End of the Decade?

This may get howled down with "fark orf, this has been done" (and fair enough too ) but on the radio today there was regular talk of us approaching the end of the decade (allegedly 31 Dec 2009), and thus talk of the "best song of the decade", "biggest scandal of the decade", "most shocking death of the decade", etc etc.

For the uninitiated, the first year (in the current "year" jargon) was 1 AD and the 10th was 10 AD, which ended the first ever decade. Thus the current decade is surely 2001 to 2010.

Can we get a Hearsay argument going?

Already had this argument last week.

Skulls , ya SGDT ..it's not a hearsay argument it's a "year Zero "argument ...and you need to call ten years after to crank it up (again)

Anyway, it's always' been know as the 60s, 70s etc

It is the end of the "noughties" but not the end of the first decade of the third millenium.

And that is the crux of the debate.

The topic that really needs to be debated on Flaming Bails is "the Red Ink debate". This was an excellent discussion on the ABC forum but none of the C4 crew were brave enough to attempt it on that poxy forum.

Actually read the ABC forum a couple of times, but the format used seemed very user unfriendly so never bothered to register

JGK wrote:It is the end of the "noughties" but not the end of the first decade of the third millenium.

Correct.

It is the end of "the decade". It's just not the end of the "first decade of the third millenium".

WideWally wrote:The topic that really needs to be debated on Flaming Bails is "the Red Ink debate". This was an excellent discussion on the ABC forum but none of the C4 crew were brave enough to attempt it on that poxy forum.

Did the "Red Ink debate" have anything to do with Steve Waugh's average and the number of not outs he had? If so, it got a massive run on C4 at one stage.

The "Red Ink debate" wasn't about anyone in particular. It was about people claiming that batsmen's averages were artificially inflated if they had a lot of not outs. Others believe that it is wrong to assume that a batsman would have been dismissed without adding to his score had the innings not ended. Rather the batsman was likely to add more extra runs than his average. After all, the hardest part of an innings is getting started.

Zeddy supported the view that red inks reduce your average.

Of course there will be some anomalies such as Bill Johnston in 1953.

The decade will end on May 15, 2014.

WideWally wrote:Of course there will be some anomalies such as Bill Johnston in 1953.

Yeah - I think zeddy's conclusions were in relation to top order batsmen.

'End of the decade' ... I nominate Ron Jeremy.

Does it look anything like the Advent Bellelf?

Do you realise four years have gone by since the millenium debate? How many regular contributors to this forum have joined since then?

Anyway, that had little to do with when decades end. No-one in their right mind would suggest that 1990 was in the 1980s. So, whichever side of the millenium debate you are on, this decade ends in a couple of weeks.

Except plain mathematicians, tya. Year 1 of a decade is anything ending in 1. Year 10 is anything ending in a multiple of 10.

Ergo, Dec 31 2010 is the end of the current decade.

ten years after wrote:Do you realise four years have gone by since the millenium debate?

How many regular contributors to this forum have joined since then?

.

So we were 6 years late debating that?

Not many

skully wrote:Except plain mathematicians, tya. Year 1 of a decade is anything ending in 1. Year 10 is anything ending in a multiple of 10.

Ergo, Dec 31 2010 is the end of the current decade.

I don't think there is anything in mathematics which says year 1 of a decade is anything ending in 1? Decades are traditionally defined by the multiplier of 10, hence 60s, 70s, noughties. The first year of all of these ends in 0.

taipan wrote:

ten years after wrote:Do you realise four years have gone by since the millenium debate?

How many regular contributors to this forum have joined since then?

.

So we were 6 years late debating that?

Not many

Six years indeed. Apparently, some think it was only five years late.

If the C4 cricket forum existed in 1999 i'm sure it was debated then too.

ten years after wrote:Do you realise four years have gone by since the millenium debate? .

It would not have happened at all if India hadn't invented the concept of zero

ban 'em

India had to invent zero so they could keep score on decks with a bit of juice in them . . .

Had the Catholic church in the 6th century understood the arithmetic concept of zero then they would probably have had a Year Zero instead of 1 BC and the whole millenium debate would never have happened.