Re: A83: (no subject)

To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A83: (no subject)
From: ComAsYuAre@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:25:32 EST
Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org

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)

Follow-Ups:

Re: A83: (no subject)

From: "Bryan Rabeler" <rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu>