The numbering system we use to number our years (Anno Domini), we moved from 1 B.C. straight into 1 A.D. There was no year zero, so a new decade won't actually start until 2021.
Do people just like nice round numbers?
Same thing happened in 2000. There were huge celebrations and whatnot because people thought the new decade had begun.
It was yet another dismaying sign of the failure of education
But maybe there was a 0 B.C. and we just don't know it.
shareThe decade is called the 2010s. Thus, it ends at 2020.
shareConsidering the different calendars that have been used over time and that they didn't actually start referring to the B.C. and A.D. until the 9th century, I think that one year is inconsequential. When you consider that we didn't start using the Gregorian calendar until 1582 to line us up with the earth's orbit around the sun, I'm quite fine saying that it's a start of a new decade as by current standards we are off by a lot more.
shareConsidering the decade as going from 2000 to 2009, 2010-2019 and so is much easier. The decade is defined by the three first numbers and it changes with them. This way 2019 is like 201.9, so in 2020 we start with the first year of the new decade, 202.0
Easy peasy. Much more intuitive.
"The decade is defined by the three first numbers and it changes with them."
The first two numbers indicate the century. The final two numbers indicate the successive ten-year segments in that century. A decade, which is TEN years, only 'becomes' a decade when you get to the END of the tenth year.
A year isn't a single instant of time, it's a period. It has a measurable duration. We don't say, "That was the year that was" until the year ends. Next year, 2020, will be the end of the present ten-year cycle.
That way is less intuitive and useful.
shareMaybe, Ku, but it's correct. :)
Intuition is only necessary when something isn't clear and obvious. We don't use intuition to find out what our bank balance is. We count.
Both are correct. You can define decades in both ways. The one I prefer has the advantage of being much more intuitive, and the disadvantage of having two 9 years decades 2000 years ago. I choose efficiency and usability.
shareBut counting the number of years that have passed doesn't require efficiency and usability. It only requires accuracy.
Pointless argument, I suppose. The masses have spoken and mistakes are here to stay.
you're right, of course.
i think there's just something in our collective psychology that watches the odometer turning from 9 to 0 & sees that as the new start.
it's wrong, but it's fairly trivial & not a hill worthy attacking, at least not too hotly.
i think people are wrong about lots & lots of things, including things that are far more important than this. i'd work on those things first. we can correct decade counts once we get everything else sorted out.
But that's why these sorts of mistakes are so prevalent. It's because we don't bother getting the "little" things right first, before we tackle the bigger things.
And, really, it's not a little thing. It's simple basic mathematics, and nothing to do with different calendars or which is the more "exciting". Mathematics is either correct or it's incorrect. The number 1 is always the first number in a sequence.
I want it to be known that I agree with all of you saying it's not that important, because in the grand scheme of things, it's absolutely not. I was just curious to see what others thought. 😅
You do raise good points about it being the change of the third digit as opposed to the change of the first digit which happens every year.
Also the fact that there is no year 0 is arbitrary at best. Of course there is no year 0, but then again there are also no real year 1 BC, year 2 BC, etc.
Imagine we live in 2 BC and a guy asks you what year it is, would you say it's now year 2 BC? No, because year 2 BC didn't exist.
Someone, sometime hundreds of years later unwisely decided that the year before year 1 is NOT year 0 but year -1 instead. Which is all the source of all the confusions we have today.