. It doesn't matter in Holland and Germany etc. they've hit the nr 1 spot every decade, if they didn't in some other countries that doesn't change the fact that worldwide the Stones have topped the charts since 1964.

Quote
behroez
The 1970's started with the year 1970. The zero is zero but it has a 7 before it, meaning 70 (1970's) likewise the 2000's started with 2000 and the 2010's with 2010. It doesn't matter in Holland and Germany etc. they've hit the nr 1 spot every decade, if they didn't in some other countries that doesn't change the fact that worldwide the Stones have topped the charts since 1964.

That's the perception, but the reality in the calender is the one Skipstone explained:

"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."


[en.wikipedia.org]

Thinking about the forecoming decade - the one that start next year..

Anything happened in the sixties will be celebrated for its 50th Anniversary. I think there is especially one particular band from Liverpool that might have quite a lot of achievements to be remembered...

Perhaps the EXILE success is nothing compared what will happen soon... (Do I recall right that "Love Me Do" made #1 in UK Charts in its 20th Anniversary?)

- Doxa

Hmm... I'm still a bit confused of the calendar logic... If I recall right The Nazarethian guy was born in X-mas, right? That's 25th of December. The year ends 31th of December. And still the counting of the years is based on His birth. But why the seven days gap? Seemingly Christ was born seven days prior the year 1 AD, that is to say during the year historians say to be 1 BC, that is, -1 AD... I guess there is some deeper logic behind of all these conventions, and some of them not should be taken too literally.

(Actually, and not by convention, the historical Nazarathian is estimated to have born around 4 AD - at least that's the number I recall reading somewhere sometimes. But that's another story...)

Could they re-arrange the history of time and add the missing zero there to make it mathemtically more coherent? In arithmetic the gap between -1 and 1 is two natural numbers, as where as between 1 and 2 it is one natural number. In calendar semantics the gap between -1 and 1 is only one yaer, the same as between 1 and 2... makes no sense. I DEMAND THE GODDAMN ZERO!

Okay, sorry going too OT... what matters is that EXILE is on top of the charts!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-24 19:08 by Doxa.

So tomorrow morning the US chart comes out, correct?

Quote
Doxa
Hmm... I'm still a bit confused of the calendar logic... If I recall right The Nazarethian guy was born in X-mas, right? That's 25th of December. Doxa

He wasnt. He was probably born around September. And more likely than not the year was between 4 and 7 BC.

Confusing, aint it?

My daughter was born on the year 2000.
Does that means she is from the 21st century but
from the decade on the 90's (that belong to the 20th century)?

Sorry if it's already posted....have a problem to catch up all the post lately





__________________________

Quote
ChefGuevara
My daughter was born on the year 2000.
Does that means she is from the 21st century but
from the decade on the 90's (that belong to the 20th century)?

No, it's the other way around. She was born in the 20th century and the 200th decade. The nineties don't overlap with the "proper" decade which started in 1991 and ended after 2000.

Guess we should get another season of That 70's show....as they ended it as the year 1979 changed over to 1980 thus ending the 70's.
I realize you are correct in how the years count, however it makes no sense in how we look at decades ourselves as 70's, 80's ect.

Cheers

Well, it's confusing but understandable.

200th decade: 1991-2000
Nineties: 1990-1999

They don't overlap completely, but that's fine.

Has anybody seen this week's UK midweek sales figures yet?