Re: A83: (no subject)

To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A83: (no subject)
From: "Bryan Rabeler" <rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:28:12 -0500
References: <0.d71ecbc1.25954cdc@aol.com>
Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org


So which "millennium" only had 999 years? :)

--
Bryan Rabeler
rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu
http://www.msu.edu/~rabelerb/

"nothing important happens behind anybody's back.  Everything will be
discussed on the list and everyone will be kept informed." - Chris Dornfeld,
17 November 1998

----- Original Message -----
From: <ComAsYuAre@aol.com>
To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: A83: (no subject)


>
> In a message dated 12/24/99 5:23:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> laurensh1@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > Well technically the guy who says the new milennium starts in 2001 is
right,
> >  since the start of the count now only (almost) 1999 years have passed.
> >  However, seeing it from a mathematical view, the year 2000 IS a
milennium.
> >
> >  So it's kind of a paradox, I think.
>
> But the whole point is that technically there's really no such thing as a
> millennium (in nature I mean).  Thus, the millennium starts when we say it
> starts, and "we", meaning everyone in general, are saying it starts in
2000,
> not 2001.
>
>
> ----
> Jonah Cohen
> <ComAsYuAre@aol.com>
> http://linux.hypnotic.org/~jonah/ (down)
>
>

References:

Re: A83: (no subject)

From: ComAsYuAre@aol.com