Ken: The ongoing discussion regarding the year 2000 glitch is
most illuminating. With respect to the reference to leap year
2000, the following might be deemed worthy of note:
Julius Caesar established a new calendar system based on a 365.25
day solar year in 46. B.C. Caesar's calendar allowed for a 365 day
year for three years, followed by a fourth "leap" year of 366 days
to allow for the perceived .25 day per year discrepancy.
The "Julian" calendar persisted in the West until annum Domini 1582
when a reformed calendar was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII.
The necessity for a new calendar was based on the discrepancy be-
tween Caesar's perceived 365.250 day year and the actual solar year
of 365.24219 days. By A.D. 1582, this discrepancy had caused a
calendar 10 days ahead of itself. Hence, in A.D. 1582, the day
following October 4 was reckoned to be October 15.
That being said, the first "correct" Julian leap year apparently
was inserted for annum Domini 8. Thus, leap years are always
evenly divisible four. The Gregorian calendar fine tuned this rule
by allowing that only century years evenly divisible by 400 would
qualify as true leap years of 366 days. As a consequence, A.D.
1900, whilst a leap year under the Julian standard(evenly divisible
by 4), contained only 365 days since 1900 is not evenly divisible
by 400. Annum Domini 2000- on the other hand, being a multiple
of 400- mathematically qualifies as a Gregorian leap year. As a foot-
note, the Gregorian calendar will reportedly result in a deviation of
three days over a period of 10,000 years, should the human race
survive that long.
|
