× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  • Subject: Re: 1600 - ,missing days - was Feb 29, 2000
  • From: Ray Peterson <rpeterso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:24:37 -0500

actually it was in 1582 and it marked the "end" of the "Julian" calendar and the beginning of the "Gregorian" calandar!  As noted below, there is also a "Common Centenial Year" rule that says that any year divisible by 4000 is not a leap year.  Of course, it's unlikely any software written today will still be in use in 4000.  I remember distinctly that in 1973 as I developed software for this very, very large insurance company, that we were certain that software we were creating would not be in use 27 years later.  I've seen recent press reports that said insurance company has spent in excess of $ 600,000,000 remediating y2k!

Ray Peterson
 

From  The Origin of Leap Year

Pope Gregory XIII took action in the year 1582 by
cutting 10 days off the month of October and devising
the Gregorian Calendar, the one we still use today.
The last day of the Julian Calendar was Thursday,
October 4th, 1582, followed by Friday, October 15th,
1582. Clavius' solution was to make no Centennial
Year a leap year unless it was divisible by 400. Since
1600 was coming up, it was noted that it would be a leap
year, whereas 1700, 1800 and 1900 would not. The year
2000 will be a Centennial Leap Year. He also realized
that this solution slightly overcorrected the calendar.
Therefore, any year that is divisible by 4,000 would be
called a Common Year and would not be a leap year.
This has the effect of bringing the calendar back in line.
There will not be a Common Centennial Year until the
year 4000.
 
 

John P Carr wrote:

>>"Schenck, Don" wrote:
>> Funny ... I don't REMEMBER 1600 being a leap year ...

>No, it wasn't. But they didn't use leap seconds then either.  ;-)
>The Gregorian calendar had just been introduced that century(!?!? or was
>it the one before?)

Remember that in 173x (close to there)   we lost 3 or 4 days when they
corrected
the calandar.   See if that those missing days are a valid *ISO  date.
They shouldn't
be because they never happened.

John Carr

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.