What makes up a decade

By Catherine Boeckmann. December 30, About This Blog. Related Articles Calendar. Tags decade. What do you want to read next? Chinese New Year The Year of The Month of January New Year's Day The Month of February When Is Easter ?

How Easter' Daylight Saving Time When Calendars and How We Count the That leads s to the idea of leap years. Every four years we need to adjust our calendars.

We add a special little day in February. Normally there are 28 days in February, but leap years give it 29 days. That extra full day makes up for the extra quarter days we gain every four years. Year Terms A year is one unit. It's one trip around the Sun. We'll talk about months and days in the next sections. Let's look at some terms used to describe multiple years. Decade : Ten 10 years. Century : One hundred years.

Millennium : One thousand 1, years. Light Year : The distance light can travel in one Earth year. Almost 6 trillion miles There are also terms used to describe millions of years. These aren't exact numbers like a decade or century. These terms describe general geologic periods. The New 20s have begun. The rd decade A. The inability of people here to distinguish between ordinal and cardinal numbers in an effort to sound smarter than everyone else is obnoxious, to be honest.

One day early or one day later. It only works your way if you manipulate the numbers to favor your argument. Because there was no year 0, the counting starts at 1.

But decades are not ordinal, so you can absolutely start counting at a number ending in zero. A Decades are in fact ordinal. B There was no Year 0, so you physically cannot count from 0. Two-thousand-thirty is simply not in the twenties, period. What I meant is that 73 x is only kind of a palindrome, if you remove the multiplication sign.

I mean you chose the order of numbers too, so x 73 is just as valid and not a palindrome. Anyway, I might end this here on my end. The dimensionality or whether or not the big bang was the true origin of time were not related to my point. A couple of final simple thoughts that came to me on their own. The reason for working with definite or one-time strings of ideas such as digits of numerals is so that once you find a good fit in specific, the thing continues on in general, eg, with numbers of the form 11, , , , etc.

What a simple way to bridge the gap here, for the pedantic-at-heart either way! Of course, only a fanciful observation. Remarkably, this was something that I reasoned out on my own, long before I read it in print. You may check this sort of thing out for yourself at the physics stackexchange site, for professional physicists as well as for mathematicians and others. That sounds pretty mathematical, etc, to me. But, the people around the time of Jesus had no clue of such things, at least not per se.

If I recall, and correctly read the little piece Einstein wrote about dimensionless constants such as the fine-structure ones, he noted that everything had to have some physical or other explanation aside from the mathematical because, otherwise, any number could be any other number.

Do you know what a semi-palindromic number is? Not the example that you provided. Nor is semi-palindromic, which is neither strobogrammatic. Perhaps, palindromic things can be said to be subsumed by the semi-palindromic, strictly speaking. Regardless, the very few examples of coincidences in my posts are of the exactness to reflect the type and degree to which things must align in any conventional physical or mathematical theory.

If I had waited for you to write , and, then, I insisted that you wrote one of the three, or four I had just written, then who cares. For sure, some coincidences are less likely than other, but, I doubt that you will admit to this, either. I tried to show an example of how quickly such coincidences can become very, very hard to find, let alone stumble on, by way of a number theorist, who would better know than either of us.

Pretty darn cool, if you ask me. You seem intractably attached to multiples of ten. However, there are a level of infinity of others, and then some, each just as suitable in its own isolated pretend way. Why would I take one digit over another? It is in base 8.

Go connect it. Thanks to everyone in this thread. Thanks to the Almanac, which I recall reading while growing up, early on, on the family farm. Hi Mark, coincidences are cool, but they are usually just that, coincidences. And in this case not really even that. There are a LOT of palindromic numbers, the fact that one of them has a semi palindromic set of prime factors is almost a mathematical certainty.

If we worked only in base-2 numbers aka binary would you be convinced that 1 is more special than 0? Again, this is besides the point. My argument is that mathematics has no place in this discussion of start and end years for decades besides that they be 10 years apart.

If we are to mark decades at all, this is a useful way to do it, and going from eg, 21 to 30 has no added utility besides being less symbolic. I used them as examples of scales that use non-zero values to be their origins. Oh, one thing I overlooked. Five places to put the X, with, conceivably, a leading 1 inserted. Is it so far-fetched to wonder that we all had everything backward, ie, that all begins with a few simple integers like worked the other way around with its accuracy lost in the translation?

That we are left with bit and pieces that never seem to match up. Hi, Robert. We can only perceive reality whether we do so objectively, or subjectively; if there is even a reality at all. Which reminds me of an applied math professor with first name, Fogg, who told us on more than one occasion that the only rule is there are no rules.

Nothing piecemeal-vague like that. Now neither I pretend to have such a theory. Heck, for Relativity Theory to be correct, we can never actually know which things are actually doing the moving. Quantum Theory is even less helpful, and, the two seem totally irreconcilable.

The two main theories of our time. On this scale, the freezing point of pure water happens to occur at 32 and the boiling point at The Celsius scale has more convenient values for these phase transition points 0 and degrees because Anders Celsius DID use water as a basis for his scale. A degree Celsius or a Kelvin is what you get when divide the thermodynamic range between absolute zero and the triple point of a specific type of water into There is a 0.

These quotes may be googled. I used to be only a visitor, and infrequent contributor. The first question is from a retired physics professor; the reply from a retired number theorist, a field of math that, apparently, has relatively few members.

The hard part here is to get past enough of the physics along with numbers purely of that sort, I would say the boring stuff absorbed over the decades to begin to see where things like the electromagnetic, and gravitational fine-structure constants fit in numerically, the latter of which is so much harder to figure experimentally, in any event.

At some point, eg, even the odd numbers become more distinguished from even. The idea with eventually getting the physics away from the physics is to find and try the numbers that are independent of all that. Numbers from completely different systems or mathematics fields.

This is what fascinates me about the numbers. The sense that can then really begin to get somewhere with the numbers per se. We just have to open up our definition of counting integer things the remainder of the way.

Each year in this interval then belongs to ten thus possible decades. Lol, if I counted right. I often type before I think, especially when I am thinking about something. There must be lots of mathematical integer number theory proofs that use just this extreme sort of counting.

Constant cardinality sets of consecutive integers that are stepped one-by-one. For example, the set contains 3 elements, and therefore has a cardinality of 3.

The point is the reason we talk about decades at all is because of how the labels we give to years work. Just to quickly address your seeming fascination with the numbers 1, 3, 5 and 7. I mean… maths is powerful. And the length of a year is approximately I wrote something very similar, only a few months ago. Ultimately, no number is any more important than any other. Some may be more prevalent, at least appear so, but only to differentiate between themselves.

Another simplistic argument here is that nothing could happen were everything a matter of fact s. Mistakes, themselves, exist as much as any of the facts. We can not know precisely when anything starts and ends, let alone days on calendars. And, what about that point in between, a zeroish point?

I agree with also the type of decades that we relate to when we think of our lives as a whole, but, this, too, may be more a function of circumstances both private and public. I tend to prefer numbers that are a bit more atypical than rounded numbers. Eg, is a palindromic number.

Guess what, we have also that it equals 1 73 X Internet searches now tend to confirm that the zeroth of something may mean the best of it, as ahead of first, as the quintessence or original of something. I guess, too, that five may have something to do with zero in base-ten numbers. What can zeroth really mean so that we can consider what is further beneath?

But, I still prefer to call dimension-0 the first dimension, and to take things from there. This way seems to fit my own thinking and work. Certainly, to strictly match the cardinal with the ordinal numbers would squeeze these into the same thing when brought to extremes?

It could be that a simple zeroth day or year might not pan out. I used to be amazed at the complexity of some of the religious philosophical writings, at a time before I become more mentally aware later on.

It takes a lot of those decades of life to begin to clue in to something. For sure, even without considering any religions at all — although, I think, we unknowingly substitute other things for it now — there is still the possibility for an almost infinite number of real such mysteries out there. Eg, as humans we may not be at the center in the grand scheme of things, but, maybe, eg, we are at the middle of the evolutionary process.

What could this mean? These sorts of meme-like — maybe not the word for it — numbers can show up in the strangest places, even in the number , and, not in ways that require a lot of effort. Fascinating stuff from where the physical point undefined meets the mathematical point defined. To the average person they only serve as rough labels denoting some substantial sub section of their life. They are decades because that third digit in the year only changes every so often, so they are pretty significant.

The numbers themselves only really have relevance in relation to each other. Year 1 has little relevance to anyone, and even less relevance to non-Christians.

The year is going to have much more significance to people than the year as the end of the first decamillennium. Then, we would have the first day of each of the three sets to begin on the last day of a previous month, and, the day-0 to occur on its own in no month, out front.

Obviously, the months would still begin as the months we have now, ie, on the first day of each month despite having a cycle of days that always begins anew day ahead of the next month. This way of looking at things helps to show how the two different types of decades here need not conflict with each other.