Why are you counting from 0?
What do you mean by not authoriative in this context? This is just how the Gregorian calendar works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#No_year_zero:_star...
What do you mean by not authoriative in this context? This is just how the Gregorian calendar works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#No_year_zero:_star...
It's natural to align the decades, centuries, an millennia with a decimal radix. You've got the year digit, the decade digit, the century digit, and the millennium digit. Decades are always talked about this way, e.g. "the 80's", and I'd wager that most people think about centuries and millenniums this way. The fact that the year number is defined as the ordinal year since the approximate birth of Christ, beginning with AD 1, doesn't strike me as particularly relevant.
In other words, I'm not "counting from" anything. I'm describing the decimal year number in a manner that's natural for the radix.
I agree about your 80s example (of course I use it in the same way), but that doesn't change the fact that it ultimately doesn't make sense because you'll be off by one when counting backwards. So for colloquial conversations it's fine, for serious date calculations, you cannot just have one "decade" with only 9 years.
And the idea that you could actually do serious date calculations that count backwards all the way to AD 1 while maintaining a precision of 1 year is also ridiculous. There are error bars around the year numbers from that long ago of something like 2-5 years.
I understand the basis for the [1901-2000] definition. However, I really don't think its defense outweighs its huge downsides, especially the split-decade problem.