Last time leap year was in an odd year?
Robert Strauss
I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
Thanks,
Bob Strauss
str...@wcu.edu
Dave Seaman
In article <5ptdfd$t14$1...@cowee.wcu.edu>,
Robert Strauss <STR...@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU> wrote:
>I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
You know incorrectly. 1901 was not a leap year, and neither was 1900.
According to the Gregorian calendar, all leap years are divisible by 4,
but the converse is false. Therefore, there are no odd leap years
according to the calendar presently in use, which has been since 1752
in England and its colonies.
There were, of course, some irregular-length years associated with the
conversion from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in various
countries, and it's possible that some countries (not in the
English-speaking world) may even have had some odd-numbered leap years
during the period of confusion.
There also were no odd leap years according the the Julian calendar,
which was the one previously in use. You could argue that there were
odd-numbered leap years during Roman times, even though they obviously
didn't number their years the way we do today, because for a time they
made every third year a leap year. This was caused by a
misunderstanding. Julius Caesar had decreed that every fourth year
would be a leap year, but those in charge of keeping the calendar
considered a leap year to be both the fourth year of one cycle and also
the first year of the next.
--
Dave Seaman dse...@purdue.edu
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++
++++ see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
bow...@eisner.decus.org
In article <5ptdfd$t14$1...@cowee.wcu.edu>, STR...@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU (Robert Strauss) writes:
> I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
How do you arrive at the conclusion that 1901 was a leap year???
Bruce
Joel Coltoff
In article <1997Jul8.110802.1@eisner>, <BBO...@BIGELOW.ORG> wrote:
>How do you arrive at the conclusion that 1901 was a leap year???
Isn't that when we did a leap from the 19th century into the 20th?
--
Joel Coltoff
I'd explain it, but there's a lot of math. -- Calvin
Lusion
In article <5ptdfd$t14$1...@cowee.wcu.edu>, STR...@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU (Robert Strauss) says:
>I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
I'm very doubtful that 1901 was a leap year; if it was, it would have
been a "special case" leap year to correct something (I have never heard
of this).
This being the case, however, I still know of odd leap years.
Therefore, I officially "resubmit" this puzzle--name the most recent
odd leap year.
Peace
--
Lusion
Lusion
In article <5pts6k$j3c$1...@AesSedai.wes.army.mil>, lusion@x.x (Lusion) says:
>This being the case, however, I still know of odd leap years.
>Therefore, I officially "resubmit" this puzzle--name the most recent
>odd leap year.
Oops... forgot to mention the "caveat". The calendar in consideration
follows the following rules:
1. Every four years is a leap year, except for:
2. Every one hundred years is a regular year, except:
3. Every four hundred years is still a leap year.
Using these rules, this isn't technically the Gregorian or Julian
calendars (at least I don't think), but this is the calendar you
need to consider for the purposes of this puzzle.
I hope that doesn't give the answer away.
Peace
--
Lusion
Abigail
Robert Strauss (STR...@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU) wrote on 1407 September 1993 in
<URL: news:5ptdfd$t14$1...@cowee.wcu.edu>:
++ I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
++
1901 was a great troll year.
Abigail
Thomas Scharle
In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Dave Seaman
In article <5ptss1$j7b$1...@AesSedai.wes.army.mil>, Lusion <lusion@x.x> wrote:
>In article <5pts6k$j3c$1...@AesSedai.wes.army.mil>, lusion@x.x (Lusion) says:
>>This being the case, however, I still know of odd leap years.
>>Therefore, I officially "resubmit" this puzzle--name the most recent
>>odd leap year.
There have been none in the history of the English-speaking world, which has
used the Gregorian calendar since 1752 and the Julian calendar before that.
>Oops... forgot to mention the "caveat". The calendar in consideration
>follows the following rules:
>
>1. Every four years is a leap year, except for:
>2. Every one hundred years is a regular year, except:
>3. Every four hundred years is still a leap year.
>
>Using these rules, this isn't technically the Gregorian or Julian
>calendars (at least I don't think), but this is the calendar you
>need to consider for the purposes of this puzzle.
What you described is the Gregorian calendar, provided you make it a bit more
precise:
1. Every year divisible by four is a leap year, except for:
2. Every year divisible by one hundred is a common year, except:
3. Every year divisible by four hundred is a leap year.
>I hope that doesn't give the answer away.
It should be clear that every leap year since the Gregorian calendar
was instituted in the 16th Century has been divisible by four, and
therefore there have been no odd leap years in that time.
Perhaps you are thinking of extrapolating backwards to the beginning of
the Common Era, using the "every four years" version of the rule
instead of the "divisible by four" rule, and taking advantage of the
fact that there was no year zero. Four years before 4 C.E. is 1
B.C.E. No doubt the Romans must have torn off a calendar page,
discovered that the year was 1 B.C.E., and exclaimed, "Oh, look! An
odd leap year!" Is that the solution you had in mind?
No doubt they also had endless Internet discussions about whether there
was going to be a year zero or not, when the Common Era would
officially begin, and who was going to fix all the software.
J. Scott Miller
Robert Strauss wrote:
>
> I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
>
> Bob Strauss
> str...@wcu.edu
I just checked two encyclopedias and the local newspaper for that era and
find nothing to support this (at least, in the case of the newspaper,
there was no February 29 edition). So, what proof have you of this being
a leap year?
--
J. Scott Miller, Program Coordinator jsmi...@homer.louisville.edu
Rauch Memorial Planetarium http://www.louisville.edu/planetarium
University of Louisville
Nick Wedd
In article <1997Jul8.110802.1@eisner>, bow...@eisner.decus.org writes
>> I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
>
Excel version 7 thinks that 1900 was a leap year. I have a vague
recollection that some other equally reputable spreadsheet knows that
1900 was not a leap year, but thinks that 1901 was.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk
Jim Yingst
In article <5ptss1$j7b$1...@AesSedai.wes.army.mil>, Lusion <lusion@x.x> wrote:
>In article <5pts6k$j3c$1...@AesSedai.wes.army.mil>, lusion@x.x (Lusion) says:
>>This being the case, however, I still know of odd leap years.
>>Therefore, I officially "resubmit" this puzzle--name the most recent
>>odd leap year.
Well, lots of them are "odd" in some sense. (-:
>Oops... forgot to mention the "caveat". The calendar in consideration
>follows the following rules:
>
>1. Every four years is a leap year, except for:
>2. Every one hundred years is a regular year, except:
>3. Every four hundred years is still a leap year.
>
>Using these rules, this isn't technically the Gregorian or Julian
>calendars (at least I don't think), but this is the calendar you
>need to consider for the purposes of this puzzle.
Well, you've given the periods for each rule, but no starting point. I
assume this part does mimic the more recent part of the Gregorian calendar
- i.e. all three rules can be correctly invoked by counting (forwards or
backwards) from 2000. In that case, there are no odd-numbered leap years,
unless we also adopt one more convention from the Gregorian calendar (and
others, probably):
(spoiler)
Four years before AD 4 is 1 BC, an odd leap year.
Personally, I'd prefer to call it 0 AD - I don't care if such a date
"doesn't exist"; I can write it down, and it's obvious what I mean.
Similarly, 5 BC = -4 AD, and so on. But that's just a minor hang-up I
have; carry on...
- Jim Yingst <ha...@u.arizona.edu>
Abigail
Thomas Scharle (sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu) wrote on 1407 September 1993
in <URL: news:5pu62i$3...@news.nd.edu>:
++ In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
Not at all. The question was asking more more recent leap years,
mentioning 1901 as being one. Which twisted calendar has
1 B.C between 1901 and now?
Abigail
Michael L. Siemon
In article <5pu62i$3...@news.nd.edu>, sch...@ubiquity.cc.nd.edu (Thomas
Scharle) wrote:
+ In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
Except that it wasn't one, by edict of Augustus. :-)
[and anyway, the continuation of the modulo 4 algorithm through proleptic
CE dates is proof (I say, *PROOF*!!!!) of the 0-origin counting of millen-
nia being correct. :-); not to mention this origin's identity with the
modulo 19 origin of the lunar cycle. :-):-)]
--
Michael L. Siemon m...@panix.com
"Green is the night, green kindled and apparelled.
It is she that walks among astronomers."
-- Wallace Stevens
Michael L. Siemon
+I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
Fascinating. How do you know that?
Dan Prives
Robert Strauss wrote:
>
> I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
>
> Bob Strauss
> str...@wcu.edu
What makes you think that 1901 is odd? According to my sources, 1901 is
even.
Regards,
Avagara
Matthew Daly
"J. Scott Miller" <jsmi...@homer.louisville.edu>, if that is your REAL name, said:
>Robert Strauss wrote:
>>
>> I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
>
>find nothing to support this (at least, in the case of the newspaper,
>there was no February 29 edition). So, what proof have you of this being
>a leap year?
February 29, 1901 was such a rare occurence that the newspapers all took
the day off.
Matthew, YHBT. HTH. HAND.
--
Matthew Daly I feel that if a person has problems communicating
mwd...@kodak.com the very least he can do is to shut up - Tom Lehrer
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employer, of course.
--- Support the anti-Spam amendment! Join at http://www.cauce.org ---
Ian Lynagh
Once upon a time, in the land of rec.puzzles, Dave Seaman eloquently
composed:
>discovered that the year was 1 B.C.E., and exclaimed, "Oh, look! An
>odd leap year!"
Actually they wouldn't of been surprised until
4 AD turned out to be an *even* leap year. All
previous leap years would have been odd.
See ya!
Ian
--
Ian Lynagh - i...@lynagh.demon.co.uk
http://www.sn.no/~balchen/igloo/
If you can't baffle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bull.
Mike Naylor
You people all misunderstood this post. here's what it said:
STR...@WCUVAX1.WCU.EDU (Robert Strauss) wrote:
>I know that 1901 was a leap year. Any more recent odd ones?
A person like Robert who "knows that 1901 was a leap year" is indeed an odd
one. Robert was asking if there were any more like himself here recently.
The answer is yes, we see them quite often.
--
Mike Naylor - myfirstname...@mail.serve.com
Play Five by Five Poker at http://www.serve.com/games/
Robert Casey
1 BC? (there was no year 0).
Philip Chien
In article <5pts6k$j3c$1...@AesSedai.wes.army.mil> Lusion, lusion@x.x writes:
>Therefore, I officially "resubmit" this puzzle--name the most recent
>odd leap year.
I would say that every single leap year has been an "odd" year, since
those are the years of the U.S. Presidential elections. And I'm certain
anybody in the U.S. will agree that Presidential Campaign years are
pretty odd years. ;-)
But I'll toss back the question with a bit of history mixed in -
What U.S. presidential elections have occured in years which were *not*
leap years, and when's the next one going to happen?
Philip Chien, KC4...@amsat.org
Earth News - space writer and consultant
my E-mail address is purposely incorrect to avoid SPAM-bots. I will not
accept any unsolicited E-mail or commercial advertisements.
John Rickard
Lusion (lusion@x.x) wrote:
: This being the case, however, I still know of odd leap years.
: Therefore, I officially "resubmit" this puzzle--name the most recent
: odd leap year.
Before 1752, in England and its American colonies (but not, I believe,
in Scotland) the year started on 25 March ("old style") instead of 1
January ("new style").
I imagine that the day 28 February 1747/8 (that is, 1747 by the
old-style naming and 1748 by the new-style naming) was followed by 29
February; is that right? And if so, which was called a leap year in
England: 1747 or 1748?
Anyone know?
--
John Rickard
bow...@eisner.decus.org
In article <5q207t$sde$1...@ddi2.digital.net>, Philip Chien <nob...@nowhere.com> writes:
> What U.S. presidential elections have occured in years which were *not*
> leap years, and when's the next one going to happen?
Elections in 1800 and 1900 weren't in leap years, next time will be 2100
Bruce
hw
Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
>
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Wrong. The leap year is a product of the gregorian calendar.
Around 1 BC, the julian calendar reigned and leap years were
not part of the equation.
HW
Paul Schlyter
In article <5pu62i$3...@news.nd.edu>,"Every leap year is evenly divisible by 4"
Are you trying to say that 1 is evenly divisible by 4 ???
( yep -- this is getting hairy if one insists that there was no year 0... )
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr -- updated daily!
Paul Schlyter
In article <5pu4tu$hb8$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Jim Yingst <ha...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>Four years before AD 4 is 1 BC, an odd leap year.
>
>Personally, I'd prefer to call it 0 AD - I don't care if such a date
>"doesn't exist"; I can write it down, and it's obvious what I mean.
>Similarly, 5 BC = -4 AD, and so on. But that's just a minor hang-up I
>have; carry on...
Then hat happened to the rule "Every leap year is divisible by 4" ?
Is 1 evenly divisible by 4 ? :-)
Jim Yingst
In article <33C4B9...@macromedia.com>, hw <hwar...@macromedia.com> wrote:
>Thomas Scharle wrote:
>>
>> In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
>Wrong. The leap year is a product of the gregorian calendar.
>Around 1 BC, the julian calendar reigned and leap years were
>not part of the equation.
Yes they were - every four years. What was new about the Gregorian
calendar was that if the year was divisible by 100, you *didn't* have a
leap year, unless it was also divisible by 400. That, and the fact that
they dropped 10 days from the year 1582 to make up for the previous
centuries when they hadn't followed that rule.
- Jim Yingst <ha...@u.arizona.edu>
Jim Yingst
In article <O2xAqIAR...@lynagh.demon.co.uk>,
Ian Lynagh <i...@lynagh.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Once upon a time, in the land of rec.puzzles, Dave Seaman eloquently
>composed:
>>discovered that the year was 1 B.C.E., and exclaimed, "Oh, look! An
>>odd leap year!"
>
>Actually they wouldn't of been surprised until
>4 AD turned out to be an *even* leap year. All
>previous leap years would have been odd.
Actually it is only in retrospect that we can refer to 1 B.C.E. or 1 B.C.
anyway; surely no one called it that at the time.
- Jim Yingst <ha...@u.arizona.edu>
Jim Yingst
In article <5q3ltg$b...@electra.saaf.se>,
Paul Schlyter <pau...@electra.saaf.se> wrote:
>In article <5pu4tu$hb8$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>Jim Yingst <ha...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>>Four years before AD 4 is 1 BC, an odd leap year.
>Then hat happened to the rule "Every leap year is divisible by 4" ?
>Is 1 evenly divisible by 4 ? :-)
Go back and re-read my post, including the parts you edited out. I quoted
the original poster of this puzzle, who very specifically listed the rules
for the calendar we were to consider. "Every leap year is divisible by 4"
wasn't one of them. Better luck next time.
- Jim Yingst <ha...@u.arizona.edu>
Nick Wedd
In article <Ncj*cq...@news.atml.co.uk>, John Rickard <j...@atml.co.uk>
writes
>I imagine that the day 28 February 1747/8 (that is, 1747 by the
>old-style naming and 1748 by the new-style naming) was followed by 29
>February; is that right? And if so, which was called a leap year in
>England: 1747 or 1748?
>
>Anyone know?
Archbishop Whitgift died on February 29th 1603.
hw
hw wrote:
> Wrong. The leap year is a product of the gregorian calendar.
> Around 1 BC, the julian calendar reigned and leap years were
> not part of the equation.
>
> HW
Somoeone emailed me with a correction. The Julian Calendar DID
have leap years, but not as we did. Apparently they had them
every 3 years until Augustinian changed it, and made a month
for himself, and every 4 years thereafter.
Weird...
HW
David A. Karr
>Thomas Scharle wrote:
>>
>> In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
In fact, I have seen it reported that the Julian calendar wasn't
actually followed until 8 CE, so I have no idea what the length of
1 BCE was. Any historians out there who know the answer?
ObPuzzle: Since the Romans had no idea in 8 CE (when they are reported
to have started following the four-year rule correctly) that that year
would be numbered 8 in the calendar we use today, or in any calendar,
how did it come about that *all* leap years aren't odd, but in fact
are divisible by 4? Was it just dumb luck?
David A. Karr
Ezequiel Martín
hw <hwar...@macromedia.com> escribio:
>Thomas Scharle wrote:
>>
>> In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
>
>Wrong. The leap year is a product of the gregorian calendar.
>Around 1 BC, the julian calendar reigned and leap years were
>not part of the equation.
Moreso, nobody had started to count years from the birth of christ
yet, so noone could have checked if they were in a year divisible by 4
or not! I think that the decisions about when to add a leap day and so
were taken by Roman priests (it's been a long time since my Latin
classes, where I studied all that; but there's a calendary FAQ around
there that might be able to answer those questions)
The thing is, we have to define "leap year" here; I would suppose that
the deffinition would be "a year that includes a leap day" (weren't
other leap days, besides 29th Feb, used?). If so, then saomebody
pointed that in England years were counted from 24th March on until a
certain date, so the last leap year before that would be odd... but
that's only in England. I don't know about Spain...
--
Address must be edited to reply!
Ezequiel Martin Camara - Malaga - Spain
Jim Yingst
In article <ED66G...@world.std.com>,
David A. Karr <ka...@world.std.com> wrote:
>>Thomas Scharle wrote:
>>>
>>> In answer to the question: 1 B.C.
>
>actually followed until 8 CE, so I have no idea what the length of
>1 BCE was. Any historians out there who know the answer?
Not a historian, but I've been reading up recently. It was a regular
365-day year - between Julius and Augustus, they had had more leap years
than they should have, so Augustus decreed no more leap years until they
were back on track. 8 AD was the first leap year under Augustus, and they
occurred every four years since that, until Gregory.
However, I'm not sure exactly when the leap years were before that.
Apparently Augustus started omitting leap years in 9 BC; before that, they
had been held every three years for a while - but on which years, I'm not
sure. Therein lies yet another possible answer to the original puzzle,
since at least one of those must have been on on what we retroactively
deem to have been an odd-numbered year.
>ObPuzzle: Since the Romans had no idea in 8 CE (when they are reported
>to have started following the four-year rule correctly) that that year
>would be numbered 8 in the calendar we use today, or in any calendar,
>how did it come about that *all* leap years aren't odd, but in fact
>are divisible by 4? Was it just dumb luck?
It certainly *could* have been dumb luck - they had a 1/4 chance, after
all, so it's not too unlikely. Apparently, the "Anno Domini" system was
set by a sixth-century scholar, Dionysius Exiguus, who attempted to date
everything from when he believed Christ to have been born. Of course,
he's now believed to have been off somewhat, and it's possible that since
he didn't really know for sure, he might have picked a date that would put
all leap years in multiples of 4. In fact, at the time people were dating
everything from the reign of Diocletian, and Dionysius established that
Anno Domini 532 = Anno Diocletian 248. So the idea of leap years being
multiples of 4 was already present under Anno Diocletian - did that
influence Dionysius? Working back, was it chance that Emperor Diocletian
was crowned in a leap year, or was it intentional? I don't know, but I
wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional.
There are a number of online references for more information; a good
starting point seems to be http://ghs1.greenheart.com/billh/intro.html.
Those who are interested, enjoy.
- Jim Yingst <ha...@u.arizona.edu>
Jim Yingst
In article <33C60C...@macromedia.com>, hw <hwar...@macromedia.com> wrote:
>hw wrote:
>> Wrong. The leap year is a product of the gregorian calendar.
>> Around 1 BC, the julian calendar reigned and leap years were
>> not part of the equation.
>Somoeone emailed me with a correction. The Julian Calendar DID
>have leap years, but not as we did. Apparently they had them
>every 3 years until Augustinian changed it, and made a month
>for himself, and every 4 years thereafter.
>
>Weird...
Even weirder. Julius had intended that leap years be held every four
years; however after he died, someone fucked up and leap years were held
every 3 years. When Octavian became the Emperor Augustus (not
Augustinan), he got things back on track by first eliminating leap years
altogether from 9 BC to 4 AD (to correct for the extra leap years since
the death of Julius), and then having one every four years as originally
intended, starting with 8 AD (whatever he might have called it at the
time).
Jim Yingst
ha...@u.arizona.edu
John Benton Rhodes
Nick Wedd (Ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <Ncj*cq...@news.atml.co.uk>, John Rickard <j...@atml.co.uk>
: writes
Ahh you hit on the last Odd Leap Year in the US. At the Time 1748 had a
February 29th. In September of of 1752, the powers that be in North America
switched to what the Italians were using. The first removed 11 days and then
changed the start of the New Year from March 25th I believe to Jan 1. In
the month of september 1752 the 2 September was followed by the 14 of Sept.
In doing all this they adjusted all the birth dates of those people alive
by 11 days and if there birthday was from Jan 1 to March 24, they had the
year of their birth incremented by 1. Therefore someone born on Feb 18th
1748 before the change of calendar ended up having a birth date of
Feb 29th, 1749.
So in away this was the last odd leap year, even though at the time it
was celebrated, it was not an odd year. Please note also that there
was never a Feb 29th 1752, since there was never a Jan or Feb 1752.
John Rhodes (Yes I enjoy the Almanac)
Courtenay Footman
In article <33c81ed3...@news.zippo.com>,
<NoClueAtol at aol dot com> wrote:
>On 10 Jul 1997 20:46:54 GMT, ha...@f1n3.U.Arizona.EDU (Jim Yingst)
>wrote:
>>
>>Actually it is only in retrospect that we can refer to 1 B.C.E. or 1 B.C.
>>anyway; surely no one called it that at the time.
>>
>gold coin dated 1 BC. If it's not genuine, I'm out three bucks!!
>
I assume you paid with a single bill?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
Dave
On 10 Jul 1997 20:46:54 GMT, ha...@f1n3.U.Arizona.EDU (Jim Yingst)
wrote:
>
>Actually it is only in retrospect that we can refer to 1 B.C.E. or 1 B.C.
>anyway; surely no one called it that at the time.
>
Are you sure about this? I vacationed in Rome last year, and bought a
gold coin dated 1 BC. If it's not genuine, I'm out three bucks!!
NoClueAtol at AOL dot com (make obvious corrections to email me)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
--CSICOP
Paul Schlyter
In article <33c7104b...@noticias.ibernet.es>,
Ezequiel Martín <EMA...@NOSPAM.supernetsantander.com> wrote:
> The thing is, we have to define "leap year" here; I would suppose that
> the deffinition would be "a year that includes a leap day" (weren't
> other leap days, besides 29th Feb, used?).
from until Roman times, the leap day was 24 February!
Jeff Richards
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <33c7104b...@noticias.ibernet.es>,
> Ezequiel Martín <EMA...@NOSPAM.supernetsantander.com> wrote:
>
> > The thing is, we have to define "leap year" here; I would suppose that
> > the deffinition would be "a year that includes a leap day" (weren't
> > other leap days, besides 29th Feb, used?).
>
> 29 Feb didn't become a leap year until a few years ago! Earlier,
> from until Roman times, the leap day was 24 February!
>
Uh? A few years ago? What are you talking about?
Paul Schlyter
In article <33C9E7...@travelexpert.com>,
Jeff Richards <je...@travelexpert.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> In article <33c7104b...@noticias.ibernet.es>,
>>
>>> The thing is, we have to define "leap year" here; I would suppose that
>>> the deffinition would be "a year that includes a leap day" (weren't
>>> other leap days, besides 29th Feb, used?).
>>
>> 29 Feb didn't become a leap year until a few years ago! Earlier,
>> from until Roman times, the leap day was 24 February!
>
> Uh? A few years ago? What are you talking about?
# 29 Feb didn't become a leap _day_ until a few years ago! Earlier,
# from until Roman times, the leap day was 24 February!
The leap day is the date of the added day. Since Roman times it's
been 24 Febr, not 29 Febr as commonly believed. But in Sweden we
switched to 29 Febr a few years ago. I've been told that the EU (of
which Sweden now is a member, but we weren't a member when we
switched leap day a few years ago) will do the same switch in 2000.
Perhaps you ask: "What difference does it make if the leap day is
24 Febr or 29 Febr?". We notice it in our name days, which then
become:
Normal year Leap year Leap year
Lp day 24 Febr Lp day 29 Febr
.......
20 Febr Rasmus Rasmus Rasmus
21 Febr Hilding Hilding Hilding
22 Febr Marlene Marlene Marlene
23 Febr Torsten Torsten Torsten
24 Febr Mattias LEAP DAY Mattias
25 Febr Sigvard Mattias Sigvard
26 Febr Torgny Sigvard Torgny
27 Febr Lage Torgny Lage
28 Febr Maria Lage Maria
29 Febr ------ Maria LEAP DAY
Nick Wedd
In article <5qhv4n$8...@electra.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter
<pau...@electra.saaf.se> writes
># 29 Feb didn't become a leap _day_ until a few years ago! Earlier,
># from until Roman times, the leap day was 24 February!
>
>The leap day is the date of the added day. Since Roman times it's
>been 24 Febr, not 29 Febr as commonly believed. But in Sweden we
>switched to 29 Febr a few years ago. I've been told that the EU (of
>which Sweden now is a member, but we weren't a member when we
>switched leap day a few years ago) will do the same switch in 2000.
The UK is a member of the EU. Here we have been using 29 Febr as leap
day since at least 1712.
Nick Wedd
In article <EDFD6...@nonexistent.com>, Abigail <abi...@fnx.com>
writes
>Nick Wedd (Ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk) wrote on 1415 September 1993 in
>++ The UK is a member of the EU. Here we have been using 29 Febr as leap
>++ day since at least 1712.
>[http://www.pip.dknet.dk/%7Epip10160/calendar.html]
>
>2.3. What day is the leap day?
>------------------------------
>
>It is 24 February!
>
>Weird? Yes! The explanation is related to the Roman calendar and is
>found in section 2.6.1.
>
>From a numerical point of view, of course 29 February is the extra
>day. But from the point of view of celebration of feast days, the
>following correspondence between days in leap years and non-leap
>years has traditionally been used:
< Rest of clear and thorough explanation snipped >
I see now. So the EU has made a regulation which affects Saints' Days.
I suppose that is better than its regulating the permitted degree of
curvature of cucumbers.
Abigail
++ In article <5qhv4n$8...@electra.saaf.se>, Paul Schlyter
++ <pau...@electra.saaf.se> writes
++
++ ># 29 Feb didn't become a leap _day_ until a few years ago! Earlier,
++ ># from until Roman times, the leap day was 24 February!
++ >
++ >The leap day is the date of the added day. Since Roman times it's
++ >been 24 Febr, not 29 Febr as commonly believed. But in Sweden we
++ >switched to 29 Febr a few years ago. I've been told that the EU (of
++ >which Sweden now is a member, but we weren't a member when we
++ >switched leap day a few years ago) will do the same switch in 2000.
++
++ day since at least 1712.
[http://www.pip.dknet.dk/%7Epip10160/calendar.html]
2.3. What day is the leap day?
------------------------------
It is 24 February!
Weird? Yes! The explanation is related to the Roman calendar and is
found in section 2.6.1.
From a numerical point of view, of course 29 February is the extra
day. But from the point of view of celebration of feast days, the
following correspondence between days in leap years and non-leap
years has traditionally been used:
Non-leap year Leap year
------------- ----------
22 February 22 February
23 February 23 February
24 February (extra day)
24 February 25 February
25 February 26 February
26 February 27 February
27 February 28 February
28 February 29 February
For example, the feast of St. Leander has been celebrated on 27
February in non-leap years and on 28 February in leap years.
The EU (European Union) in their infinite wisdom have decided that
starting in the year 2000, 29 February is to be the leap day. This
will affect countries such as Sweden and Austria that celebrate "name
days" (i.e. each day is associated with a name).
It appears that the Roman Catholic Church already uses 29 February as
the leap day.
2.6.1. How did the Romans number days?
--------------------------------------
The Romans didn't number the days sequentially from 1. Instead they
had three fixed points in each month:
"Kalendae" (or "Calendae"), which was the first day of the month.
"Idus", which was the 13th day of January, February, April,
June, August, September, November, and December, or
the 15th day of March, May, July, or October.
"Nonae", which was the 9th day before Idus (counting Idus
itself as the 1st day).
The days between Kalendae and Nonae were called "the 4th day before
Nonae", "the 3rd day before Nonae", and "the 2nd day before
Nonae". (The 1st day before Nonae would be Nonae itself.)
Similarly, the days between Nonae and Idus were called "the Xth day
before Idus", and the days after Idus were called "the Xth day before
Kalendae (of the next month)".
Julius Caesar decreed that in leap years the "6th day before Kalendae
of March" should be doubled. So in contrast to our present system, in
which we introduce an extra date (29 February), the Romans had the
same date twice in leap years. The doubling of the 6th day before
Kalendae of March is the origin of the word "bissextile". If we
create a list of equivalences between the Roman days and our current
days of February in a leap year, we get the following:
7th day before Kalendae of March 23 February
6th day before Kalendae of March 24 February
6th day before Kalendae of March 25 February
5th day before Kalendae of March 26 February
4th day before Kalendae of March 27 February
3rd day before Kalendae of March 28 February
2nd day before Kalendae of March 29 February
Kalendae of March 1 March
You can see that the extra 6th day (going backwards) falls on what is
today 24 February. For this reason 24 February is still today
considered the "extra day" in leap years (see section 2.3). However,
at certain times in history the second 6th day (25 Feb) has been
considered the leap day.
Why did Caesar choose to double the 6th day before Kalendae of March?
It appears that the leap month Intercalaris/Mercedonius of the
pre-reform calendar was not placed after February, but inside it,
namely between the 7th and 6th day before Kalendae of March. It was
therefore natural to have the leap day in the same position.
Abigail
Chris Thompson
In article <5q8316$7...@hacgate2.hac.com>, jrh...@redwood.hac.com
(John Benton Rhodes) writes:
|> [...] In September of of 1752, the powers that be in North America
|> switched to what the Italians were using.
(a) The "powers" in question were the legislature of Great Britain.
(b) The writ of the said powers did not extend to the whole of
"North America", or indeed even to the whole of that portion
of it that now constitutes the United States.
(c) The Gregorian calendar was indeed already in use by "the Italians",
but also by nearly all European states (including even most of the
Protestant ones by this date) and their colonies. The latter included,
of course, some quite large parts of "North America".
Chris Thompson
Email: ce...@cam.ac.uk
David Marshall
Nick Wedd wrote:
> I see now. So the EU has made a regulation which affects Saints' Days.
> I suppose that is better than its regulating the permitted degree of
> curvature of cucumbers.
I think you mean "regulating the shape and quality of cucumbers when
selling to supermarkets sight-unseen"... :)
Dave
--
David Marshall
Jeff Richards wrote:
> > 29 Feb didn't become a leap year until a few years ago! Earlier,
> > from until Roman times, the leap day was 24 February!
The ISO standard for "time" defines (amongst other things) that Monday
is the first day of the week, the extra day in a leap year is 29
February (rather than 24 February as has been traditional for
calculating Saint days etc.) and that dates and times should be written
in the unambiguous 1997-07-23 14:21:13
Dave
--