Sir, - Since the rough estimate of the date of Jesus Christ's birth made during the sixth century of our era by an Armenian monk, much has been written and saidabout the ensuing approximate calendar calculations. This debate can appear trivial in the face of the repeated mathematical (and therefore less forgivable)error that has ensued and that is persistently being made at the turn of this century.
To assert that the year 2000 is the beginning of a new century and of a new millennium is arithmetically incorrect. On the contrary, Y2K is the last year of the 20th century and of the second millennium. A very simple proof is as follows. Given that our era started in year 1 (Anno Domini), and that we need 1,000 years to make a millennium, it follows logically that the year 1000 wasthe last year of the first millennium. Consequently, the second millennium started in the year 1001, and there is no reason why the second millennium should have only 999 years. Therefore, the second millennium will lastuntil the December 31st, 2000, which means that we are actually left with another 366 days (leap year) before the beginning of the third millennium.
Although some of us may see in this arithmetic correction an opportunity to celebrate the new millennium for another 366 days, I personally find it sad andregrettable that in spite of the increasing technological mastery of nature by man, irrational behaviour still prevails - irrational behaviour based on the mystery of the number 2000, nurtured and exploited by commercial interests, and grossly exaggerated by our media. - Yours, etc.,
Dr B. Andreosso-O'Callaghan, Department of Economics, University of Limerick.