|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
Subject: Re: millenium - 2000 or 2001?
From: Dan Allen (danallen@XXX.XXX)
Date: Sun Dec 26 1999 - 21:04:53 EST
>From a computer scientist perspective, the big change is when the "leading
bit" -- that is, the most signficant bit -- changes, and that means that the
year 2000 is the start of the new millennium, not 2001:
1999 = 11111001111 in binary
2000 = 11111010000 in binary
2001 = 11111010001 in binary
Often the "leading bit" argument often will only hold for decimal arithmetic
(IEEE 754) OR binary arithmetic (IEEE 854), but in this case both number
systems have more bits get flipped in going from 1999 to 2000 than going
from 2000 to 2001, as the above illustrates.
This viewpoint is supported by the fact that the Year 2000 computer problem
happens in 2000, not 2001.
It is not an either/or: there are multiple definitions (some are zero-based
some one-based) and both are correct!
There will be another big problem in 2037 when a 32-bit integer can no
longer hold the number of seconds since the Unix epoch of Jan 1, 1970, but
let's hope that this is changed long before 2037!
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Navigation Mailing List
[mailto:NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX]On Behalf Of Paul Hirose
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 1999 9:22 AM
To: NAVIGATION-L@XXX.XXX
Subject: millenium - 2000 or 2001?
I hope everyone got a new almanac from Santa.
The list has been quiet lately, so I will throw a log on the fire.
What will be the first year of the new century (and millenium), 2000
or 2001? I believe it's 2001, although that seems to be the minority
position.
|