Math is hard. Apparently
Dec. 29th, 2009 05:11 am2010 is the start of a new year. It is not the start of a new decade. Nor was 2000 the start of a new millennium. You start a new cycle with year 1, not year 0.
To pre-empt the "If that's how people use it, it's correct" argument, I offer this riddle:
To pre-empt the "If that's how people use it, it's correct" argument, I offer this riddle:
Q: "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?"What I'm reading: Ken Scholes, Canticle
A: "Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it one."
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 08:44 pm (UTC)It always bugs the hell out of me that there is no year 0. It does mean that the last decade BC is 10BC - 1BC and the first decade is 1AD - 10AD (instead of 10 - 1BC, then 0-9 AD). Personally, though, I really, really, *REALLY* wish the latter was the system we used.
Still, if you take AD literally, then we're stuck. 1AD is indeed the first Year of (someone's) L-rd.
Of course, if one terms a decade as any 10 years, then one can get away with it to some extent...but the 1st Decade of (someone's) L-rd is still, by definition, 1AD to 10AD.
(now if we could just change AD to "Number of Years After the Birth of (someone's) Lord", then we could number starting from 0, and I'd feel MUCH better)
(actually, if I want to get *REALLY* pedantic, one could *still* define the 1st Year of (someone's) Lord as 0. Ordinals and Cardinals do not have to match. If I have a sequence 0,1,2,3...9, then 0 is the 1st number, so 0 is the 1st year of (someone's) Lord. But no one listens to me anyway...)
no subject
Date: 2009-12-29 08:56 pm (UTC)Working with different programming languages can get weird, as some start counting at 1, some start at 0 ... (January = month 0 ... that takes some getting used to).
no subject
Date: 2010-01-04 09:05 pm (UTC)There's a fifty-yard line right smack-dab in the middle of the field, with a 49-yard line on either side.
Now; contrast this with Canadian Rules American Football.
See? See?!!?