tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31959523.post3867614685791186836..comments2023-06-29T06:23:37.951-04:00Comments on Meerkat Meade: Decades, Centuries, and Names (an extended rant)Meerkatdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15217892733792461253noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31959523.post-14218160550694831932010-03-27T19:28:25.268-04:002010-03-27T19:28:25.268-04:00It's a matter of definition, as any real mathe...It's a matter of definition, as any real mathematician knows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31959523.post-52591266896963411982010-01-13T00:59:13.171-05:002010-01-13T00:59:13.171-05:00On wikipedia right now we are having arguments ove...On wikipedia right now we are having arguments over whether or not the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s" rel="nofollow">2010s</a> are the 2nd decade of the 21st century or not.<br /><br />We all agree that the 2010s, by definition, started in 2010 and run through 2019. We also agree (well most of us) that the 21st century technically started in 2001 and runs through 2100 due to the Year 0/1 issue.<br /><br />Now, if you logically calculate the years that the phrase "2nd decade of the 21st century" describes you get 2011-2020, which is a slightly different time span than the 2010s. So, it seems that the phrase the 2010s are the second decade of the 21st century is technically incorrect.<br /><br />However, an argument is now being put forward that since we always refer to decades cardinally that you need not parse the phrase "2nd decade of the 21st century" the ordinal way it seems logical to do. That in fact, it is fine to say that the first decade of the 21st century began a year earlier than the century to which it belongs and that the last decade of the 21st century ended a year earlier than the 21st century. In effect, that what is meant by a phrase like the "2nd decade of the 21st century" is simply convention and doesn't need to be 100% consistent with the logical ordinal parsing of the statement. In particular, when you try to assign decades as belonging to centuries when the former are typically demarcated cardinally and the latter ordinally, what is the proper way to do the mapping / organization?<br /><br />I definitely started on the purist side that 2010s != 2nd decade of the 21st century, but I'm finding myself sucked in by the organizational and assignment argument that named decades should belong to named centuries even if their start and end dates differ by a single year. That last technicality can be pointed out as just that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31959523.post-18216843095510090722010-01-03T04:24:22.250-05:002010-01-03T04:24:22.250-05:00Thanks for this. Cardinals versus ordinals is the ...Thanks for this. Cardinals versus ordinals is the best way of explaining it without getting in to endless more-pedantic-than-you contests—and easily grasped by most of my mathematically literate friends, who are the only people who actually care much one way or another over 2010 versus 2011. :-)Damian Cugleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14035230583687290855noreply@blogger.com