Board index » delphi » Is 2000 a leap year?

Is 2000 a leap year?

I heared that 2000 is a leap year, but I think it's not
how can I calculate if it is?

I saw a formula somewhere but I can't find it anymore, so
if anyone can send it to me.

Mark.

--

(-==--==--==--==--  /^--^\  --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--)
( w9...@tc.hsa.nl  ( 0  0 )  72,101,108,108,111,32,119,111,114,108,100,33 )
(-==--==--==--==-oOOo-==-oOOo-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--)

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

Quote
In article <4gui6h\$...@mimas.tc.hsa.nl>, w9...@tc.hsa.nl (M.H.N. Veldt) writes:

|>  I heared that 2000 is a leap year, but I think it's not
|>  how can I calculate if it is?
|>
|>  I saw a formula somewhere but I can't find it anymore, so
|>  if anyone can send it to me.
|>

It is a leap year.

Formula :

Divisable by 4,  not divisable by 100 or also divisable by 400

-Mike

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

Quote
In article <4gui6h\$...@mimas.tc.hsa.nl>, w9...@tc.hsa.nl (M.H.N. Veldt) wrote:
> I heared that 2000 is a leap year, but I think it's not
> how can I calculate if it is?

. . . .

Oh, NO! Not this discussion again please: 2000 IS a leap year (Centuries are
leap years when divisible in 400)

regards Sven

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

Quote
w9...@tc.hsa.nl (M.H.N. Veldt) wrote:
> I heared that 2000 is a leap year, but I think it's not
> how can I calculate if it is?
> I saw a formula somewhere but I can't find it anymore, so
> if anyone can send it to me.
> Mark.

2000 is indeed a leap year. The rule is that the year must be
divisible by 4, but centuries must also be divisible by 400. Thus,
1600 and 2000 are leap years, but 1800 and 1900 are not.
Quote
>--
>(-==--==--==--==--  /^--^\  --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--)
>( w9...@tc.hsa.nl  ( 0  0 )  72,101,108,108,111,32,119,111,114,108,100,33 )
>(-==--==--==--==-oOOo-==-oOOo-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--)

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

Is the year 2000 a leap year?

If I'm still programming with BP/TP 7.0 you can bet your a** that I'll
find something high to jump off of.

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

In <4gui6h\$...@mimas.tc.hsa.nl>, w9...@tc.hsa.nl (M.H.N. Veldt) writes:

Quote
> I heared that 2000 is a leap year, but I think it's not
> how can I calculate if it is?

> I saw a formula somewhere but I can't find it anymore, so
> if anyone can send it to me.

> Mark.

>--

>(-==--==--==--==--  /^--^\  --==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--)
>( w9...@tc.hsa.nl  ( 0  0 )  72,101,108,108,111,32,119,111,114,108,100,33 )
>(-==--==--==--==-oOOo-==-oOOo-==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--)

Year 2000 is a leap year. The formula is fairly easy:

- if a year is divisible by 100 then it must be also be divisible by 400 to be a
leap year

- all others are leap years if they are divisible by 4

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

In article <4h2qhc\$1...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>

Quote
> Wow!  Hitech, dontcha think?  I made that program myself.
> And for all those English buffs out there: this note is what is called a
> satire, perfected by the early American writers known as the Politicians.

Well yes, it would be; but satire generally has to have an element of truth.

--
* TQ 1.0 * The 'Just So Quotes'.
When I die, I'd like to go peacefully.  In my sleep.  Like my grandfather.
Not screaming, like the passengers in his car...

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

In <4h3sal\$...@infoserv.rug.ac.be>, khaeg...@eduserv.rug.ac.be (Kurt Haegeman) writes:

Quote
>M.H.N. Veldt (w9...@tc.hsa.nl) wrote:
>:  I heared that 2000 is a leap year, but I think it's not
>:  how can I calculate if it is?

>:  I saw a formula somewhere but I can't find it anymore, so
>:  if anyone can send it to me.

>There was a discussion about it on the radio yesterday. Conclusion was that
>normally (mathematically), the year 2000 should have been a leap year. But
>an exception is made for years ending with 2 zero's (or was it 3?). These
>years are NO leap years. They were able to supply lots of confirmations on
>it, from professors and encyclopedia's.

Don't think so. AFAIK the rules are as follows:

1) If the year number is dividable (without reminders) with 4, that year is
a leap year.
2) If the year number is dividable with 100 (i.e. 'ends with 2 zero's'), that
year is NOT a leap year (although it's, of course, dividable with 4).
3) If the year number is dividable with 400 (which is case of the year 2000),
that year IS a leap year (although it's still dividable with 100).

Tomas Hajny, XHaj...@vse.cz on Internet

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

2000 is NOT a leap year.

There have been too many leap years and because there are seconds of
difference on the leap years they have to take out a leap year in order
to keep the time accurate.

-Andy Sydelko

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

Hi!

Quote
bsc...@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Bob Schor) wrote:
>     If the year is divisible by 4, it IS a leap year.
>Exception 1 -- If the year is divisible by 100, it is NOT a leap year.
>Exception 2 -- If the year is divisible by 400, it IS a leap year.
>No more exception.

Two months ago I heard that years divisible by 4000 have a February
30th. So let's wait another 2004 years to check if this is true. :-)

Ciao and bye,
(:Clemens:)

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

In article <Yx8J0dAZv2OxE...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk "Dr John Stockton" writes:

Quote
> In article <4h16rd\$...@reimari.uwasa.fi>, Timo Salmi
> <t...@reimari.uwasa.fi> wrote:
> >My apologies to the regulars, but I just can't resist this. Just
> >wait and see. At the worst you'll miss one day. :-)

> Indeed.

> More seriously: this question has been raised several times recently in
> several of the newsgroups I read, and doubtless in many others too.
> (The only correct answer that I recall seeing was my own, which was the
> only one AFAIR to include "while the present rules hold".)

> I think that it would significantly reduce the number and lengths of the
> threads on the topic over the next four years if we could locate a truly
> authoritative source available as a URL on a good WWW site - and who

Well, I read this quote from a programming book, and in turn is an excerpt
from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1898) vol IV, p. 667.

"According to the Gregorian rule of intercalculation, therefore, every year
of which the the number is divisible by four is a leap year, excepting the
centurial years, which are only leap years when divisible by four after
omitting the two ciphers.  Thus 1600 was a leap year, but 1700, 1800 and
1900 are common years; 2000 will be a leap year, and so on."

Everybody happy now?  I'm sure some politicians will be around in the year
2000 to mess it up, as they are perfectly able to do with the GMT/BST dates.
--
* TQ 1.0 * The 'Just So Quotes'.

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

Quote
In article <4hiu4j\$...@news.2sprint.net> ggr...@2sprint.net "Valtar" writes:

> >Is the year 2000 a leap year?

> >If I'm still programming with BP/TP 7.0 you can bet your a** that I'll
> >find something high to jump off of.

> Actually, I think 2000 is a leap year.  And don't worry.  I think
> Pascal supports out to something like 2099....

Well, it is easy to support 1901 to 2099, as every year divisible by four is
a leap year, and that is all the coding that is neccesary.

--
* TQ 1.0 * The 'Just So Quotes'.
File names are infinite in length where infinity is set to 255 characters.
-- Peter Collinson, "The Unix File System"

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

A 'normal' year has 365 full days. After that time the earth is supposed to have
travelled full circle around the sun. As with many suppositions, this is not completely
true, in fact it takes the earth 365.2422 days to circle the sun. So after one 'normal'
year it is 0.2422 days behind.

After 4 years this accumulates to 1 day, and therefore a leapday is inserted.
But this over-corrects as this makes the year 365.25 days long.

After 100 years this accumulates to 1 day of over-correction, so the leapday is omitted
if the year is divisible by 100. This correction makes the year 365.24 days long.

After 400 years, this accumulates to 1 day of over-over-correction (are your still
there?), so a leapday is inserted if the year is divisible by 400. This makes the year
365.2425 days.

As you can see the year is now 0.0003 days too long, each 3333.333 years the leapday
should be dropped again. I've never seen a correction factor for this difference.

This method of determining leapyears was decreed by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 and is
therefore called the Gregorian Calendar. It replaced the Julian Calendar which was
authorized by Julius Ceasar in 46 BC.

The Julian Calendar had a leapday every 4 years so after 1600 years the seasons and the
calendar where out of phase by 11 days. To compensate this, October 4 1582 (Julian Date)
was followed by October 15 1582 (Gregorian Date).

http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/RGO/leaflets/

--
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Signature of: Jouke Numan  <jnu...@hiscom.nl>        |
| HISCOM bv, department of Systems Development         |
| Schipholweg 97, 2316 AX  Leiden, the Netherlands     |
| +31-71-5256757 (office) +31-71-5216675 (FAX)         |
+------------------------------------------------------+

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

In article <826082765...@tsys.demon.co.uk>,
Tom Wheeley  <t...@tsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:In article <Yx8J0dAZv2OxE...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>
:           j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk "Dr John Stockton" writes:
:> More seriously: this question has been raised several times recently in
:> several of the newsgroups I read, and doubtless in many others too.

:> I think that it would significantly reduce the number and lengths of the
:> threads on the topic over the next four years if we could locate a truly
:> authoritative source available as a URL on a good WWW site - and who

:"According to the Gregorian rule of intercalculation, therefore, every year
:of which the the number is divisible by four is a leap year, excepting the
:centurial years, which are only leap years when divisible by four after
:omitting the two ciphers.  Thus 1600 was a leap year, but 1700, 1800 and
:1900 are common years; 2000 will be a leap year, and so on."

Let's see everyone please if I managed to get it right for the next
version of our FAQ as John suggested. Here goes with a one-line
boolean evaluation.

function ISLEAP (y : integer) : boolean;
begin
isleap := (y mod 4 = 0) and not ((y mod 100 = 0) and not (y mod 400 = 0));
end;  (* isleap *)

At least it passes the above quote by Tom, and gives the same
results as was suggested earlier using a longer solution of nested
if statements by JSha...@nmsu.edu.

All the best, Timo

....................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi   Co-moderator of news:comp.archives.msdos.announce
Moderating at ftp:// & http://garbo.uwasa.fi archives  193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa
t...@uwasa.fi http://uwasa.fi/~ts BBS 961-3170972; FIN-65101,  Finland

Re:Is 2000 a leap year?

If I may quote another source (I'll probably get {*word*182}ed for this one :)

[...]
From: s...@eskimo.com (Steve Summit)
[...]

20.32:  Will 2000 be a leap year?  Is (year % 4 == 0) an accurate test
for leap years?

A:      Yes and no, respectively.  The full expression for the present
Gregorian calendar is

year % 4 == 0 && (year % 100 != 0 || year % 400 == 0)

See a good astronomical almanac or other reference for details.
(To forestall an eternal debate: references which claim the
existence of a 4000-year rule are wrong.)

.splitbung
--
* TQ 1.0 * The 'Just So Quotes'.
"Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do."
-- Bertrand Russell

Go to page: [1] [2]