i really new help with this one its tough

Atkoz1, I'm obviously missing something here, why couldn't she have been born in 1914 and he in 1907?

and married in 1935

because 2555 days is exactly 7 years apart so there can be only one leap year and then as you said why not 1908 and 1915 or 1912 and 1919 thats why i asked for some help i thought i might be missing something

7 years exactly would be 2556 days
7x365 + 1 day for the leap year.
Maybe being born on either side of the date line would need to be considered?

yes but would you count the day that they were born. would that not make it 364 for one year therefore giving the total of 2555.

1896 and 1903
1900 wasn't a leap year (not divisible by 400) and August is after leap day in 1896.

I agree markr, nice logic

1900 was a leap year.
a leap year occurs every four years. So if 1900 weren't a leap ear, it would have a decimal answer when I do 1900 / 4. But 1900 on 4 is, infact, 475, hence, 1900 was a leap year, fools.

Re: 1900 was a leap year.


No it wasn't

http://www.timeanddate.com/date/leapyear.html

makz 18,

I'd get my facts straight before I started calling names. Years that are multiples of 100 must be divisible by 400 to be leap years. We happen to live in a time when the multiple of 100 also happened to be a multiple of 400, so we didn't have to treat it differently.

i am right.
If you take a year, and divide it by four, something marvellous will happen. If the year is a leap year, the quotient will be a whole number (note the lack of decimal places in the answer). 1900 / 4 is 475 (a whole number). Now don't have a cry, you're just sad coz a teenager beat you.

Are you trying to claim that 1900 was a leap year? If so, you are incorrect.

Here are the rules for calculating if a particular year is a leap year:
1. Every year evenly divisible by 4 is PROBABLY a leap year
2. The exception to rule #1 is that every year evenly divisible by 100 is NOT a leap year.
3. The exception to rule #2 is that every year evenly divisible by 100 that is also evenly divisible by 400 IS a leap year.

This means that the years 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300 and 2500 are NOT leap years, while the years 2000 and 2400 are leap years. Though most of the talk when we went into the year 2000 was about Y2K, there was also some minor discussion that we were in a situation where all three exceptions applied making 2000, a year divisible by 100 normally not a leap year, was actually a leap year because it's also evenly divisible by 400.

Try googling "calculate leap year."

makx 18:

On November 18 (different topic), you wrote "Not to act all high and mighty but, rather than discolse your already obtained knowleedge, go try and find more out on the subject."

You obviously haven't taken your own advice in this case. On November 8, Don1 provided a link to a site that explains leap years.

By the way, your statement "If the year is a leap year, the quotient will be a whole number." is true. However, the converse (if the quotient is a whole number, the year is a leap year) is not.

It cracks me up how people (you're not the first) who are dead wrong, but convinced they are right (in spite of the abundance of readily available evidence) feel compelled to resort to name calling and petulance.

it cracks me up how youc an see my name written next to my posts, and still spell it wrong. But I will admit defeat, I was wrong.

I'd put that in the same category as "discolse" and "knowleedge."