TorchBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Of course, that would have to be renamed the zeroth millennium BC.
Does Anybody Ever Get This Right?
- Thread starter 45/70
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
jtr1962
Flashaholic
I'm just wondering why you think it isn't correct math. It is in fact perfectly correct math-you're just changing the way we refer to BC years by making them negative, and offsetting them by one. That in my opinion is the least disruptive solution if we want to continue the practice of referring to decades as years with the same tens digit, centuries as years with the same hundreds digit, millenia as years with the same thousands digit, etc. Even though it's technically correct given today's system, just about nobody is going to start saying 2000 through 2010 is a decade, or 1901 through 2000 is a century. At least by using the astronomical system popular usage of decades also becomes technically correct. The resulting change to BC years is one I think most people could live with, and it's easy enough to convert from the current system to the new one. Like I said, it's not like BC years are often used these days, except by historians. Yeah, the first century BC ends up as -1 through -100, so we still have a problem there, but once again not a whole lot of people refer to centuries BC anyway.
This kind of reminds me of a debate a couple of years ago on one of the computer sites I frequent about hard drive size. One side insisted hard drive makers were shortchanging people because Windows reported a lower drive size. Others said ( correctly in my opinion ) that it was Windows which was wrong because they used 1,048,576 bytes as a megabyte and 1,073,741,804 bytes as a gigabyte, when in fact the prefixes mega and giga meant 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 respectively, and always have for as long as I could remember. The solution around the dilemma was of course new notation for "binary" megabytes and gigabytes referring to them as mebibytes and gigibytes. Unfortunately, Windows still doesn't have this new notation incorporated. Nevertheless, this is clearly a case where the popular usage is obviously technically incorrect, and yet it persists anyway, same as the current decade/century/millenia situation. In both cases there are easy solutions, but as usual people are resistant to change.
EDIT: I found the discussion about hard drive size I was referring to.
BTW, does anyone know if there's a way to make XP report hard drive sizes in "normal" gigabytes?
OK, I'm off to see Dionysius and King Charlemagne in my DeLorean. I'll try to return to the present in the exact same moment as I left so I can add to this post. Come to think of it, if I'm successful this thread won't even exist.
UPDATE: I just spent a couple of days in the past. Not pleasant-dirty, primitive, and oh, the body odor. No luck obviously. This thread is still here, and to make things worse, I have an arrow head stuck in my behind from when I tried to see King Charlemagne. 😱oo: Never again. I think I like the present a whole lot better.
Last edited:
TorchBoy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Do pay attention. To be consistent, or simply to count as wrongly as you want to for both sides of zero, you have to offset the BC years by two and have two zero years. Otherwise you're creating a system with two counting methods, not one correct one like at present. And yet you wonder why he thinks it isn't correct math? :mecry:
Not only is it not technically correct, but there are good reasons why most people wouldn't do that. IT'S ELEVEN YEARS!
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibibyte
jtr1962
Flashaholic
I did mention that you'll still have a problem with BC years using the astronomical system, but then again how often are decades or centuries BC used anyway? The point is that the astronomical system corrects the obvious difference which current exists between popular and technically correct usage in most instances ( years AD ). I'll bet there are over 1000 references to AD years for every one for BC years. The idea is to use the solution which works most of the time. There really is no solution which can work for both BC and AD years, and have consistent decades for both. The idea of two zero years would make even less sense than just accepting the inconsistency on both sides of zero.
Well, it just proves the point I was trying to make about the confusion which would reign if we tried to get people to refer to decades or centuries in a technically correct way. Many would still mistakenly do exactly what I did-start a decade off with a year ending in zero by force of habit, and end it with another year ending in zero. You'll have about as much luck trying to get people to refer to 2001-2010 as a decade, as you will getting them to stop breathing. It's easier to just start using the astronomical system. Most people don't tack AD on when they refer to a year anyway, so in effect most year notations are already astronomical strictly speaking. Come to think of it, yes, that's it! 2001 AD - 2010 AD is in fact a decade, but if you say 2000 - 2009 is a decade, technically you're using the astronomical notation even if you don't realize it, and you're correct also! Remember that you must use AD either before or after the year, or you're technically NOT using the Gregorian calender. And since almost nobody tacks AD on after a year, then the popular usage is also technically correct, because technically it's astronomical notation! Bingo, problem solved! Now why didn't I think of it sooner?Not only is it not technically correct, but there are good reasons why most people wouldn't do that. IT'S ELEVEN YEARS!
And now I finally have a ready answer for the next person who says the 21st century started on January 1, 2001. Unless they stick AD in there someplace, they're technically wrong!
MCFLYFYTER
Banned
2001 AD - 2010 AD is in fact a decade, but if you say 2000 - 2009 is a decade, technically you're using the astronomical notation even if you don't realize it, and you're correct also! Remember that you must use AD either before or after the year, or you're technically NOT using the Gregorian calender. And since almost nobody tacks AD on after a year, then the popular usage is also technically correct, because technically it's astronomical notation! Bingo, problem solved! Now why didn't I think of it sooner?
I'll buy that.
DM51
Flashaholic
As Jesus was born on Dec 25th, does AD 1 = BC 1? :nana:
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Ok, now I'm really confused. 😕 :laughing:
45/70
Flashlight Enthusiast
See, I don't have any problem with that. 200(1)-20(10), but then again, I don't have any problem counting to ten, as many apparently do.
Thanks, DM. You're a really big help. :shakehead
Dave
was.lost.but.now.found
Enlightened
I think it's readily apparent that people will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of facts that are presented to them.
DM51
Flashaholic
LOL!Thanks, DM. You're a really big help. :shakehead
Vikas Sontakke
Enlightened
- Joined
- May 30, 2002
- Messages
- 860
Someboday mentioned writing 24:00 on their official report; what date/day do they put it along side? I agree that this is NOT how airline puts their schedule.
If say 23:59 was on 1/1/10, 24:00 is 1/1/10, and then 00:01 is 1/2/10. Hope this helps.
Rememeber, there are 24 (NOT 23:59) hours in a day, thus 24:00.
My .02 FWIW YMMV
Rememeber, there are 24 (NOT 23:59) hours in a day, thus 24:00.
My .02 FWIW YMMV
45/70
Flashlight Enthusiast
Well, that depends on whose doctrine you go by, RWT1405.
Some folks would have us believe that, in your example, 1/2/10 actually starts at 23:00 on 1/1/10. 🙂
While a few of these folks do a pretty good job counting to ten, they have a little trouble with 24. It's that first 23 hour day that throws me off. 😉
Dave
MCFLYFYTER
Banned
How can you have a zero minute, without having a zero hour? If you say there is no 00:00, that means you are starting at 00:01.. If the day starts with 00:01 it would have to end with 23:60, because you have to have 60 minutes in an hour. If you have a zero minute, and no zero hour, well.......that's dumb.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
24:00 = 0:00 the next day. The two are equivalent.
The use of 24:00 is merely a convention to avoid ambiguity if something starts at midnight, and then ends at midnight exactly 24 hours later. Technically, 24 hour time goes from 00:00:00 through 23:59:59.
MCFLYFYTER
Banned
I agree completely. It has been stated by others that 00:00:00 is not correct, and that 24:00:00 is the only correct way to designate midnight. apperantly they thing a zero second and minute are ok, but not a zero hour. I challenge anyone to make sense of that one. :thinking:
EDIT:
like this
was.lost.but.now.found
Enlightened
Let's get back to the original point of the OP; can anyone provide any links from a valid authoritative source that says a 'decade' must start in a year ending in '1' (i.e. 2011)? Yahoo answers does not count. I have yet to see one on this forum or in my searches.
. I have yet to see one on this forum or in my searches.
MCFLYFYTER
Banned
Let's get back to the original point of the OP; can anyone provide any links from a valid authoritative source that says a 'decade' must start in a year ending in '1' (i.e. 2011)? Yahoo answers does not count
Everything I have found says ANY ten consecutive years is a decade. It is my understanding that a decade can start or end in any year, any month, any day, any hour, any second, as long as it is ten full years. And NO I have no idea how it would work on February 29, so don't ask.
ok, I give MCFLYFYTER, you are right!
There are NOT 24 hours in a day, there are 23.
A set of 10 (a decade) does NOT go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; it goes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
a second set of 10 does NOT go 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; it goes 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
a third set does NOT go 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; it goes 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 29.
When someone makes change for a $10 bill, you do NOT count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 for the $1 bills you get. You count 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 for the $1 bills YOU get (and I'll be more then happy to make change for your money anyday, using YOUR math)
And using YOUR math 0=1.
So yes, you are correct, are you happy now?
My .02 FWIW YMMV
There are NOT 24 hours in a day, there are 23.
A set of 10 (a decade) does NOT go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; it goes 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
a second set of 10 does NOT go 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; it goes 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
a third set does NOT go 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; it goes 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 29.
When someone makes change for a $10 bill, you do NOT count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 for the $1 bills you get. You count 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 for the $1 bills YOU get (and I'll be more then happy to make change for your money anyday, using YOUR math)
And using YOUR math 0=1.
So yes, you are correct, are you happy now?
My .02 FWIW YMMV
was.lost.but.now.found
Enlightened
Link please.
