Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

But the first marked year is year 1. The 20th century runs from 1901 to 2000, the 19th from 1801 to 1900. Cross Trainer, as he would be the first to point out, is a man of supreme erudition, and would never make an error on something like this.

Then where did the year 1800 go? It's not part of the 1700s - it hasn't got a 17 in front of it. I'll emphasize again; a stopwatch doesn't start at 'one', and neither should the calendar. The first year of the calendar is the first year, but that year is not 1901, it's 1900. 1900 is the starting point, and when it reaches 1901 (on the 366th day of the century), that is the first year over. Just as with seconds; when you say 'one', that's a second gone. When you say '1901', that's one year gone.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Then where did the year 1800 go? It's not part of the 1700s - it hasn't got a 17 in front of it. I'll emphasize again; a stopwatch doesn't start at 'one', and neither should the calendar. The first year of the calendar is the first year, but that year is not 1901, it's 1900. 1900 is the starting point, and when it reaches 1901, that is the first year over. Just as with seconds; when you say 'one', that's a second gone. When you say '1901', that's one year gone.

Well, sir. First thing, this is not religion, it is about mathematics. If you count 100 things, what is the first number counted and what is the last. I think you will notice that your first number is 1 and the hundredth number is 100. So the first century was from 1 to 100, the second from 101 to 200, etc.
Remember the movie, "2001, A Space Odyssey"? The director, the erudite Stanley Kubrick, chose that year because it would be the first year of the next millenium.
The year 1800 is part of the 18th century. By the way, why are the 1700's actually the 18th century?

Your fundamental mistake is starting a number sequence with zero rather than one. You start counting with one.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

Well, sir. First thing, this is not religion, it is about mathematics. If you count 100 things, what is the first number counted and what is the last. I think you will notice that your first number is 1 and the hundredth number is 100. So the first century was from 1 to 100, the second from 101 to 200, etc.
Remember the movie, "2001, A Space Odyssey"? The director, the erudite Stanley Kubrick, chose that year because it would be the first year of the next millenium.

We are talking about time here, and time does not start from 'one' - can you deny that? That's as simple as it gets, and a stopwatch is probably the best example to demonstrate what I'm trying to get across.

Zero is not so much a number, but a starting point. One is the first real number, the first number with substance - but there is a gap between the point marked 'zero' and the pointed marked 'one'. Let us call the gap x. x is a year, a section of time. In between 'zero' and 'one' is where x resides, and so that is the first year. The first year is ticking away well before it has even reached the 'one' marked because 'one' is not the starting point, but merely a finishing point. Basically, 'one' is to signify that one year has passed, rather than that the first year is starting.

By the way, why are the 1700's actually the 18th century?

Because the first century was called the first century, but didn't start from 'one' - it started from zero. 0AD.

Your fundamental mistake is starting a number sequence with zero rather than one. You start counting with one.

I am not counting zero as a number, but as a starting point. See above.

[Manassa]

[cross_trainer]

Just answer the question, guys.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by cross_trainer

Just answer the question, guys.

Might do. Might not. I'm my own man, so don't tell me what to do, you hear? I've got lots of hats and potions and stuff.

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by Manassa

I've got lots of hats and potions and stuff.

[IMG]***********.mtmpresentations.co.uk/re_images/1145705264_offer_Merlin%20the%20wizard.JPG[/IMG]

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Manassa

We are talking about time here, and time does not start from 'one' - can you deny that? That's as simple as it gets, and a stopwatch is probably the best example to demonstrate what I'm trying to get across.

Zero is not so much a number, but a starting point. One is the first real number, the first number with substance - but there is a gap between the point marked 'zero' and the pointed marked 'one'. Let us call the gap x. x is a year, a section of time. In between 'zero' and 'one' is where x resides, and so that is the first year. The first year is ticking away well before it has even reached the 'one' marked because 'one' is not the starting point, but merely a finishing point. Basically, 'one' is to signify that one year has passed, rather than that the first year is starting.



Because the first century was called the first century, but didn't start from 'one' - it started from zero. 0AD.



I am not counting zero as a number, but as a starting point. See above.

Zero might be viewed as a starting point, but it is nothing but a starting point. A baby at six months is not zero years old, but 1/2 of one year. When he reaches his first birthday, he is a full one year old.
Now the year 1800 is the 1800th year and so 18 centuries have been completed. The 1 in 1801 stands for starting the next century.

If the first year is zero, why isn't the first century the "zero" century?

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Nope, the year 1800 is the start of the 19th century. 1801 is when the first year is past. Why was 2000 the start of the 21st century but 1800 wasn't the start of the 19th?

The 90's are from 90-99. That's the ten years in that decade. The 80's were from 80-89, that's ten years in that decade. When it starts with the next decade, it's over. Pretty simple.

No, 1800 is the last year of the 18th century, but it is part of the 1800's which may be where the confusion is coming from.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

Zero might be viewed as a starting point, but it is nothing but a starting point. A baby at six months is not zero years old, but 1/2 of one year. When he reaches his first birthday, he is a full one year old.
Now the year 1800 is the 1800th year and so 18 centuries have been completed. The 1 in 1801 stands for starting the next century.

If the first year is zero, why isn't the first century the "zero" century?

I didn't say the first year is zero. I said, and you acknowledged this, that zero is a starting point.

A baby at six months old is not zero years old because zero is not a proper number (just a starting point). But it isn't called 'one' either now, is it? Because it hasn't reached that age yet.

You even said it yourself that 1800 marks the point where eighteen centuries have been completed, and I agree - but you then say that the new century starts at 1801? What happened to the year between the 1800 mark and the 1801 mark? Because that would have been the first year.

[cross_trainer]

[IMG]***********.interlinkbooks.com/images/You_Say_Potato_300.jpeg[/IMG]

[Manassa]

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Manassa

I didn't say the first year is zero. I said, and you acknowledged this, that zero is a starting point.

A baby at six months old is not zero years old because zero is not a proper number (just a starting point). But it isn't called 'one' either now, is it? Because it hasn't reached that age yet.

You even said it yourself that 1800 marks the point where eighteen centuries have been completed, and I agree - but you then say that the new century starts at 1801? What happened to the year between the 1800 mark and the 1801 mark? Because that would have been the first year.

The baby is in his first year, not in his zero year.

I would just point out that when I studied Roman history back in a misspent youth my professors taught me that there was no year zero and when computing the age of a Roman born in the first century BC and dying in the first century AD (CE today), one added the years.
Ovid, for example, born in 43 BC and dying in 18 AD, lived 61 years,
Augustus, born in 63 BC and dying in 14 AD, lived 77 years. Jesus was, by tradition, born in the year 1, not a year called zero.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

The baby is in his first year, not in his zero year.

I would just point out that when I studied Roman history back in a misspent youth my professors taught me that there was no year zero and when computing the age of a Roman born in the first century BC and dying in the first century AD (CE today), one added the years.
Ovid, for example, born in 43 BC and dying in 18 AD, lived 61 years,
Augustus, born in 63 BC and dying in 14 AD, lived 77 years. Jesus was, by tradition, born in the year 1, not a year called zero.

Why do you think I think the first year is called zero? The first year is the first year and is called the first year, however, it does not start at point 'one'.

I will repeat this post incase you missed it:

--

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by Manassa

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '1'.

Anyone who lived around the year 1 of our calendar would have considered himself living in the year 722, dated from the founding of Rome. The founding of Rome was dropped and the birth of Jesus chosen several centuries later and the year 1 designated the year Jesus was born. It just didn't occur to them to start a count with zero which I can understand. This is actually history and not up to dispute.
The First century therefore goes from the year 1 to the year 100, which is 100 years--after the 100 years are completed, a new century is begun, hence the year 101.

I must repeat here, no one starts counting from zero. You start counting from 1.

Now that I think about it, they probably didn't start with the year zero because that concept had not been thought of yet. I think the Arabs invented "zero" centuries later.