um... excuse me but aren't we getting off-topic with this thread of discussion!!??
alfred -----Original Message----- From: kilopascal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 2:57 PM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:18330] It should be 200202202002, not 200220022002 2002-02-21 Of course it doesn't! The way you wrote it as 200220022002 is incorrect. It has to be written in the ISO-8601 format, which renders it 2002-02-20 20:02 or 200202202002. And if you change all the zeros in the correct notation, that is the ISO-8601 notation to ones, then you get 211212212112, which is what I showed below. >From what I heard today, the next palindrome will be the last. No more will occur ever again. I didn't sit down and try to see if it is true or not, so I can't say for sure. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carter, Baron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, 2002-02-21 07:44 Subject: [USMA:18321] Re: Just a small correction on 200220022002 > 2112-12-21 21-12? 211212212112 doesn't appear to be the palindrome of > 200220022002 > > Baron Carter > > -----Original Message----- > From: kilopascal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, 20 February, 2002 17:31 > To: U.S. Metric Association > Subject: [USMA:18313] Re: Just a small correction on 200220022002 > > > 2002-02-20 > > The palindrome will occur again on 2112-12-21 21-12, in 110 years, 10 > months, 1 day, 1 h and 10 min. Anyone planning to be here for it? > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ma Be" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, 2002-02-20 11:32 > Subject: [USMA:18308] Just a small correction on 200220022002 > > > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:12:58 > > Duncan Bath wrote: > > ... > > >>To night we will get, for a minute, a rare "palindrome" : we will > > >>write time and date as 20 02 20 02 2002 (i.e. 20H 02, 20 February > > >>2002) or 200220022002, which can be read in both directions. > > > > > >Not a real palindrome either. > > > > > >1. It is based on an ad hoc date form > > >2. It relies on an illogical combination of the date and time. > > >... > > We've been through this before, Duncan. Please, stop saying that > dd-mm-yyyy is 'illogical', will ya? While we had both agreed that > yyyy-mm-dd would be more in line with how we state values overall, there IS > logic behind using the opposite format (from small to big, remember?...). > > > > In any case, I found the above 'palindrome' quite amusing indeed, > especially considering that we will NEVER have any such type of event EVER > AGAIN! Therefore, let's please, just enjoy this... curious moment in > history, shall we? > > > > Marcus > > > > > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably > > Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. > > Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com > > >
