CORNISH-L Archives

Archiver > CORNISH > 2000-03 > 0951984331

From: William Nakia Yelland <>
Subject: Re: Leap Year
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:05:31 -0900

Beryl :
>> 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

Sorry to become a mathmatition on you guys but here you go.
The test under question is when you have a turn of a century whether or
not it is a leap year depends on its divisability by 400. It can just
as easily be its divisability by 4 (which is the way I originally
learned the rules of leap year). The reason being is the fact that your
given year is a new century, which by definition is automaticaly
divisable by 100. 400 is a mutiple of 100 as well (4 * 100 = 400). Since
both are both divisable by 100, the 100 in the 400 can be ignored, and
all you are left with is 4. Dividing by 400 is just being a little
redundant, in a sense (kind of like saying "ISBN number" when the N in
ISBN means number in the first place). Anyway... I better go run
before people start throwing tomatoes at me.

William Nakia Yelland

• Re: Leap Year by <>
• Re: Leap Year by DQ <>
• Re: Leap Year by "Michael Kiernan" <>
• Re: Leap Year by "Norman D. Nicol" <>
• Re: Leap Year by "Kathleen Atwood" <>
• Re: Leap Year by "kg_davis" <>
• Re: Leap Year by "Beryl Meek" <>
•  Re: Leap Year by William Nakia Yelland <>
• Re: Leap Year by "Norman D. Nicol" <>
• Re: Leap Year by "Rick Parsons" <>
• Re: Leap Year by <>
• Re: Leap Year by "Kathleen Chappell" <>
• Re: Leap Year by John Zimmerman <>