🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <14...@skye.ed.ac.uk> rbk@aiai.UUCP (Richard Kirby) writes:
|Since I last posted to alt.folklore.computers about the year 2000 being a leap
|year, but not 2100, I have received several messages along the lines of 2000 
|is the last year of this century, not the start of the next. Well this is 
|clearly WRONG. Consider:-
|
|This is the twentieth century right, but why?
|Because its 19xx + 1, hence the year 2000 will be in the 21st century cause its
|20 + 1.

Let's not get complicated, this is really pretty simple.  Because no
one with any sense was around to design a proper numbering system for
years, we got a system without a year 0.  (I suppose this is worse
than a ones-complement equivalent system, which might have had two
year 0's!)  So;  1 was the first year, and 10 was the tenth year.

10 was thus the last year of the first decade.
100 was the last year of the first century.
1000 was the last year of the first millenium.

2000 will be the last year of the twentieth century and the second
millenium.  2001 will be the first year of both.

	/JBL
=
Nets: le...@bbn.com  |  "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
 or {...}!bbn!levin  |  bureau that morning.  Wide-eyed and distraught, she
POTS: (617)873-3463  |  stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."