CORNISH-L Archives

Archiver > CORNISH > 2000-03 > 0951982059


From: "Beryl Meek" <>
Subject: Re: Leap Year
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:27:39 -0000


-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Atwood <>
To: <>
Date: 02 March 2000 00:17
Subject: Re: Leap Year


>new century years are not leap years (1800, 1900, etc.). Unless it is
>divisible by 400 (1200, 1600, 2000)
>
>Kathy
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 12:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Leap Year
>
>
>> I had always understood that with the present calender if the year was
>> devisable by 4 it was a leap year?
>>
>> Rod
>>
>>Sorry to be old, thick and Cornish BUT if a figure is divisable by 400 is
it not also divisable by 4 as Rod suggests. 1900 - for example- is not
divisable by four so why complicate matters for simple folks such as me ?
Beryl
>
>

This thread: