... BUT YOU'RE STILL WRONG!! <g>

However, after cogitating all day on Travis' post about his grand-daughter, I realized that there might be a simple perceptual problem causing you (and the others) to mis-apprehend when the new millennium will start.

There are two fundamental facts about people which largely define us throughout our lives --- our names and our ages. We are so used to referring to our age that we can do it without conscious thought, usually from as young as two years old.

The way we calculate our age is to count completed years. So, we are used to referring to milestones in round numbers, especially 30, 40 and 50. Once we turn 100, we have lived a century.

This method of counting, however, is fundamentally different from the way we count when we determine our calendar dates. On the calendar, we call any given year by its designated number for the entire year, not just after it is completed.

Thus, the year 30 A.D. started the first day after 29 A.D. ended. And stayed that way all year. Thus, a person born on 1-1-1 (if there had been such a date, which of course there wasn't since our friend Dionysius didn't come up with the whole idea until the 6th century) would have turned 29 on 1-1-30 and would have referred to his age as 29 throughout all of the year 30!!!

If that person was still alive today, he would be turning 1999 on 1-1-2000. And would continue to call himself 1999 years old throughout all of year 2000. And this is exactly what is happening with our calendar. The new millennium won't start until the 2000th year is finished.

BUT, because we are so used to referring to our age in completed years (if 100 years old, 100 years has already passed in our life), it seems as though the year 2000 SHOULD mean that 2000 years have already passed, just as if we were referring to our age. But, that is NOT what's happening.

The number we assign to the calendar year is not intended to quantify the amount of time that has already passed; it is simply the designator by which we refer to the particular year which is currently in progress. The year 2000 is not the same thing as 2000 years have passed UNTIL the stroke of midnight at the completion of the last day of the year, at which time (and only at which time) the two systems of reference coincide -- for an instant in time.

Now, Gene, if that cogent, well-reasoned, logical and accurate <g> analysis doesn't convince you, I'm afraid you are beyond mathematical redemption.

----- jim o\-S