On 03 Nov 10, at 0924, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: > Ian Batten said: >> I seem to recall that there's some debate as to the leap-year status of >> 4000CE > > Not in either the UK: > > | Be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid,
I didn't mean in legislative terms, I meant in "keeping the equinoxes where they are in the calendar terms" terms. Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says: > The marginal difference of 0.000125 days between the Gregorian calendar > average year and the actual year means that, in around 8,000 years, the > calendar will be about one day behind where it is now. But in 8,000 years, > the length of the vernal equinox year will have changed by an amount that > cannot be accurately predicted (see below). Therefore, the current Gregorian > calendar suffices for practical purposes, and the correction suggested by > John Herschel of making 4000 a non-leap year will probably not be necessary. While this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1511/why-do-we-have-leap-years mutters about 4000 _not_ being a leap year, although as you say there's no legislation covering it. I doubt that many parliaments could find time to worry about events 1990 years hence! ian _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
