>>Mark Thorny wrote:
>> This year, the start of the new Millennium
>
>>Nope.  Next year is the start of the third millennium.
>
>Actually, neither of the two common lines of argument are correct.
>The calendar is clearly NOT a linear numbering system but a system of
>symbolic representation (which just happens to closely resemble a numbering
>system in superficial appearance). Any attempts to argue on the basis of it
>being a numbering system are bound to fail (but will still leave people
>feeling happy that their answer is correct).


More Exercises for the student:



 Say how long it is from 1.1.4 BC to 1.1.10AD without feeling uncomfortable
about not explaining the reasons for your answer.

        This is harder to answer than the original

What is the date of the days following 28 Feb 4 BC and 28 Feb 5 BC and why?

If the object of the leap-year rules is (as we know it is) to adjust the
calendar year to reality, does your answer above still make sense.

If it does, is 1001 BC a leap year?

Did you know that the new millenium doesn't start at the international
dateline (according to the people who think they make the rules) ?




    RM
    from New Zealand, First to see the light of the new millenium :-)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu