I would like to question the literal English translation you gave in this example in the dates lesson.

Question

This is nit-picking, I know, but please allow me to question the literal English translation you gave in one example in the dates lesson. In English the year 2013 (twenty thirteen) is not as the example suggests, literally "two thousand thirteen". It is literally "twenty hundred thirteen". Just as 2022 is literally "twenty hundred twenty-two", etc. We might have chosen the alternative pronunciation of 2013 as "two thousand and thirteen", but that would not be twenty thirteen. When we say "twenty thirteen" we are literally saying twenty hundred thirteen, not "two thousand thirteen".

2013 (deux mille treize)

2013 (twenty thirteen -> literally "two thousand thirteen")

P.S. Parallèlement, on étudient les mathématiques et la langue française. Incroyable! :-)

Accepted Answer

I think you have misread or misunderstood the translations. 
The literal translation is what would be said in English if it were to be matched directly to the French expression being translated. 
The line you are describing is a 'free' English translation from French - often done, especially when the literal translation sounds strange to the native speaker's ear. In French, there is no use of 'Twenty Thirteen', (and no 'twenty hundred thirteen') so it will always be said as the equivalent of the English 'Two thousand thirteen' - deux mille treize.