The trouble with St. George Illawarra

[to_ddeath]

The only X I'm interested in is the one that should be applied to McDunning-Kruger when he is duly sacked as 'coach'.

 

[ouryears]

Nothing happened to 1 AD. 1 AD to 9 AD wasn't a decade, it was only 9 years.

Hmmmmmm

 

[SBD82]

The only X I'm interested in is the one that should be applied to McDunning-Kruger when he is duly sacked as 'coach'.

Id be happy with the "X" in "Dragons: MMXVIII NRL premiers".

 

[muzby]

I used to think like you, so I was wrong back then, But I eventually saw the error in my ways.

There was no year zero, just year 1. Imagine you are in 1 AD. 1 year has passed, indeed the first year of this new fangle system. 2 AD follows... that's 2 years! My how time flies.

So... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10 AD. That's 10 years, and therefore the first decade.

Decade
noun
1.
a period of ten years.
dictionary.com

By your definition, the first decade was 0-9 AD, which of course is not logical or possible because there was no year in 0.

On the last day of 9 AD, only 9 years had passed. On the first day of 10 AD, 9 years and one day had passed.We must wait until midnight at the end of 10 AD for the first decade to pass.

FTR, my father had this debate when he was a young man. I'm sure my grandfather did as well. So this argument has whiskers on it.

I get there was no year 0.. and I fully agree that 2000 was in the 20th century..

But we don’t talk about the 1990’s as the 190th decade.. it’s referred to colloquially as the 10 years that start in 1990.. if we did refer to decades as the 190th etc, then yes, 2000

a decade can be any period of 10 years, it all depends on where you start counting from (which in our numerical system, the start point is zero)

Eg a baby isn’t automatically 1 when it is born.. and if that baby was born in 1900, they would enter their 90’s in 1990..


Its all to do with the frame in which you are looking at the numbers.. the year 2000 was the last year of the 20th century, but it’s not a year of the 90’s

 

[st penguin]

*Watches from the sidelines*.

If December 31 2000 marked the end of the 20th century, I don’t understand how anyone can counter that January 1 2001 didn’t start the first decade of the new millennium.

Ergo, the ‘naughties’ (as it was facetiously described) finished after 31 December, 2010.

Ok, how about this:

The 2,000’s (the oughties) = 2000 to 2009
The 201st decade = 2001 to 2010

Yes they are one year out because decades are overwhelmingly classified using the base 10 system explained by muzby and others. Does this mean there’s a weird 9 year decade at the start? Yep. But that’s ok because we now have a much more intuitive way to describe the decades.

So if someone challenges the claim that the dragons have appeared in a grand final in every decade, they might say “what about the 2000’s??” You can counter, “no we weren’t in a grand final in the 2000’s but we did win the grand final in the 201st decade.” And we only have a couple of years left to make a grand final in the 202nd decade.

On the plus side you are technically correct.
On the negative side you have probably started a brand new argument about how decades are recorded.

 

[muzby]

Funnily enough, it was only around four or five hundred years ago we aligned to the Gregorian calendar..

So the time periods we are referring to are effectively arbitrary anyway..

Which begs the question.. how old is the earth in real terms?

I love philosophy on a Saturday morning..

 

[SBD82]

Funnily enough, it was only around four or five hundred years ago we aligned to the Gregorian calendar..

So the time periods we are referring to are effectively arbitrary anyway..

Which begs the question.. how old is the earth in real terms?

I love philosophy on a Saturday morning..

Happy 29th of July.

 

[Old Timer]

Back to the apple theory

If you have a table and beside it a bowl with apples in it and someone says how many apples are on the table I don't know anybody who would say there are zero apples on the table they would all say there are no apples on the table.
If the person was asked to count out 10 apples and put them on the table the person would pick up an apple put it on the table and say 1 and proceed on until they have 10 apples.
Nobody would start the count at zero as that would mistakenly give a value to something that is not there.
So if a decade is 10 and the first number is 1 therefore the last number surely must be 10.

 

[blacksafake]

It's the weekend.
School is finished for the week,time for the footy

 

[Crush]

It's the weekend.
School is finished for the week,time for the footy

Geezus! Agreed!
It's Saturday, Game Day!
Enough with the fricken arguing about English and Maths!
Now back to winging about Paul McGregor please. Thank you!

 

[st penguin]

Geezus! Agreed!
It's Saturday, Game Day!
Enough with the fricken arguing about English and Maths!
Now back to winging about Paul McGregor please. Thank you!

 

[muzby]

I don't know anybody who would say there are zero apples on the table

Hi, I’m muzby. Nice to meet you.

Now you know someone who’d say zero.

And if that makes me the first person you know who’d say zero apples that’s actually a great case in point.

Before you met me, you were still an entity, but your base of people you knew who’d say zero apples was zero.

Now it’s one.

Our decimal numeracy system is based on the digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Without those delightful ten digits you can’t make any other number.

The number 10 is actually the base for two digit numbers starting with a 1.



Or..... perhaps if we take it to football terms.. every team starts the match on zero. It’s a valid score (as you can have a 0-0 draw) but the objective of the game is to accumulate more points than the other team.

#mathswithmuzby

 

[SBD82]

Back to the apple theory

If you have a table and beside it a bowl with apples in it and someone says how many apples are on the table I don't know anybody who would say there are zero apples on the table they would all say there are no apples on the table.
If the person was asked to count out 10 apples and put them on the table the person would pick up an apple put it on the table and say 1 and proceed on until they have 10 apples.
Nobody would start the count at zero as that would mistakenly give a value to something that is not there.
So if a decade is 10 and the first number is 1 therefore the last number surely must be 10.

The absence of something has to be a discernible amount, otherwise the presence of something can't be calculated.

 

[muzby]

This is easily my favourite thread on here in ages.

 

[Dragon Blood]

The absence of something has to be a discernible amount, otherwise the presence of something can't be calculated.

Three friends have a nice meal together, and the bill is $25

The three friends pay $10 each, which the waiter gives to the Cashier

The Cashier hands back $5 to the Waiter

But the Waiter can't split $5 three ways, so he gives the friends one dollar each and keeps 2 dollars as a tip.

They all paid $10 and got $1 back. $10-$1 = $9

There were three of them 3 X $9 = $27

If they paid $27 and the waiter kept $2: $27+$2=$29

Where did the other dollar go? $30 - $1 = $29

 

[SBD82]

Three friends have a nice meal together, and the bill is $25

The three friends pay $10 each, which the waiter gives to the Cashier

The Cashier hands back $5 to the Waiter

But the Waiter can't split $5 three ways, so he gives the friends one dollar each and keeps 2 dollars as a tip.

They all paid $10 and got $1 back. $10-$1 = $9

There were three of them 3 X $9 = $27

If they paid $27 and the waiter kept $2: $27+$2=$29

Where did the other dollar go? $30 - $1 = $29

If I know the answer should I say it? Or should I let the people who are having trouble with the number 0 ponder it for a while?

 

[muzby]

The overall amount paid by the group was $27.

$25 for the meal + $2 ‘tip’ for the waiter.

Adding the $2 back in to bring it to $29 is double counting.

 

[Dragon Blood]

If I know the answer should I say it? Or should I let the people who are having trouble with the number 0 ponder it for a while?

Let's see what answers come through, there is some very clever cookies in this forum

 

[SBD82]

Let's see what answers come through, there is some very clever cookies in this forum

Too late. Muzbys sorted it.

 

[dannyt]

I get there was no year 0.. and I fully agree that 2000 was in the 20th century..

But we don’t talk about the 1990’s as the 190th decade.. it’s referred to colloquially as the 10 years that start in 1990.. if we did refer to decades as the 190th etc, then yes, 2000

a decade can be any period of 10 years, it all depends on where you start counting from (which in our numerical system, the start point is zero)

Eg a baby isn’t automatically 1 when it is born.. and if that baby was born in 1900, they would enter their 90’s in 1990..


Its all to do with the frame in which you are looking at the numbers.. the year 2000 was the last year of the 20th century, but it’s not a year of the 90’s

OK- so we agree regarding the year 2000 being the last year of the second millennium.

But, if you agree that there is no year 0, then 1-10 is the first decade and 11-20 is the second decade.

Applying mary's philosophy to team selection (i.e. rinse and repeat), then each decade of 10 years starts with last digit of the first year as '1' and ends with the last digit as '0'.

So the decade we call the 1990s starts in 1991 and ends in 2000.

I can see that, intuitively, the 1990s should start in 1990 and end in 1999. But at what point do you apply this "correction" given that we start at year 1?