You're welcome.
Technically it is from 0-99.99999*. Once it hits midnight on new year's eve of the 99th year of the century, it begins the next century.
I suppose it would be better to just say 0-100, 100-200, 200-300, etc. for centuries, despite that a century actually ends just a fragment of time prior to rolling over into that *00 year start of the next century.
Doing so would prevent confusion of cutting the end year short to *99, which seems to be stating a year shy of 100 years as it lacks the decimals. So I guess going from 0 to 100 is better than 0-99.
You're welcome.
Technically it is from 0-99.99999*. Once it hits midnight on new year's eve of the 99th year of the century, it begins the next century.
I suppose it would be better to just say 0-100, 100-200, 200-300, etc. for centuries, despite that a century actually ends just a fragment of time prior to rolling over into that *00 year start of the next century.
Doing so would prevent confusion of cutting the end year short to *99, which seems to be stating a year shy of 100 years as it lacks the decimals. So I guess going from 0 to 100 is better than 0-99.
(post is archived)