Skip to main content

Dates, Centuries and Y2K

More
1 year 9 months ago #237406 by hayseed
Replied by hayseed on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K

Sorry Hayseed , you do not have the luxury of agreeing to disagree.

Lang

I do actually.................


Now back to our regular program ... Sometimes Sayings...

"Be who you are and say what you feel...
Because those that matter...
don't mind...
And those that mind....
don't matter." -
The following user(s) said Thank You: wee-allis

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago #237418 by wee-allis
Replied by wee-allis on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm also closer to the head of the axe than the handle. Sorry Lang, but I'm with Seed on this.
With the calendar we currently use and using your JC start point, the first day was 01.01.0000. Now disregarding leap years, 365 days later the date was 31.12.0000. Take that forward, again disregarding leap years, 36,500 days and the date was 31.12.1000. The end of the millennium.

Just a couple of other examples:

I was born on the 17.02.1950. On the 17.02.1951, I was one year old. That's a given. Heaven forbid that I live until the 17.02.2050, I've been on this earth for 100 years. Under your system, I will have to wait until I'm 101 years old to get a letter from Charlie.

I go to the shop and buy 2 dozen eggs. That night I have a 12 egg omelette. Is that carton empty or do I have to wait until I have a boiled egg for breakfast out of the second carton?

A 4 x 100 relay race starts when the gun goes off and finishes when the last, or 4th runner crosses the line. Not when the second heat starts.
As they say, them's my thoughts anyway.
Steve.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago - 1 year 9 months ago #237419 by Lang
Replied by Lang on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
Sorry I can not see the argument.

This argument is not like "A Mack is nicer to drive than a Kenworth" or "Global Warming is proven" it is black and white fact, there is nothing subjective available to argue about.

You said yourself that 31/12/2000 was the end of the millennium. That means the whole of the year 2000 was part of the 1900 century which would not be completed until reaching that last day.

Although we might say it is 4 March 2000 we were still in the 1900 century (that is the 1900 numbered Century not the 19th Century) and the new century (in this case just coincidently a thousand year or millenium rollover) was not until the year was completed - as you point out.

The first day of the new century or millenium is 1/1/2001 not 1/1/2000 as half the population who failed at maths claim.

We all learned the following in school and in fact could not have done any mathematics without understanding this.


Mathematics is based on 10 units indicated by convention as "0". 10 is one ten, 20 is two tens etc. 10 years is called for convenience a Decade from the Roman for ten.

100 is merely ten tens or for convenience a century from the Roman for 100.

1000 is merely 100 tens or 10 Centuries or once again for convenience a Millennium once again from the Roman for 1000.

Any number with zero in it indicates how many tens ie 40 equals 4 tens, 1750 equals 175 tens.

A solid number at the ends indicates so many tenths of a ten ie 47 equals 4 tens plus 7 parts of a ten.

The bottom line is any parcel of tens is not finished until you arrive at the COMPLETED "0". The "0" belongs to that parcel of tens not the next one. Therefore 2000 (two hundred tens) belongs in the 1991 to 2000 parcel and when FINISHED ie 31/12/2000 completes a group of tens, hundreds and thousands all at the same time.

Yet another explanation. Stack blocks up and number them and the top block will have 100 written on it. If we call them years and each pile a Century the next pile (or Century) will start with 101 not 100.

Lang
Last edit: 1 year 9 months ago by Lang.
The following user(s) said Thank You: wouldyou

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago #237426 by Dave_64
Replied by Dave_64 on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
I'm so totally confused about this whole topic!
BUT I MAY have been mistaking Y2K spray with YK jelly!
Dave_64
The following user(s) said Thank You: V8Ian

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago #237427 by prodrive
Replied by prodrive on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
Hahahahaha I love it...
Imagine a forum devoted to Historic Commercial Vehicles, having a multi page topic on how to work out whether you are in the 21st or the 20th century..
Good stuff!
By the way, there is a Flat Earth convention on Decemnber 27th in New York, bookings are available now. Get on it!
The following user(s) said Thank You: hayseed

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago - 1 year 9 months ago #237440 by hayseed
Replied by hayseed on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
dave_64; Some KY may ease the situation....LOL

Prodrive; Rich, all the years starting with Twenty (2000 through to 2099) are the 21st Century.....LOL

And as we all know, we're currently in the 21st century, but the years start with 20. And in the 20th century, they all started with 19, and in the 19th, with 18, and so on

www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/ce...spoilers%2C%20please .

Looks like this Debate is as Old as Time Itself...LOL

"Be who you are and say what you feel...
Because those that matter...
don't mind...
And those that mind....
don't matter." -
Last edit: 1 year 9 months ago by hayseed.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Dave_64

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago - 1 year 9 months ago #237442 by Lang
Replied by Lang on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
No its not. That dictionary assessment is about the confusion people have with the 1800's being the 19th Century not about what year the Century starts and ends.


We are starting to get into the first lesson in a Logic course on the use and transposition of figures:

One man can dig one hole in one day.
Ten men can dig ten holes in one day - maths right and logical
One man can dig 10 holes in ten days - maths right and logical

One ship can cross the Atlantic in 10 days
Ten ships can cross the Atlantic in one day - appears maths are right but illogical

I am absolutely baffled to think there could be any wriggle room or discussion on the building blocks demonstration when abstract concepts like numbers are replaced with bits of wood you can see and touch.

Yet another explanation. Stack blocks up and number them and the top block will have 100 written on it. If we call them years and each pile a Century the next pile (or Century) will start with 101 not 100.
Last edit: 1 year 9 months ago by Lang.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago #237443 by Mrsmackpaul
So Lang for me to understand this correctly

1900 - 1999 was the 19th century

2000 - 2100 will be the 20th century

Is that correct ?

Paul

Your better to die trying than live on your knees begging

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Swishy
  • Offline
  • If U don't like my Driving .... well then get off the footpath ...... LOL
More
1 year 9 months ago #237444 by Swishy
Replied by Swishy on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
WhyIsItSo





we all kno wot we got here .... 10 digits 8 fingers n 2 thumbs also known as 10 fingers


count backwards, pointing to the fingers of the left hand: "Ten, nine, eight, seven, six
Then hold up your right hand and say: "Five fingers on this hand. Five plus six makes eleven!


Seems ligit ......... all adds up

LOL

cya

OF ALL THE THINGS EYE MISS ................. EYE MISS MY MIND THE MOST

There's more WORTH in KENWORTH

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
1 year 9 months ago #237446 by Lang
Replied by Lang on topic Dates, Centuries and Y2K
Paul

You don't believe that. I am sure you understand the difference between a numbered century and the actual year names.

The first century didn't have any century ones in it until it got to 100 because the years were only part of a century starting from zero. The year 100 is the number that makes up the first century.

The second century had all ones in until 200 it but it was called the second century. The number 200 is the last year that makes up that century

The eighteenth century had all seventeens in it until it got to 1800. The number 1800 is the last year that makes up its century.,

How can blokes I have assessed on this forum having greater intelligence and perception than I will ever have continue to argue the last year of a 100 set somehow travels through time into the next set. My brain is about to explode on a Grade 4 maths question.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.472 seconds