Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!marcus From: marcus@reed.UUCP (Marc Burns) Newsgroups: net.games.trivia Subject: Re: Answers to my trivium...(trivium?) Message-ID: <922@reed.UUCP> Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 01:17:30 EST Article-I.D.: reed.922 Posted: Tue Feb 12 01:17:30 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:22:13 EST References: <1595@gondor.UUCP> <874@ihuxk.UUCP> Reply-To: marcus@reed.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) Distribution: net Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 29 Summary: In article <874@ihuxk.UUCP> rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) writes: >> *** REPLACE THIS moose WITH YOUR mother-in-law! *** >> >> 2) How many calanders do you need to have a 'perpetual' calander? >> (Ie: For all eternity you would need no more than X calanders >> to represent whatever year you may be in.) >> >> 14. A month can start on any of seven days, and double that >> to account for leap years. (One person said 28. 28??) > >Is it possible that there is something like a "super leap-year" that comes >once every couple of centuries, with an extra day (in addition to the leap >day - Feb. 29). I seem to recall the need for additional correction >that is provided by adding a day every couple of hundred years (maybe even >every 1000 years). I also seem to recall, but this part is much fuzzier, >that this extra day wouldn't be part of any month, but would be put between >Dec. 31 and Jan. 1. Does anyone else remember anything like this, or was >I just having a dream about strange, mystical calendars? > Perhaps what you were thinking of when you referred to the "super-leap year" was the fact that every year number that is divisible by 400 is *not* a leap year. i.e. when we reach the high and hallowed year 2000, there will not be a Feb. 29. "SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS"