>>Is there a 2/29/2000? Or not. I seem to recall that there isn't because it's a leap century but I'm unclear on this.
>
>It is... The rule on leap years is the following.
>
>If the year is divisable by 4, it is, unless it's divisable by 100, it isn't. If it's divisable by 400, it is, unless it's by 4000.
>
>Hugo

No such rule on 4000 that I know of.