Re: Year 2000 leap year?

Catalin Badea wrote: > > "Stuart Knight" <Stuart_Knight@lendlease.com.au> wrote in article > <5beqvn$41g@cssun.mathcs.emory.edu>... > > The year 2000 IS a leap year. > > > > The definition of a leap year is one that can be divided EXACTLY by > 4, > > and in the case of a new Century (1900, 2000, etc.) to also be > EXACTLY > > divisible by 400. > > > > Small clarification, that shouldn't be "new Century" but "last year in a > Century". > > 1900 is not the beginning of a new century, it is the end of one (the 19th > century). > > Catalin > > -- > Catalin Badea > Senior Technical Architect > Tecsys Inc. > cat@tecsys.com > www.tecsys.com > include "disclaimer.4gh" years divisible by 4 are leap years, EXCEPT for the years which are divisible by 400, which are NOT leap years. Therefore, 2000 should NOT be a leap year. However, I was told (by a very unreliable source who sounded as though he heard it from a reliable source) that 2000 was an exception, allegedly to correct a problem with the Julian calendar. I have not seen this "news" anywhere else, so if you know, please also respond by e-mail as I am remiss in checking the newsgroup on a regular basis. Thanks, danwright@bigfoot.com