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 17:33:16 -0500
References: <0.3ef81e48.25954e13@aol.com>
Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org


I think you mean "the first millennium had 999 (1-999)." :)

Well millennium means exactly 1,000 years.  It's just a matter of when we
define one millennium starting and ending...

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

"Let me remind people that we're not in the business of censorship" - Chris
Dornfeld, 4 November 1998

----- Original Message -----
From: <ComAsYuAre@aol.com>
To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: A83: (no subject)


>
> In a message dated 12/24/99 5:28:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> rabelerb@pilot.msu.edu writes:
>
> > So which "millennium" only had 999 years? :)
>
> Heh the first one most likely.  Since the first decade had 9 years (1-9),
the
> first century had 99 years (1-99), then it would follow that the first
> century had 999 (1-999).  Just think about how arbitrary a "year" is.
What
> makes this year 1999?  Nothing in particular except that we as a culture
> decided it was.  What makes a millennium?
>
>
> ----
> Jonah Cohen
> <ComAsYuAre@aol.com>
> http://linux.hypnotic.org/~jonah/ (down)
>
>

Follow-Ups:

Re: A83: (no subject)

From: "Dan E" <dan@calc.org>

References:

Re: A83: (no subject)

From: ComAsYuAre@aol.com