GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 1998-02 > 0886590694


From: Martin Biddiscombe <>
Subject: Re: Time Bomb Year 2000?
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 11:11:34 +0000


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Helen Castle wrote:
>
> The time bomb 2000 seems to get everyone going.....

Quite how this relates to genealogy escapes me at the moment, but:

> Is it true that there should be no 29 February 2000 as leap years do
> not happen in the years ending in 000? I saw this one somewhere and as
> far as i know a leap year happens every four years. 96 is divided by
> 4 so is a leap year and 2004 is divided by 4 so is another one....
> shouldn't 2000 be one too?

The general rule is:
If the year is divisible by 4, it's a leap year.
The exception to the general rule is:
If the year is also divisible by 100, it's not a leap year.
The exception to the exception to the general rule is:
If the year is also divisible by 400, then it is a leap year after all.

So, 1896 and 1904 were leap years as normal, 1900 wasn't (being
divisible by 100 but not 400), but 2000 will be (being divisble by 400).

HTH

Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQB1AwUBNNhM2paT8w4dn389AQHq0AMAi0EFMuHUuNNtOwUmiaR67PhO4CpmwXdi
XHQJAnpYztj+cHsCEEy9wuiuGceKohwj7KrAsF073krFCdC4aBNHIJpzXTbkmYxn
/VLCq01VkQH4CXtZmlnQmdOoklOtgIMS
=ymOK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Gently lapping, persistently weathering, forcibly pounding; the sea
is a metaphor for so many things we find hard to comprehend.
- Rebecca Hughes, In Doubt's Shadow.

PGP key at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uceemdb (that's not all, of course)

This thread: