The trouble with St. George Illawarra

[Saint_JimmyG]

In a decade's time it will be 2028.

Imagine what we’ll be like in the offseason.

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

Spot on.

We were fortunate to win a premiership in 2010. If not, it would have been quite the low point. In every decade since Saints entered the first grade in 1921, we have qualified for a premiership decider aka grand final (or 'final' depending on the semis system).

In 2010 we got in by the skin of our teeth.

Now, here in the 20-teens... we have just three chances left.
......
Edit: Sorry, I just realised I was talking football there. My apologies for taking the discussion off-topic.

Thank for validating my original point which seems a decade ago.

 

[muzby]

Thank for validating my original point which seems a decade ago.

Nope. Willow’s wrong there too..

Doesn’t happen very often..

 

[dannyt]

I already mentioned that (when I brought up the Gregorian calendar)

What i am referring to with the 1+1=1 is your example of a team winning its first premiership.

Our numerical system works off a base10 system, which starts at zero.

This also flows into how we refer to time now.. the 90s started in 1990.. the 1900’s (as distinct from the 20th century) started in 1900..

#mathswithmuzby

We have a base 10 system, which consists of 10 digits, and the lowest digit is 0.

Counting starts at 1, not 0. This is not to say that 0 is at the beginning of the sequence because it is the lowest number. But you start counting at 1, not 0. Otherwise, you would be defining 0 as 1, which is silly even for you.

Working on this theory, you start at 1, so 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 are the first 10 digits in sequence. In other words, 0 is only included at the very end and has the effect of being the largest number when combined with the next lowest number, which is 1.

So getting back to the decades / millennia question. The calendar goes from 1 BC (I don't care if "BC" is politically incorrect) to 1 AD, i.e. the calendar goes -1 then 1. In other words, 0 doesn't even rate. Probably some poetic justice right there.

So the first 10 years start at 1 and finish at 10.

The first hundred years start at 1 and end at 100.

The first 1,000 years start at 1 and end at 1,000.

The second millennia started in 1,001 and ended in 2,000

The year 2000 is the last year of the millennia and the last year of the decade we now call the 1990s.

2001 was the first year of the second millennia.

I'll match your elementary mathematical theory with my 84% in higher mathematics in 1986.

 

[muzby]

We have a base 10 system, which consists of 10 digits, and the lowest digit is 0.

Counting starts at 1, not 0. This is not to say that 0 is at the beginning of the sequence because it is the lowest number. But you start counting at 1, not 0.

Nope. We’re talking about base sequencing, which for base10 is zero. So from a numerical point of view, a number in the 50’s starts from 50, not 51.

A number in the 100’s starts at 100, not 101.

For base10 your base starts at 0, not 1. There’s actually no number 10 in base10.

To dial it right back as an example, binary is considered base2. But it only has 0 and 1 in the system.

 

[dannyt]

Nope. We’re talking about base sequencing, which for base10 is zero. So from a numerical point of view, a number in the 50’s starts from 50, not 51.

A number in the 100’s starts at 100, not 101.

For base10 your base starts at 0, not 1. There’s actually no number 10 in base10.

To dial it right back as an example, binary is considered base2. But it only has 0 and 1 in the system.

So are you saying counting starts at 0?

 

[muzby]

So are you saying counting starts at 0?

Correct.

You start at a base of zero, your first increment is one.

Massively technical and nerdy I know.. but zero plays a massive role in statistics.

 

[dannyt]

Correct.

You start at a base of zero, your first increment is one.

Massively technical and nerdy I know.. but zero plays a massive role in statistics.

I think I can see the source of disagreement.

I'll concede your point regarding base sequencing and I'll even concede that you start counting at 0 in technical, or rather a theoretical sense.

However, when you are counting tangible items, such as apples, oranges and years, it makes no practical sense to start at 0 as this has no value. Otherwise, the first item you count is given the value 0, i.e. no value, so you haven't actually counted it.

The first tangible item must be ascribed '1', then the whole sequence of decades, centuries and millennia follows.

 

[dannyt]

I agree that the value 0 plays a massive role in stats, but also plays a massive role in maths in general.

 

[muzby]

I think I can see the source of disagreement.

I'll concede your point regarding base sequencing and I'll even concede that you start counting at 0 in technical, or rather a theoretical sense.

However, when you are counting tangible items, such as apples, oranges and years, it makes no practical sense to start at 0 as this has no value. Otherwise, the first item you count is given the value 0, i.e. no value, so you haven't actually counted it.

The first tangible item must be ascribed '1', then the whole sequence of decades, centuries and millennia follows.

Correct.. if we imagine a starting point where you, me and Mary McGregor each have zero apples..

But Doust appears and gives you one apple..

That still leaves two of us with no apples, but we are still physical beings. So the zero apple factor is how we can classify me and Mary as being different from you.

Of course, at that stage i’d hope you hurl that damn apple at Mary.

 

[dannyt]

Correct.. if we imagine a starting point where you, me and Mary McGregor each have zero apples..

But Doust appears and gives you one apple..

That still leaves two of us with no apples, but we are still physical beings. So the zero apple factor is how we can classify me and Mary as being different from you.

Of course, at that stage i’d hope you hurl that damn apple at Mary.

Interesting analogy.

Are you equating yourself with mary, and hoping that by me hurling the apple at mary we distinguish ourselves as different to mary?

If that's what you're thinking, then you're spot on. However, I might be tempted to distinguish ourselves further and hurl a few more things at him...

 

[Dragonslayer]

Before you have something you have nothing.

 

[muzby]

Before you have something you have nothing.

Precisely!

You have nothing but you are still you.

 

[dannyt]

Before you have something you have nothing.

Mary hasn't gotten past the first stage.

 

[avocado]

Avocado, buddy, DON'T click on this thread again.

 

[muzby]

Avocado, buddy, DON'T click on this thread again.

I recommend this instead:

 

[dannyt]

Avocado, buddy, DON'T click on this thread again.

Are you really writing in the third person?

 

[st penguin]

Interesting analogy.

Are you equating yourself with mary, and hoping that by me hurling the apple at mary we distinguish ourselves as different to mary?

If that's what you're thinking, then you're spot on. However, I might be tempted to distinguish ourselves further and hurl a few more things at him...

Ooh Can I have a go...

Imagine Gould, griffin and ciraldo start with nothing.

But then the board hands Gould a knife.

Now you have ciraldo and Gould with nothing. And griffin with the knife in his back.

Have I got it?

 

[dannyt]

Ooh Can I have a go...

Imagine Gould, griffin and ciraldo start with nothing.

But then the board hands Gould a knife.

Now you have ciraldo and Gould with nothing. And griffin with the knife in his back.

Have I got it?

I think you do.

 

[muzby]

Ooh Can I have a go...

Imagine Gould, griffin and ciraldo start with nothing.

But then the board hands Gould a knife.

Now you have ciraldo and Gould with nothing. And griffin with the knife in his back.

Have I got it?

Kind of there.

If you consider the knife as the number 1, Griffin was coaching at Penrith (where coaching is represented by a position of zero) for the past two years.

Suddenly the knife (1) enters his equation, leaving him as coach (0) with a knife (1) an overall position of 01.

If we consider ciraldo as still being represented by 0 (coaching, no knife) we have griffin has 01 and ciraldo as 0

Therefore griffin is considered invalid as Penrith coach and ciraldo as valid.