Is 2009 the end of the ‘noughties’ decade?
And is 2010 the start of a new one?
There’s a stupid segment on ABC Local Radio at the moment, being led by the equally stupid Kathy Bedford, about how this year 2009 is the last year of the current ‘noughties’ decade, for want of a better description.
Bedford is claiming that next year 2010 is the start of a new decade and she’s asking listeners to call in with their highlights and best movies of ‘the noughties’ decade. I kid you not.
But she’s wrong. The 10th year is the last year of a decade, not the first year of a new one, and the next decade starts on 1 January 2011 – just like the 21st century started on 1 January 2001, not 2000, which was wrongly celebrated. But does anyone disagree with that?
Promoting 'Beautiful Bright'.
Click 
You’re correct Ray, but good luck with trying to convince the unbelievers. That’s assuming that the first year ever was 1, not nought.
I think the appearance of the 2 in front of the year unhinged several people.
You are so wrong Ray 00 is the first year of a decade not 01, then the decade has to be 1 year old. Just as when you were born the first year of your life you were 0. You have been here for one year when you celebrate your first birthday. So therefore a decade is 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. You do the maths Ray.
You’re wrong Spiv. When you are born you are instantly in YEAR ONE of your life. You can’t have a year nought of your life – it’s your first year.
You see, there was never a year “nought” on our calendar. The first year AD was the year ONE. the year before that was ONE BC.
People get confused because of the year 2000. But that was the 2000th year, meaning the first year of the new milenium, the new century and the new decade started on 1/1/01. Ergo the next decade starts 1/1/11.
The decade may start in 2001, but this is all about what the years are called. No one would suggest that 1980 was in the ’70s.
Perhaps 2010-2012 can be the pre-teens.
Ray said.- You’re wrong Spiv. When you are born you are instantly in YEAR ONE of your life. You can’t have a year nought of your life – it’s your first year.
So therefore 2000= year1, 2001=year2,2002=year3, 2003=year 4,2004= year 5, 2005= year 6, 2006= year 7, 2007= year 8, 2008= year 9, 2009= year 10. According to you Ray. I believe that is a decade so 2010 is the beginning of the next decade.
I have used your math to calculate this, but I believe we are going to have to agree to disagree on this
No. 2000 was year 10 of the previous decade starting in 1991.
To repeat: There was no year “0″. The first year was the year “1″ AD. Therefore the tenth year was the year 10 AD. And therefore the first year of the current decade was 2001 and the tenth (or last) year of this decade is 2010.
You are relating someone’s year of birth incorrectly. If you were born at the start of 2000, yes you’d have lived a decade by the end of 2009. But that’s only because you were born in an earlier decade.
Refer to the calendar – there was no year “0″.
Wah, I relate it to apples. If you have a century of apples (100), you obviously haven’t eaten a ‘decade’ (10) of apples until you’ve finished apple no. 10. Therefore the 2nd decade starts with apple no. 11.
It doesn’t matter what you call the decade because, as you point out, the ‘teens’ is inconsistent anyway. This decade ends on 31/12/2010.
No. Of course there was no “year 0″. But neither is it year 1 – it’s the first year. The 21st century did start on 1/1/2000 for the same reason.
You’re mistaking a length of time with a designated period.
Hi Chade, welcome to this blog. However, there certainly was a year “1″. And the 2000th year ended on 31/12/2000 because that was the 2000th year. Therefore the 21st century started on 1/1/2001.
(And likewise the next decade starts on 1/1/11)
Btw, a “designated length of time” is also “a designated period” – they’re the same thing.
Heh. I forgot about this, have been away.
No, actually – the 2000th year ended on 31/12/1999. I’d draw a picture, because it’s fairly basic number theory, but it’s difficult in a blog comments.
The best I can think of right now: the positive scale starts at small values of 0.00001 etc, not at 1.000001.
What does year “1″ mean? It’s fairly ambiguous, but what you’re actually saying is that it’s the first year. The numbers are representations of a description, rather than the other way around.
They’re not the same thing, either. You’ve misquoted me, which makes it seem that I was wrong. Try dealing with calculations on Gregorian or Julian calendars… :p
I just realised I QED’ed myself – unless there was a year 0.
(And proved your point, that is.)
The first year following the birth of Chirist was 1 AD. It started on 1/1/1.
Therefore the first century ended on 31/12/100, and the next one started on 1/1/101.
Likewise the 20th century ended on 31/12/2000 and the 21st century started on 1/1/2001.
Ergo the current decade ends on 31/12/2010.
It’s simple arithmetic.
Or number theory. Depends on how much you like pure mathematics.
The thing that confuses me about all of this is…
6 months into year one is still not a complete year. it seems like it should be year 00.
A stopwatch begins with 00:00:00
Look at it this way: When you are born you are at the start of your first year – i.e. you are in year one.
It’s the same with the calendar, the first year after Christ was born was the year one.
Look at it another way. When did we reach the end of the first century, after 100 years or after 99 years? Obviously we have to finish 100 years to finish a century, so you don’t celebrate a new one at the start of the year 100, you celebrate it at the start of the year 101.
I, really, just don’t care about how many 1 are in 100. It makes more sense when you’re counting years to go from 0 to 9, because whether or not there was a year 0 there are year zeros now (1980, 1990, 2000). So, to discount the year zeros we have now just because someone decided hundreds of years ago not to count a year zero makes it unnecessarily difficult.
We have year zeros now, and it makes more sense to start a decade from 0 to 9.
How does it “makes more sense” to count from 0 ???
When you count sheep do you call the first one “zero”? I think it’s called “one”.
“when you’re counting years”
Why should counting years be different to counting anything else?
The first object/animal/year is number “one”.
You just don’t go, “nought, one, two three, ….”
Why should it not? It doesn’t make sense to count 1990 as part of the Eighties, no matter how many years it’s actually been. How many years it’s actually been is irrelevant to it being easier to say and group together, the actual number does not matter.
It mightn’t seem to make any sense to you but 1990 is clearly part of the same decade that started in 1981. The confusion arises because you are choosing to give names like “nineties” & “noughties” to decades. Maybe the “eighties” should just be called “the 9th decade” because that’s what it was.
To demonstrate how giving decades names is misleading, what will you call the next decade that starts (according to you) in 2010? Do you call it “the teens”? That wouldn’t be right, would it? 2010, 2011 & 2012 have no relationship to “teens”.
So maybe we should just call it “the second decade”. And maybe we should recognise that it runs from 2011 to 2020 inclusive.
Ray what you’re essentially arguing is a technicality and nothing more. People all over the world use 0-9 to group decades as it makes it easy to understand in a multitude of different ways. You have no argument because we’ve used 0-9 to define a decade in a century for longer than you, the other posters and I have been alive combined. I haven’t noticed any confusion about the end of a decade( 0-9) before and I can only assume it’s because 2010 has a 10 in it.
It’s not confusion. I understand that, yes, the first year was the year and that 1990 is part of the decade started in 1981.
I don’t care. That’s my point. It makes more sense to group them based on 60′s, 70′s, 80′s because it’s easier that way.
SmoJo, just because we refer to decades as “fifties”, “sixties”, etc, does not mean that 1950 was in the fifties decade and that 1960 was not. You’ve just presumed that 1950 belongs in the fifties because, as Magnum says, it’s “easier” for you. But if you think outside the square you’ll realise that there’s nothing inconsistent with saying that 1950 was not in the fifties as we know them.
There is no need to think outside the “square” 99% of the worlds population considers 2009 the end of this current decade. As I’ve said before you’re basing your argument on a technicality and a pointless one at that. Lets take it further shall we? We have leap years every 4 years right? So in reality the current year is actually 2011 which in itself means nothing as the concept of a year is man made as is the naming of decades as defined by and understood by everyone including you (despite your argument).
“does not mean that 1950 was in the fifties decade” well yes it does the concept of “fifties” includes all years with their 3rd digit being a 5. What I suppose you should have said was 5th decade?
Regardless of all this debate we’re both right we’re just looking at it differently. You mathematically and me with the backing of popular opinion and understanding. Both as valid as the other.
A leap year is only the addition of one day every 4 years, an adjustment to make up for the fact that the earth actually takes just over 365 days to orbit the sun. So, no, this is not “in reality” the year 2011. It is “in reality” the year 2009.
And the “fifties” was the 6th decade of the 20th century, not the 5th.
I agree that “popular opinion” might be your way, but not by a margin of 99 to 1 as you suggest. Then again “popular opinion” said John Howard was a good Prime Minister so using that as an argument is rather subjective.
There can only be one correct answer, and that is that 2010 is the last year of the current decade.
Btw, “the concept of a year” may well be “man made”, but it is also a very exact measurement. Nothing is more exact than the measurement of time.
The decade known as the “noughties” (to some) ends 31st December 2009 and even you cannot argue against that. But wait! you want to argue against it? but why? The name comes from the two zeros in the middle. Therefore to answer the blogs title “Is 2009 the end of the ‘noughties’ decade?”
Check and mate good sir.
If you want to argue that we have yet to complete the block of 10 years in decade 200 then start a new blog post.
One other thing I have to say and it’s directed at all people who think like you. Why can’t you accept that 99% of people (yes I’m sticking to it) define and group decades by the 3rd digit? This way of thinking doesn’t mean you’re wrong because the word decade means ANY 10 year period. You’re talking about a different 10 year period to me and Kathy Beford for example.
So we could say that 31st December 2009 is the end of the conceptual decade and 31st December 2010 is the end of the mathematical decade.
Anyway it’s been fun and I hope that you can see that I’m right. I accept that mathematically speaking you’re correct too.
Well, I agree that my title should have been worded, “is 2009 the end of this decade?”, but that’s all I’ll concede. I certainly don’t believe that only 1% of people would agree with me but I’m happy to be in the minority because, as we all know, the vast majority usually gets these sort of things wrong. Cheers.
i think the decade ends in 2009.
please,one year doesn’t make such a difference.
some people just likes to argue.
Sergio, if you want to say a decade ends at the end of year 9, I won’t argue with you. What would be the point?
Your right to the people that say that the first year was 2000 IF January was on the calender as 0 and the first day of each month was 0; so the first year of the decade would be 00/00/2000. Wait come to think of it there is no zeroth day of the month or zeroth month of the year so that would mean there was no zeroth year of the decade meaning year 1 was year 1 wow! so in conclusion Ray would be absolutely correct!!!
BTW there are 9 different profiles to respond to this blog and 4 out of 9 including myself say that 2001 was the first year of the decade so smojo’s 99% goes to 55%, yes still a minority but not by much!!
Well said AVG JOE.
“zeroth”
Great stuff. My erudite husband says the last year is 2010, so that’s what it is. He’s always right.
That’s good enough for me too, Rox.
Ray – You are arguing technicalities about something that is inherently not technical. A decade is whatever we say it is. You’re saying the year 1960 is part of the 1950′s? Seriously? You do realize that decades are universally counted using the THIRD digit of the 4 digit year? This is just the way we do it. There’s no relevant argument about technicalities, because all of it is arbitrary in the first place.
It would be like saying Barack Obama isn’t the first black President because his mom is white and therefore he is technically not fully black, or that Eisenhower was the first (or 5th) black president because his mother was almost certainly bi-racial. Obama is black and Eisenhower was white because, like decades, race is whatever we collectively decide it is. If you want to get technical, we are all bi-racial and we are technically in year 4 billion something because the first year was the first year of Earth’s existence. So please just put to rest this argument about technicalities because it is irrelevant.
Hi Johnny. When did you celebrate your tenth birthday? Was it ten years from the day you were born, or was it nine?
Btw, the measuring of time is certainly technical and it is hardly arbitary. And relating this to the race of US Presidents is what seems “irrelevant” to me.
Like it or not Ray, 1960 will always be seen as the start of the sixties. It’s social measurement as against scientific – and it does make sense in that way.
The first year of the sixties was 1961, Rox, by any measure including social. When was the first man in space? 1961. When did the Beatles first become the Beatles? 1961. When did Bob Dylan get his first gig in Greenwich Village? 1961. When was JFK sworn in as US President? 1961.
I win.
You may be right. I looked up 1960 in Wikipedia and the most interesting things I found were:
Elvis Presley returns home from Germany, after being away on duty for 2 years.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announces that it will approve birth control as an additional indication for Searle’s Enovid, making it the world’s first approved oral contraceptive pill.
Harper Lee releases her critically acclaimed novel To Kill a Mockingbird.
United States presidential election, 1960: In a close race, John F. Kennedy is elected over Richard M. Nixon, becoming (at 43) the youngest man elected President.
The newly named Beatles begin a 48-night residency at the Indra Club in Hamburg, West Germany. (aha!)
1960 Summer Olympics: Cassius Clay wins the gold medal in heavyweight boxing.
The U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Federal Court ruling that Louisiana’s segregation laws are unconstitutional.
And since Percy Faith was number 1 in the US, I think the 50s win, though the seeds of the 60s are there.
“When did you celebrate your tenth birthday? Was it ten years from the day you were born, or was it nine?”
Many Chinese would celebrate 9 years from the day they were born. Depending upon the convention used, it might even be possible to celebrate it only slightly more than 8 years.
Basically, you are write. The decade ends December 31, 2010. I would argue, though, that the “noughties” end December 31, 2009. Obviously, it makes no sense to say that 1960 was in the ’50s, even though they are both technically in the same decade. Of course, having the ’50s, ’60s, et al. not correspond to the decades is confusing.
But really, does anyone actually care that it is a new decade or what not? Centuries and millenia are somewhat impressive, but not decades.
“Obviously, it makes no sense to say that 1960 was in the ’50s, even though they are both technically in the same decade”
It’s not “obvious” at all, it’s just one of those anomalies. In fact the decade nominally known as ‘the fifties’ is actually the SIXTH decade of the 20th Century and, therefore, it’s equally non-sensical to say that 1950 was part of ‘the sixth decade’.
“… does anyone actually care that it is a new decade or what not?”
Apparently. Otherwise why do people call them ‘the fifties’ and ‘the noughties’ etc? I think the decades mark the end and beginning of something. And I think we should recognise that a decade ends at the end of the year with a “0″ at the end of it, not a “9″.
The argument hinges on the difference between NAMING a group of years and COUNTING years from the beginning. The title of this blog post suggests a discussion about NAMING groups of years — fifties, eighties, oughties — which conventionally refers to the third digit of the year. In this case, 12/31/2009 is the end of the noughties, simply because the next day 1/1/2010 has a new third digit in the year, and is thus the beginning of a new yet-to-be-named group of ten years — “the teens” (despite 2011 and 2012) or the “twenty-tens” perhaps? — where 1 is the third digit.
On the other hand, to locate periods like “the first decade of the Third Miliiennium,” you’ve got to COUNT forward from the beginning of the calendar. In that case, decades OF A GIVEN ERA end in years ending in zero. The first decade (first full ten-year period) of the Common Era began on 1/1/0001 (since there was no year zero) and ended on 12/31/0010. The First Millennium ended on 12/31/1000 and the Third Millennium began on 1/1/2001.
I was born on January 1, 1970 and celebrated my first birthday (the culmination, or completion as they call birthdays in Spanish, of my first year of life) on January 1, 1971. I completed my first decade — that is, turned 10 years old — on January 1, 1980. So although I was 10 years old all during 1980, my first decade (which included all the ages like 3 months, 9 months, etc.) was already over. For all practical purposes, the end of my first decade, the first ten years of my life, was 12/31/1979, even though my “teens” or “tens” (that is two-digit ages starting with the numeral 1) didn’t begin until a year later on January 1, 1981.
Thanks for that Speelunk but, despite the title of this post, the discussion is about when does a decade truly end and when does one start, not about the nominal names given to “a group of years” like the fifties, noughties etc.
To give decades the name of the third digit is also misleading, as you point out with ‘the teens’. If the next decade starts in 2010 (as some people seem to think) then including 2010 in ‘the teens’ sounds just as wrong as including 2020 does – but it has to be one or the other.
Therefore I submit that the “groups of names” we nominally give to decades are irrelevant to this argument and that (as you have correctly pointed out) the current decade ends on 31/12/2010.
(Btw, you made an error in your last paragraph. Your ‘teens’ or ‘tens’ began on 1/1/80, the day you turned ten)
I do love Ray’s accuracy and effort. He is absolutely right. The celebration of the turn from the 1800s to the 1900s was correctly celebrated around the world Jan 1901.
Why would Arthur C. Clarke be so stupid to have created a novel that subsequently became a film and called it 2001 if that weren’t the correct date for the end of the 1900s?
We’re just dumbing ourselves down and few really care.
Ray i bet your a bundle of fun at the new years parties.
That doesn’t make any sense. No one is disputing that the year ends at midnight on 31 December but we’re talking about when a decade ends. Maybe you’ve started celebrating too early?
It’s never too early to celebrate.
I agree with Ray, all the way! And I care because now I have to listen to all the media do their “??? of the decade” a year early!!
Best comment so far, Maggie. And yes, it’s very annoying listening to radio personalities going on about the ‘end of the decade’ and asking listeners to call in with their high points, which is how this post started. The simple (and indisputable) logic is this:
1. A year that ends in a “9″ is not (and cannot be) the end of the tenth year of a decade, because it is quite obviously the end of … the ninth year !
2. A decade is 10 years and, therefore, a decade ends at the end of a year that has a “0″ at the end of it, like 2010.
3. Ergo, the next decade starts on 1/1/2011.
The issues raised by these matters go deeper than the merely chronological.
Here is a case of the PUBLICLY FUNDED British Broadcasting Corporation extracting money from people on the back of their year early decade end declaration and then censoring comments that point that out:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2010/01/greatest_sporting_achievement.html?s_sync=1#comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/fivelivebreakfast/2009/12/the_greatest_sporting_achievem.html#postcomment
The comment below which has been deleted above by ‘BBC moderator’ more than once without explanation is in the PUBLIC INTEREST and is in full accord with the principles and guidelines of the BBC Royal Charter regarding fairness, openness and straight dealing. Please therefore, as our publicly funded broadcaster, do not censor it again.(If it is removed again the content and additional information will be referred to the appropriate regulatory body and other parties).
Comment censored by the BBC earlier above:
This poll (which created significant mobile phone income for the BBC) was based on a false proposition – that the first decade of the 21st Century could somehow incorrectly be declared by the BBC to end with the end of the year 2009.
This is clearly not the case as the 1st year of the 21st Century was 2001 (the clue is in the number ’1′) and the 10th and last year of the first decade of the 21st Century is 2010(the clue is in the number ’10′) and it will end on December 31st 2010
It is no good the BBC arguing that a ‘decade’ is merely a period of 10 years. It is clear that the BBC has been trying to pass off the specific ten years of 2000-2009 as being the 1st decade of the 21st Century which it clearly isn’t (other than perhaps to the seriously innumerate). That specific ’1st decade of the 21st Century’ labelling of the period 2000-2009 intention is made clearer by the fact that no similar poll was organised for the periods 1998-2007 or 1999-2008 – also 10 year periods of time that can be generically described as ‘decades’.
By falsely and dishonestly declaring that the period 2000-2009 is the 1st decade of the 21st Century ending with the last day of 2009 and persuading people on the basis of those false grounds to incur costs by voting via mobile phones which have generated significant partner split profit income for the BBC, the BBC has been trading fraudulently on the back of a clear chronological lie.
Sounds serious.
The majority of clear thinking people KNOW that the 1st Decade of the 21st Century completes on December 31st 2010:
http://management.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?poll_id=9160570248&linkback=http://management.about.com/b/2009/11/25/when-does-the-decade-really-end.htm
It is serious, Ray.
If you would like to test the parameters of BBC style ‘free speech’ you can obtain your BBC iD here:
https://id.bbc.co.uk/users/register/
you are dead right ray, i hope none of these guys are builders, imagine building a house using their logic, they wouldn’t make it through their first build…. you have to run the tape out a meter to get a meter, you cant start the first meter at 0.
It seems you are sort of arguing two different issues–when a century ends and when a popular term for a decade ends. Milleniums and centuries are easy: 1-1000 1st millennium, 1001-2000 2nd; 2001-3000, 3rd millennium. No one celebrated the end of the 19th century beginning of the 20th century in 1900 but in 1901–but they were smarter then.
The other issue is when popularly termed decades such as the Teens, 20s or 30s begin or end. I’ll go with 2010 for the beginning of the Teens, though the first decade of the 21st century doesn’t start until 2011.
Ok, I have to throw 2 cents into this equation. Ray is right if you start counting from 0001, which by the way is correct. There was no year 0000. With that said, if there had been a year 0000 then the end of 2009 would have been a decade.
Mathematically, you are correct if you start at year 0 then the end of 9 would be 10 years 1/00 to 12/31/00 = 1 yr, 1/01 to 12/31/01 = 2 yrs. so on until you reach 01/09 to 12/31/09 = 10 yrs
The arguement with a tape measure, you can argueably agree 0 to 99/100 = 1 inch, 1″ to 1 99/100 = 2 inches, so on until you get to 9″ to 9 99/100 = 10 inches, ergo end of 10 periods, sections, lengths, years, etc. A tape measure does not start at 1 though – or the end of 10 inches would be only be 9 inches long… try it with 2 tape measurers.
The question is not so easy…many believe 00 is the first year, while others believe 01 is the first year. Since no one can be exactly sure when day 01 is, your delimma is the same as which came first – the chicken or the egg?
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/cal/node3.html#SECTION003142000000000000000
There is no year 0.
Jesus was born before 4 BC.
The concept of a year “zero” is a modern myth (but a very popular one). In our calendar, AD 1 follows immediately after 1 BC with no intervening year zero. So a person who was born in 10 BC and died in AD 10, would have died at the age of 19, not 20.
Furthermore, as described in section 2.14, our year reckoning was established by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century. Dionysius let the year AD 1 start one week after what he believed to be Jesus’ birthday. But Dionysius’ calculations were wrong. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus was born under the reign of King Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. It is likely that Jesus was actually born around 7 BC. The date of his birth is unknown; it may or may not be 25 December.
Art
Correct. Succinctly put.
The confusion is caused by cynical commercial interests obsessed with packaging time in short catchily titled commercial units that don’t coincide exactly with long established chronological convention and then lacing them with superlatives e.g. 1st this / 1st that.
How many commercial and other operations have you noticed describing the ‘decade’ from 2000-2009 WRONGLY as the ‘First Decade of the 21st Century’ and 2009 as the ‘End of the First Decade of the 21st Century’ ? Thousands. It’s like telling you repeatedly that you are a year older than you actually are – how annoying would that feel?
The ‘decade’ – i.e. period of ten years – between the beginning of 2000 and the end of 2009 overlapped the last year of the 20th Century with the first 9 years of the 21st Century.
The FIRST DECADE – i.e. first complete period of ten years – exclusively in the 21st Century is clearly that which begins with the first instant of 2001 and ends with the last instant of 2010.
Really who cares….not me….. it’s 2010 lets just be happy we have all got to 2010…lol
I see what you’re saying, and I agree with your logic – however, by this calculation, not only did we celebrate the beginning of the new decade a year too early…
But surely we celebrated the new millenium a year too early, if we began the calendar at year one.
1 + 1000 = 1001
1001 + 1000 = 2001
All those lovely new millenia celebrations seem so pointless now
By the way, I’m sorry if anybody else has posted this, but I only read about half the way down
I think the issue here is a psychological one. When you think about it, the point made here is immediately apparent, and so the question is, why can people not see what is before their eyes?
It is much easier to believe that the year 2000 is a turning point (of years or of anything else you believe in) than to believe this of the year 2001. The romanticism of the year 2000 was evidently too much for people to deal with, whilst still attempting to rationalize the meaning of the big number. I know I oversimplify the point here, but this I think is the gist of it.
I think for anyone who cares enough about the pedantry of the situation, this argument may rage for quite some time. Good luck to you.
Also, I very much like your point Art. If 1980 were the end of the 70s, then where would we be (Apart from somewhere much more sensible)?
I’d still be in Hobart.
Magnum said, on 4 December, 2009 at 7:17 am
It’s not confusion. I understand that, yes, the first year was the year and that 1990 is part of the decade started in 1981.
I don’t care. That’s my point. It makes more sense to group them based on 60’s, 70’s, 80’s because it’s easier that way.
Because it’s easy does not mean it’s right, the new decade starts 1st Jan 2011. In this case popular opinion is wrong.
Ray Dixon is so stupid dosent he realise if the year ends in 2010 then the 10′s end in 2020 and it says twenty twenty so how could it be the end of the 10′s
“if the year ends in 2010 then the 10′s end in 2020 and it says twenty twenty so how could it be the end of the 10′s”
That is just totally incoherent but I’ll try to explain it to you. Reeeeeeeeal slow so you can follow it:
1. Take 20 apples.
2. Number them from 1 to 20
3 Now divide them numerically into two even groups. How many in each group? That’s right, ten.
4. Now look at apple #10, is that part of the first group or the second group? That’s right, the 10th apple is part of the group that starts with the apple marked #1.
5. Likewise the 20th apple is part of the group that starts with the apple marked #11.
6. And likewise the year 2020 is part of the decade that starts in the year 2011.
Got it ….. stupid?