Hi Kevin,

Well, I'm afraid you got me on a technicality, however (to wit and to woe 
<laugh>) I really wasn't wrong because I stated that you should count up the 
number of leap years.  Now I did not mention that the century years that are 
divisible by 400 do not have leap years, but that is an omission--not an 
error.  I knew that <laugh>.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Minor" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: This will prove I have too much time on my hands, but an 
interesting thing happens tomorrow.


Hi.

Your figuring the day a date is on almost works.  There's the thing about
leap years not being in years that divide by 100, but there's a leap year in
years divided by 400.  So 1600 had a leap year, 1700, 1800 and 1900 did not,
2000 did.

There were programmers who were concerned about this fact in 2000.

Just something more to think about.

Kevin