How old!!!???
A girl was eight years old on her first birthday. How could that be?
Labels: puzzle
posted by Chris at
6:01 PM
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Links
Search
Share
- Tom Chrome Extension
- ToM @ Twitter
- MeeT ToM
- Daily Tricks Widget
- Vista Gadget 1.5
- iPhone Widget
- Windows XP Widget
- Google Toolbar Button
- Suggestions
Favorite Links
- Vista Sidebar Gadgets
- Widgets for Web 2.0
- C Sharp Tricks
- Interview Information
- Illustrator - Elar Alexander
Bookmark Us
Previous Posts
- Who's crooked?
- A Tougher Series
- What's her name?
- Next number please ...
- Last Digit
- very much alike! ...
- Monday Night Bowling
- Where do I sit? ...
- It's how hot?
- 3,2,1 blast off ...
16 Comments:
I've updated Where do I sit?...
My first thought was she was born on Feb 29th. But that would make her 4 on her first birthday.
She was born feb 29 on 1996 because 2000 didn't have the extra day
This only happens every 400 years if I'm correct
so she had to be born 4 years before a year divisible by 400
to be more general
Hi Jordan, you got it. As you realised, 2000 was a leap year.
The official answer is that she was born on the 29th Feb, 1896.
You gave a more general answer.
I don't think I've come across this puzzle before.
Just to be clear, a leap year normally occurs every 4 years. If the year is divisible by 100, then it isn't a leap year, unless it's divisible by 400. There is some speculation that the year 4000 might not be a leap year; it isn't possible to predict that, yet.
just we wil just have to wait and see
I bet one of us blinks first.
your on Chris,i haven't blinked in 19 years
That gives me a 19 year advantage.
she never celebrated her birthday before until her eight birthday
You know
before anonymous poeple post they really shoud read all the comments
like how I kinda proved myself I was right
and Im saying thank you to my dad for the
excpetions of leap years info
Chris is correct in stating...
a leap year normally occurs every 4 years. If the year is divisible by 100, then it isn't a leap year, unless it's divisible by 400.
But Jordan is incorrect in stating...
She was born feb 29 on 1996 because 2000 didn't have the extra day.
I am stating...
2000 DID have a February 29th becuase it is divisible by 400. The girl had to be born on February 29th of a year 4 years prior to a year that IS divisible by 100 but NOT divisible by 400.
Check out http://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/?year=3600&country=1
i think it's bcuz the last 7-8 years she doesn't have any birthday parties/celebrations?
Anonymous before last 2:47 AM). You're right. I'm afraid that I mis-read what Jordan said. However, I only responded after his second post, in which he mentioned the 400 year rule. Despite his actual words, I'm fairly confident that he meant the right thing (i.e. I think he tripped himself up), so I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Besides, he'd definitely got the gist of it.
It's because of the doubt I had about what he said, that I posted my clarifying comment.
So Feb 29th 1896, 1796, 1696, 1496 etc., but not 1996,1596, 1196 etc., does the job.
The reason that leap years are subject to these rules is because it has been decreed that (with a few exceptions) that the vernal (or March) equinox should be on the 20th March on the Gregorian calendar. The Earth, rather incoveniently, orbits the sun in approx 365.242 days (a tropical year - I believe).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home