A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 10th 20, 10:16 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,676
Default NY

On 10/01/2020 17:00, Don Pearce wrote:

> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.
>
> End of discussion.
>

If you listen to the excerpt that is on line from the ten year old
programme they mentioned in this show, they admit there are two sides to
the story, and either is acceptable. Imagine that 1940 was in the 1930s,
for instance....


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Ads
  #22  
Old January 10th 20, 10:41 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
None
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 87
Default NY

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

> They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.


> End of ...


There are decades beginning all the time. The decade of the 2020's is indeed
a decade, and it's a decade that is widely recognized, worldwide. The Royal
Observatory's sweeping claim can only apply to millennia, centuries, and
decades that start on the year ending in one. There are many other kinds of
millennia, centuries, and decades in use, which are relevant and useful in
various reckonings.

If the Royal Observatory supposes that the decade of the 2020's is not a
decade, the Royal Observatory is a ass -- a idiot.

The official keeper of time on earth, International Atomic Time, is the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures in France. The Royal
Observatory in Greenwich is one of many important participants in that
effort.


  #23  
Old January 11th 20, 05:44 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,377
Default NY

Trevor wrote:
> On 3/01/2020 4:41 am, Tobiah wrote:
>> On 12/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2019 8:57 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> You're a year early. AD decades began with year 1.

>
> Each decade (or any time period) begins any time you choose it to! You
> do realise the calendar has changed more than once since then?
>
>
>
>>> I'm afraid you're just going to have to accept mass media's version
>>> of this, right or wrong. The Washington Post says this is the start
>>> of a new decade, as does National Public Radio, and even the MIDI
>>> Manufacturer's Association.
>>>
>>> You just can't fight social hall, but start campaigning early for the
>>> next decade beginning in 2031.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's..* I'd hate to have to
>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.

>
> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>
>
>
>
>


The mathematicians had a nasty habit of numbering inductive sets ending
in ALEPH_0 starting with 1. There's a chronic fear of zero in the world.

--
Les Cargill
  #24  
Old January 11th 20, 05:45 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,377
Default NY

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:55:04 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>
>>
>>>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's.. I'd hate to have to
>>>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>>>
>>> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.

>>
>> As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view. So 1960 was the zeroth
>> year of the 60's The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
>> ended just before Jan 1st 1970. The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
>> with it. No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
>> It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.

>
> So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE
> reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight
> question.
>
> d
>


It was Roman, so no zero. One.

--
Les Cargill
  #25  
Old January 11th 20, 05:46 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Bart Candlewick[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default NY

On 1/10/2020 12:00 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:27:11 -0500, "None" > wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years
>>>> 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there
>>>> a trick to your question?
>>>>

>>
>>> No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that
>>> ends in a 1, not a 0.

>>
>> The decade of the 2020's began in January, 2020. The 2020's are a decade.
>> That's the decade people mean when they refer to the decade that began
>> recently. There is also some ordinally-numbered decade that begins in 2021.
>> Nobody really cares about ordinally-numbered decades of the modern era.
>>
>> The modern (aka Christian) era has a number line of years that is full of
>> anomalies and inconsistencies. It began in the years numbered in the several
>> hundreds, based on back-calculating from an origin that was arbitrary and
>> miscalculated. The rules regarding leap years have changed multiple times.
>> The timeline has been spliced and hacked multiple to accommodate errors and
>> anomalies. The date of the year's beginning has shifted. And in most usage,
>> it has no "year zero" (although many astronomers do use a year zero).
>>
>> For these and other reasons, the reckoning of ordinally-numbered decades (or
>> centuries) seems to be of use only for pedantic posturing. These pedant's
>> decades have little use in the real world, where decades are much more
>> likely to be reckoned as beginning from years with numbers ending in zero.
>> The 2020's just began earlier this month. That's a decade. The "203rd decade
>> of the modern era" is a decade that nobody cares about.
>>

>
> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.
>
> End of discussion.
>
> d
>

From Wikipedia: A decade is a period of 10 years. The word is derived
(via French and Latin) from the Ancient Greek: δεκάς, romanized: dekas,
which means a group of ten. Decades may describe any ten year period,
such as those of a person's life, or refer to specific groupings of
calendar years.

And: The 0s cover the first nine years of the Anno Domini era, which
began on January 1st, 1 AD and ended on December 31st, 9 AD. It is one
of the two cardinal timespans that contain 9 years, but is not
considered a decade [Y0, 1 AD).

  #26  
Old January 11th 20, 05:47 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,377
Default NY

Trevor wrote:
> On 9/01/2020 6:11 am, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 08:55:04 -0800, Tobiah > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>> We also group decades by saying the 20's, 30's..* I'd hate to have to
>>>>> remember that a song written in 1960 was really part of the 50's.
>>>>
>>>> Any mathematician will tell you numbers begin at zero, NOT end at zero.
>>>
>>> As a programmer, I'm a subscriber to that view.* So 1960 was the zeroth
>>> year of the 60's * The 60's was a decade that began Jan 1st 1960, and
>>> ended just before Jan 1st 1970.* The birth of Jesus has nothing to do
>>> with it.* No one said that we are starting the 202nd decade since then.
>>> It's that we are starting a new decade that if of note to many people.

>>
>> So what was the first year of the first decade in our current CE
>> reckoning? No need to bring mythical figures into it - straight
>> question.

>
>
>
> Friday, 15 October 1582 for the Gregorian Calendar!
>
>
>



Meh. They went broke.

https://kfor.com/2018/12/05/8-millio...bby-finalized/

--
Les Cargill
  #27  
Old January 11th 20, 05:48 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,377
Default NY

Jason wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>> Friday, 15 October 1582 for the Gregorian Calendar!

>
>
> Speaking of which... Years ago, at IBM, I saw a presentation by
> a programmer there, Bruce Ohms, who devised a system for computing
> the number of days between dates.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilian_date
>
> "Lilian dates can be used to calculate the number of days between any
> two dates occurring since the beginning of the Gregorian calendar. It is
> currently used by date conversion routines that are part of IBM Language
> Environment (LE) software."
>
> This is a pretty big deal for some computations involving financial
> instruments that date back hundreds of years.
>


It is; one of the things I did in my first job was wrestle with this.

It's a big job, but it's eminently doable. I had fun with it.

--
Les Cargill
  #28  
Old January 11th 20, 08:48 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,565
Default NY

On 11/01/2020 6:00 am, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:27:11 -0500, "None" > wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> The first year was year 1, making the first decade span the years
>>>> 1 through 10, the second decade starting at year 11. Or is there
>>>> a trick to your question?
>>>>

>>
>>> No trick. You make my point perfectly. Decades start on the year that
>>> ends in a 1, not a 0.

>>
>> The decade of the 2020's began in January, 2020. The 2020's are a decade.
>> That's the decade people mean when they refer to the decade that began
>> recently. There is also some ordinally-numbered decade that begins in 2021.
>> Nobody really cares about ordinally-numbered decades of the modern era.
>>
>> The modern (aka Christian) era has a number line of years that is full of
>> anomalies and inconsistencies. It began in the years numbered in the several
>> hundreds, based on back-calculating from an origin that was arbitrary and
>> miscalculated. The rules regarding leap years have changed multiple times.
>> The timeline has been spliced and hacked multiple to accommodate errors and
>> anomalies. The date of the year's beginning has shifted. And in most usage,
>> it has no "year zero" (although many astronomers do use a year zero).
>>
>> For these and other reasons, the reckoning of ordinally-numbered decades (or
>> centuries) seems to be of use only for pedantic posturing. These pedant's
>> decades have little use in the real world, where decades are much more
>> likely to be reckoned as beginning from years with numbers ending in zero.
>> The 2020's just began earlier this month. That's a decade. The "203rd decade
>> of the modern era" is a decade that nobody cares about.
>>

>
> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
> start on the year ending in a one.
>
> End of discussion.
>
> d
>


Statistical conciseness aside surely only the most pedantic would argue
that the year 2020 was not part of the decade known as the (20)20s ?

geoff
  #29  
Old January 11th 20, 12:38 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,304
Default NY

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:16:45 +0000, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 10/01/2020 17:00, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
>> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
>> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
>> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
>> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
>> start on the year ending in a one.
>>
>> End of discussion.
>>

>If you listen to the excerpt that is on line from the ten year old
>programme they mentioned in this show, they admit there are two sides to
>the story, and either is acceptable. Imagine that 1940 was in the 1930s,
>for instance....


He didn't really. He just acknowledged that the other side existed.

d
  #30  
Old January 11th 20, 02:10 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,685
Default NY

John Williamson > wrote:
>On 10/01/2020 17:00, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I've just been listening to More or Less, a BBC programme about
>> numbers, statistics and general misconception. They had an article
>> about exactly this question. They had a statement from The Royal
>> Observatory in Greenwich, the official home of time on Earth. The
>> message stated unequivocally that millennia, centuries and decades
>> start on the year ending in a one.
>>
>> End of discussion.
>>

>If you listen to the excerpt that is on line from the ten year old
>programme they mentioned in this show, they admit there are two sides to
>the story, and either is acceptable. Imagine that 1940 was in the 1930s,
>for instance....


What do they know at Greenwich? The official prime meridian for time
reference should be Paris, and it's only the fault of that damned Wellington
that anyone has accepted the Greenwich reference.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.