The erroneous presupposition is that there must have necessarily been year “0000” at the change of the eras. Calendars are linear and begin from the change of the era’s.
Granted there is a *point* zero but it is not 365 days long. 365 days after the change of the era’s, the first year ends and is identified as “0001”. This validates baggies assertion regarding the child’s age. But the presupposition of a year of 0 exposes the fallacy.
Do that ten times, since a decade is a string of 10 years, and you will find that the first decades ENDS on the 365th day of year 0010. That decade being:
0001
0002
0003
0004
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009
0010
The second decade BEGINS on the first day of 0011.
Ain’t really that hard...It gots me a whole decade of fingers backed up by another decade of toes.
Cletus, is there a Q post 0000? Rest my case.
Do that ten times, since a decade is a string of 10 years, and you will find that the first decades ENDS on the 365th day of year 0010. That decade being:
0001
0002
0003
0004
0005
0006
0007
0008
0009
0010
The second decade BEGINS on the first day of 0011.
************************************************************************************
LOL. Perfect explanation.