And that's exactly what I'm saying. Yes, you start with a 1, but in a calendar year, there are twleve months that come before that 1.

As I see it, there twelve months that are included in that 1. The year doesn't have to be completely over before you can give it a number. You can say that this is the year 1 in February, just as easily as you can in December.

A year goes 12 months and only then does it become the first year.

A year goes 12 months and that year is over. It doesn't have to be over before you can give it a number.

In a few days the year will be 2010. The year hasn't even started yet and already it has a number.

And so a decade does that ten times, the tenth time being the 12 months of the tenth year, only becoming the 10 after the 9 years plus the 12 months have passed.
Your move!

Granted that the 11th year doesn't start until the 10th year is over, but this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that (when counting) one begins with the whole number 1.

Would you say at noon on July 2nd, that this is the year 0.5?

So. 1 through 10 is a decade -- the first decade. It goes from 01/01/01 to 12/31/10 -- ten complete years.

11 through 20 is then the second decade. And so on.

Ken V.

Well I do feel kind of guilty for potentially hijacking the thread (but my choices would be Lost and.... sorry, I'm not too sure about a movie) but I have often wondered about this confusion (mine included, hence me putting a lot of thought into it) about when a decade/millennium starts and finishes.
I remember back when Y2K came and went - a lot of people at that time said we were all celebrating at the wrong time.
But I'm pretty sure I've got it right -
The First Year: 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
The Second Year: 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
The Third Year: 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0
So you see, the 1999th year would go: 1998.1 ..... 1998.9, 1999.0
Which would make the new millennium start at 2000.0

Only if the first year is the year ZERO.

If the first year is the year zero, then (and then only then) the final year in the millenium would be 999 (or 1999 in this case.)

But being as years were numbered starting at 1, then the final year of the first millenium would be 1000. The second millenium began on January 1 of the year 1001, and ended on December 31, 2000. The following decade (and millenium) began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2010.

Ken V.

Last year ended as a whole number (2009.0) and this year started as 2009.1 and counted up to 2009.9 and then when the year is complete, the whole number is complete: 2010.0, the two thousand and tenth year.

Actually, (to use your example) last year ended as 2008.0, and this year began as 2009.0. When this year ends, it will go from 2009.9999999999999 to 2010, and 2010 will be the final year of the decade. When it becomes 2010.999999999999 it will roll over into 2011 which is the beginning of the next decade.

Ken V.

Is this like saying that when a baby is born they're not 1 year old untill their first birthday and they're not 10 until they're 10th birthday?

I'll add this, they're not considered 1 until they've reached a year, but it is still their "first" year of life. So on and so forth.

Exactly. To say the same thing with different words: When we say that a baby is one year old, we say it when (or after) the baby has lived for one year. Until that time, the baby is living in its first year, but is not one year old . . . as yet.

We can still say that this is the babys first year even though the year isn't over yet.

Ken V.

Only if the first year is the year ZERO.

If the first year is the year zero, then (and then only then) the final year in the millenium would be 999 (or 1999 in this case.)

But being as years were numbered starting at 1, then the final year of the first millenium would be 1000. The second millenium began on January 1 of the year 1001, and ended on December 31, 2000. The following decade (and millenium) began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2010.

Ken V.

Bloody hell.
So there I am, reading through your other posts - the ones directly preceding this one - thinking to myself, 'He really doesn't get it, but how can I possibly explain it any better or clearer?'
And then I read this post. Twice. And then a third time. And now, after strolling around on the net looking for clues, I'm reading it again. And you know what? I really hadn't realised that the first year began at one instead of zero.
To make it clearer in my mind, this is what I've discovered, and I believe this is what I think you've been saying all along:
Previously I stated that the first year went: 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 ultimately becoming 1.0 at the year's end.
But research now tells me that it went 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 - effectively missing out the whole year that I was using to prove my point.
Is that right?
I guess that means hats off to Ken.
Or, to be more precise - shit, I'm wrong again.:o

Bloody hell.
So there I am, reading through your other posts - the ones directly preceding this one - thinking to myself, 'He really doesn't get it, but how can I possibly explain it any better or clearer?'
And then I read this post. Twice. And then a third time. And now, after strolling around on the net looking for clues, I'm reading it again. And you know what? I really hadn't realised that the first year began at one instead of zero.
To make it clearer in my mind, this is what I've discovered, and I believe this is what I think you've been saying all along:
Previously I stated that the first year went: 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 ultimately becoming 1.0 at the year's end.

What I've been saying is that this is the year 1, no matter what part of it you happen to be in. And at years end, the year 1 is over and you start on year 2.

But research now tells me that it went 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 - effectively missing out the whole year that I was using to prove my point.

Now I'M getting confused.

I'm looking at a year as being a unit, and the .1's, .2's, and so on, only add to the confusion. The unit CAN be divisable -- whether it is divided into decimals or months (or days, hours, minutes, and so on) -- but the unit is a year. And when numbering years, we start (started) with the year 1. So, the first 12 months is the first year, (numbered "1") and the second year is year 2 even if it's only January. And at the end of year 10, (10 full years) we begin the second decade -- year 11.

So, a traditional decade begins with a 1, and ends with a 10, regardless of what (and how many) numbers come before that 1 or 10.

In other words, the first decade of the 21st century began on January 1st, 2001, and ends on December 31st, 2010. The second decade of the 21st century begins on January 1st 2011.

And it was the same with the millenium. The actual end of the millenium was December 31st 2000 . . . not December 31st 1999. A millenium is 1,000 years, (1 to 1,000) not 1 to 999.

As I said, there was the year 1 BC, and the next year was 1 AD, there was no year "Zero."

Ken V.

As I said, there was the year 1 BC, and the next year was 1 AD, there was no year "Zero."

Ken V.

It's okay - I see what you're saying.
Until you pointed it out, I had no clue that the first ever AD year started at 1. It just seems so wrong to miss out all the units that make up that one so I just assumed it would start at 0.1 and count up to complete the one. Honestly - missing them out just didn't even occur to me. And why would it? Why would they have done that... surely not just to catch me out?!
So yes, I see your arguement and you're right: if the AD count started at 1.0 instead of 0.1 (and research suggests that this is the case) then the millennium ended at 31 December 2000 and the current decade ends 31 December 2010.

Just to throw in my two cents. I think what is implied is the ending of the '00's. The Aughts, The Singles, The Double Zeros, whatever you want to call it. When VH1 does it '80's specials it refers to the time from 01-01-1980 to 12-31-1989.

Also, cannot a decade just mean "a period of ten years" that can start at any point?

^ This.

For the sake of the thread and sanity how about we just say the best movie and tv show from 1-1-00 to 12-31-09, and remove the word decade lol. Deal?

^ And this.

Only if the first year is the year ZERO.

If the first year is the year zero, then (and then only then) the final year in the millenium would be 999 (or 1999 in this case.)

But being as years were numbered starting at 1, then the final year of the first millenium would be 1000. The second millenium began on January 1 of the year 1001, and ended on December 31, 2000. The following decade (and millenium) began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2010.

Ken V.

I know Ken is correct in terms of explaining what is the first decade of the 21st century. All the same, there are already many lists appearing of "the best" and "the worst" of the decade in many categories, and no doubt there will be many more to come.

So I say let's go with the flow and discuss our "bests" of the decade of "The Aughts":
2000 = #1
2001 = #2
2002 = #3
2003 = #4
2004 = #5
2005 = #6
2006 = #7
2007 = #8
2008 = #9
2009 = #10

But we can still know that we have not yet completed the actual first decade of this century.

Maybe it's just easier for me to accept both at once since I run into this kind of thing on a daily basis. Most groups of things in programming are numbered beginning with zero so you always have to compensate for that in determining how many you actually have.

If I have three characters and I create a list of their names, Jack is character 0, Abe is character 1 and Julio is character 2. But I don't have 2, even though 2 is the highest number in my list. I actually have 3, or in other words, my highest list value +1.

:crazy:

It's okay - I see what you're saying.
Until you pointed it out, I had no clue that the first ever AD year started at 1. It just seems so wrong to miss out all the units that make up that one so I just assumed it would start at 0.1 and count up to complete the one. Honestly - missing them out just didn't even occur to me. And why would it? Why would they have done that... surely not just to catch me out?!
So yes, I see your arguement and you're right: if the AD count started at 1.0 instead of 0.1 (and research suggests that this is the case) then the millennium ended at 31 December 2000 and the current decade ends 31 December 2010.

Thanks Paul. I was beginning to think I was speaking in an unknown language.

Ken V.

^ This.

I must have missed AlvinFox's post: "Also, cannot a decade just mean "a period of ten years" that can start at any point?"

He's right of course. It can. My wife and I were married on December 20, 1971, and on December 20, 1981 we were married for a decade. But a traditional CALENDAR decade would have started on January 1, 1971 and ended on December 31, 1980.

:crazy:

Meeee toooo!

Ken V.