Why don't we subtract out / ignore the leap year every 128 years?












1














When we add the extra day to the calendar every 4 years it's to "correct" the calendar under the assumption that the year's length is 365.25 days. Every year, you're .25 days off, so after 4 years, you're 1 day too far ahead, so add in an extra day to resync.



But in reality it's more like 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds. In other words it's not 365.25 days exactly, we're over-stating it by 675 seconds.



Every 4 years when we add that day back we're actually adding 2700 seconds too much!



After doing this 32 times though (after 128 years), we'd have added 2700 * 32 = 86400 seconds too much. But this is exactly the number of seconds in a day, (24 * 60 * 60).



So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    I don't think this has a lot to do with math at all. Perhaps you should consult historians in instead.
    – YiFan
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    Are you aware that there is already a correction? Every 100th year the would-be leap year is skipped. And then there is a correction to that correction. Every 400th year the would-be skipped leap year is observed. 1900 was not a leap year. 2000 was. 2100 will not be.
    – alex.jordan
    2 hours ago
















1














When we add the extra day to the calendar every 4 years it's to "correct" the calendar under the assumption that the year's length is 365.25 days. Every year, you're .25 days off, so after 4 years, you're 1 day too far ahead, so add in an extra day to resync.



But in reality it's more like 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds. In other words it's not 365.25 days exactly, we're over-stating it by 675 seconds.



Every 4 years when we add that day back we're actually adding 2700 seconds too much!



After doing this 32 times though (after 128 years), we'd have added 2700 * 32 = 86400 seconds too much. But this is exactly the number of seconds in a day, (24 * 60 * 60).



So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    I don't think this has a lot to do with math at all. Perhaps you should consult historians in instead.
    – YiFan
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    Are you aware that there is already a correction? Every 100th year the would-be leap year is skipped. And then there is a correction to that correction. Every 400th year the would-be skipped leap year is observed. 1900 was not a leap year. 2000 was. 2100 will not be.
    – alex.jordan
    2 hours ago














1












1








1







When we add the extra day to the calendar every 4 years it's to "correct" the calendar under the assumption that the year's length is 365.25 days. Every year, you're .25 days off, so after 4 years, you're 1 day too far ahead, so add in an extra day to resync.



But in reality it's more like 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds. In other words it's not 365.25 days exactly, we're over-stating it by 675 seconds.



Every 4 years when we add that day back we're actually adding 2700 seconds too much!



After doing this 32 times though (after 128 years), we'd have added 2700 * 32 = 86400 seconds too much. But this is exactly the number of seconds in a day, (24 * 60 * 60).



So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











When we add the extra day to the calendar every 4 years it's to "correct" the calendar under the assumption that the year's length is 365.25 days. Every year, you're .25 days off, so after 4 years, you're 1 day too far ahead, so add in an extra day to resync.



But in reality it's more like 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds. In other words it's not 365.25 days exactly, we're over-stating it by 675 seconds.



Every 4 years when we add that day back we're actually adding 2700 seconds too much!



After doing this 32 times though (after 128 years), we'd have added 2700 * 32 = 86400 seconds too much. But this is exactly the number of seconds in a day, (24 * 60 * 60).



So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.







algebra-precalculus soft-question math-history calendar-computations






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor




Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 hours ago









Tyler T

92




92




New contributor




Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Tyler T is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    I don't think this has a lot to do with math at all. Perhaps you should consult historians in instead.
    – YiFan
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    Are you aware that there is already a correction? Every 100th year the would-be leap year is skipped. And then there is a correction to that correction. Every 400th year the would-be skipped leap year is observed. 1900 was not a leap year. 2000 was. 2100 will not be.
    – alex.jordan
    2 hours ago














  • 1




    I don't think this has a lot to do with math at all. Perhaps you should consult historians in instead.
    – YiFan
    2 hours ago






  • 2




    Are you aware that there is already a correction? Every 100th year the would-be leap year is skipped. And then there is a correction to that correction. Every 400th year the would-be skipped leap year is observed. 1900 was not a leap year. 2000 was. 2100 will not be.
    – alex.jordan
    2 hours ago








1




1




I don't think this has a lot to do with math at all. Perhaps you should consult historians in instead.
– YiFan
2 hours ago




I don't think this has a lot to do with math at all. Perhaps you should consult historians in instead.
– YiFan
2 hours ago




2




2




Are you aware that there is already a correction? Every 100th year the would-be leap year is skipped. And then there is a correction to that correction. Every 400th year the would-be skipped leap year is observed. 1900 was not a leap year. 2000 was. 2100 will not be.
– alex.jordan
2 hours ago




Are you aware that there is already a correction? Every 100th year the would-be leap year is skipped. And then there is a correction to that correction. Every 400th year the would-be skipped leap year is observed. 1900 was not a leap year. 2000 was. 2100 will not be.
– alex.jordan
2 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















3














There are several reasons:




  1. At the time the Gregorian calendar was devised (1582 or thereabouts) the length of the year wasn't known with such accuracy.

  2. The length of the year varies slightly, so there's no point in fine-tuning the correction past a certain point.

  3. It's more important to have a simple rule than a perfectly accurate one. Whether the calendar loses a day every 3000 years or every 5000 years is a minor issue compared with the trouble of retraining everyone.


If you do want to fine-tune the calendar, I recommend 8 leap days every 33 years.






share|cite|improve this answer































    3














    The only reason I can think of is a practical one: it is simpler (in terms of the numbers involved) to treat as special those years which are divisible by $4$, $100$ and $400$ (since they are easy to determine), than to do it for those divisible by $128$. It also keeps the maximum error below $6h$ (*), quite below $31d$, which is approximately what you would get before the $128$th year correction... an error comparable to the one provoked by the Julian calender, unacceptable in modern terms. In fact, to correct that difference, we should add a whole month every $128y$.



    But if you're asking why don't we have leap years every four years, as we do AND correct the excess every $128y$, once more the answer is about keeping it simple.



    (*) Keep in mind that every year divisible by $100$ is not a leap year, unless it is divisible by $400$.



    It is good to know, somehow, that being close to the year 2000, we have put the things in their place quite recently... so to say. (?)



    ADDITIONAL NOTE: It is also interesting to note that, with the Solar System being a complex and —after all chaotic— dynamic system, the actual length of the Earth's orbit around the Sun varies from year to year in a not so predictable way. That's why after determining this actual length for the last years astronomers decide if there is need for some adjustment and, in consequence, from time to time a leap second is added after the last second of the 30th June or the 31st December.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • Leap seconds are about adjusting the length of the day so that the calender day matches the solar day. Nothing to do with years.
      – Peter Green
      3 mins ago



















    0














    One issue - this is a complex issue going back to when the modern calendar was created - is convenience, at least for the layperson.



    It's exceptionally easy to remember and apply the current system, even if said system is complicated.




    "Add an extra day on years which are multiples of $4$, unless they're multiples of $100$, unless they're multiples of $400$."




    Divisibility by each number is easy! Numbers divisible by $4$ can be shown to have their last two digits divisible by $4$. And then the only complications occur every century, and divisibility by $100$ and $400$ are equally trivial: end in $2$ zeroes to be divisible by $100$, have third-and-fourth to last digits divisible by $4$ as well for divisibility by $400$.



    Meanwhile, on the other hand, for a layperson, divisibility by $128$ ... not so easy. The only method that would have any simplicity that comes to mind is just dividing by $2$ seven times ($2^7 = 128$) and if at any point you get a remainder, then no extra year.



    The issue being it's not immediately apparent to someone, when if you're somehow not sure it just takes a few seconds under the current system to check: for the "better" system, while more accurate, most would have to break out a calculator. (And I imagine that $128$ is not exact enough and would cause overages/shortages every few millennia or so in its own right, which would likely make it even harder.)






    share|cite|improve this answer





























      0














      Sorry, I misread your original question. My other answer was not really to the point. You asked:




      So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.




      The rule in the Gregorian calendar subtracts out the leap day 3 times in 400 years. (The leap days in years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were skipped; 2000 was not skipped, and 2100 will be skipped again.)



      So we subtract out a day, on average, every $frac{400}3$ years, and guess what, $frac{400}3≈133.3$, which is quite close to the 128 you suggested.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        });
        });
        }, "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function() {
        var channelOptions = {
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "69"
        };
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
        createEditor();
        });
        }
        else {
        createEditor();
        }
        });

        function createEditor() {
        StackExchange.prepareEditor({
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: true,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: 10,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader: {
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        },
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        });


        }
        });






        Tyler T is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function () {
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054479%2fwhy-dont-we-subtract-out-ignore-the-leap-year-every-128-years%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        3














        There are several reasons:




        1. At the time the Gregorian calendar was devised (1582 or thereabouts) the length of the year wasn't known with such accuracy.

        2. The length of the year varies slightly, so there's no point in fine-tuning the correction past a certain point.

        3. It's more important to have a simple rule than a perfectly accurate one. Whether the calendar loses a day every 3000 years or every 5000 years is a minor issue compared with the trouble of retraining everyone.


        If you do want to fine-tune the calendar, I recommend 8 leap days every 33 years.






        share|cite|improve this answer




























          3














          There are several reasons:




          1. At the time the Gregorian calendar was devised (1582 or thereabouts) the length of the year wasn't known with such accuracy.

          2. The length of the year varies slightly, so there's no point in fine-tuning the correction past a certain point.

          3. It's more important to have a simple rule than a perfectly accurate one. Whether the calendar loses a day every 3000 years or every 5000 years is a minor issue compared with the trouble of retraining everyone.


          If you do want to fine-tune the calendar, I recommend 8 leap days every 33 years.






          share|cite|improve this answer


























            3












            3








            3






            There are several reasons:




            1. At the time the Gregorian calendar was devised (1582 or thereabouts) the length of the year wasn't known with such accuracy.

            2. The length of the year varies slightly, so there's no point in fine-tuning the correction past a certain point.

            3. It's more important to have a simple rule than a perfectly accurate one. Whether the calendar loses a day every 3000 years or every 5000 years is a minor issue compared with the trouble of retraining everyone.


            If you do want to fine-tune the calendar, I recommend 8 leap days every 33 years.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            There are several reasons:




            1. At the time the Gregorian calendar was devised (1582 or thereabouts) the length of the year wasn't known with such accuracy.

            2. The length of the year varies slightly, so there's no point in fine-tuning the correction past a certain point.

            3. It's more important to have a simple rule than a perfectly accurate one. Whether the calendar loses a day every 3000 years or every 5000 years is a minor issue compared with the trouble of retraining everyone.


            If you do want to fine-tune the calendar, I recommend 8 leap days every 33 years.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            answered 2 hours ago


























            community wiki





            MJD
























                3














                The only reason I can think of is a practical one: it is simpler (in terms of the numbers involved) to treat as special those years which are divisible by $4$, $100$ and $400$ (since they are easy to determine), than to do it for those divisible by $128$. It also keeps the maximum error below $6h$ (*), quite below $31d$, which is approximately what you would get before the $128$th year correction... an error comparable to the one provoked by the Julian calender, unacceptable in modern terms. In fact, to correct that difference, we should add a whole month every $128y$.



                But if you're asking why don't we have leap years every four years, as we do AND correct the excess every $128y$, once more the answer is about keeping it simple.



                (*) Keep in mind that every year divisible by $100$ is not a leap year, unless it is divisible by $400$.



                It is good to know, somehow, that being close to the year 2000, we have put the things in their place quite recently... so to say. (?)



                ADDITIONAL NOTE: It is also interesting to note that, with the Solar System being a complex and —after all chaotic— dynamic system, the actual length of the Earth's orbit around the Sun varies from year to year in a not so predictable way. That's why after determining this actual length for the last years astronomers decide if there is need for some adjustment and, in consequence, from time to time a leap second is added after the last second of the 30th June or the 31st December.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • Leap seconds are about adjusting the length of the day so that the calender day matches the solar day. Nothing to do with years.
                  – Peter Green
                  3 mins ago
















                3














                The only reason I can think of is a practical one: it is simpler (in terms of the numbers involved) to treat as special those years which are divisible by $4$, $100$ and $400$ (since they are easy to determine), than to do it for those divisible by $128$. It also keeps the maximum error below $6h$ (*), quite below $31d$, which is approximately what you would get before the $128$th year correction... an error comparable to the one provoked by the Julian calender, unacceptable in modern terms. In fact, to correct that difference, we should add a whole month every $128y$.



                But if you're asking why don't we have leap years every four years, as we do AND correct the excess every $128y$, once more the answer is about keeping it simple.



                (*) Keep in mind that every year divisible by $100$ is not a leap year, unless it is divisible by $400$.



                It is good to know, somehow, that being close to the year 2000, we have put the things in their place quite recently... so to say. (?)



                ADDITIONAL NOTE: It is also interesting to note that, with the Solar System being a complex and —after all chaotic— dynamic system, the actual length of the Earth's orbit around the Sun varies from year to year in a not so predictable way. That's why after determining this actual length for the last years astronomers decide if there is need for some adjustment and, in consequence, from time to time a leap second is added after the last second of the 30th June or the 31st December.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • Leap seconds are about adjusting the length of the day so that the calender day matches the solar day. Nothing to do with years.
                  – Peter Green
                  3 mins ago














                3












                3








                3






                The only reason I can think of is a practical one: it is simpler (in terms of the numbers involved) to treat as special those years which are divisible by $4$, $100$ and $400$ (since they are easy to determine), than to do it for those divisible by $128$. It also keeps the maximum error below $6h$ (*), quite below $31d$, which is approximately what you would get before the $128$th year correction... an error comparable to the one provoked by the Julian calender, unacceptable in modern terms. In fact, to correct that difference, we should add a whole month every $128y$.



                But if you're asking why don't we have leap years every four years, as we do AND correct the excess every $128y$, once more the answer is about keeping it simple.



                (*) Keep in mind that every year divisible by $100$ is not a leap year, unless it is divisible by $400$.



                It is good to know, somehow, that being close to the year 2000, we have put the things in their place quite recently... so to say. (?)



                ADDITIONAL NOTE: It is also interesting to note that, with the Solar System being a complex and —after all chaotic— dynamic system, the actual length of the Earth's orbit around the Sun varies from year to year in a not so predictable way. That's why after determining this actual length for the last years astronomers decide if there is need for some adjustment and, in consequence, from time to time a leap second is added after the last second of the 30th June or the 31st December.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                The only reason I can think of is a practical one: it is simpler (in terms of the numbers involved) to treat as special those years which are divisible by $4$, $100$ and $400$ (since they are easy to determine), than to do it for those divisible by $128$. It also keeps the maximum error below $6h$ (*), quite below $31d$, which is approximately what you would get before the $128$th year correction... an error comparable to the one provoked by the Julian calender, unacceptable in modern terms. In fact, to correct that difference, we should add a whole month every $128y$.



                But if you're asking why don't we have leap years every four years, as we do AND correct the excess every $128y$, once more the answer is about keeping it simple.



                (*) Keep in mind that every year divisible by $100$ is not a leap year, unless it is divisible by $400$.



                It is good to know, somehow, that being close to the year 2000, we have put the things in their place quite recently... so to say. (?)



                ADDITIONAL NOTE: It is also interesting to note that, with the Solar System being a complex and —after all chaotic— dynamic system, the actual length of the Earth's orbit around the Sun varies from year to year in a not so predictable way. That's why after determining this actual length for the last years astronomers decide if there is need for some adjustment and, in consequence, from time to time a leap second is added after the last second of the 30th June or the 31st December.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 hours ago

























                answered 2 hours ago









                Alejandro Nasif Salum

                4,189118




                4,189118












                • Leap seconds are about adjusting the length of the day so that the calender day matches the solar day. Nothing to do with years.
                  – Peter Green
                  3 mins ago


















                • Leap seconds are about adjusting the length of the day so that the calender day matches the solar day. Nothing to do with years.
                  – Peter Green
                  3 mins ago
















                Leap seconds are about adjusting the length of the day so that the calender day matches the solar day. Nothing to do with years.
                – Peter Green
                3 mins ago




                Leap seconds are about adjusting the length of the day so that the calender day matches the solar day. Nothing to do with years.
                – Peter Green
                3 mins ago











                0














                One issue - this is a complex issue going back to when the modern calendar was created - is convenience, at least for the layperson.



                It's exceptionally easy to remember and apply the current system, even if said system is complicated.




                "Add an extra day on years which are multiples of $4$, unless they're multiples of $100$, unless they're multiples of $400$."




                Divisibility by each number is easy! Numbers divisible by $4$ can be shown to have their last two digits divisible by $4$. And then the only complications occur every century, and divisibility by $100$ and $400$ are equally trivial: end in $2$ zeroes to be divisible by $100$, have third-and-fourth to last digits divisible by $4$ as well for divisibility by $400$.



                Meanwhile, on the other hand, for a layperson, divisibility by $128$ ... not so easy. The only method that would have any simplicity that comes to mind is just dividing by $2$ seven times ($2^7 = 128$) and if at any point you get a remainder, then no extra year.



                The issue being it's not immediately apparent to someone, when if you're somehow not sure it just takes a few seconds under the current system to check: for the "better" system, while more accurate, most would have to break out a calculator. (And I imagine that $128$ is not exact enough and would cause overages/shortages every few millennia or so in its own right, which would likely make it even harder.)






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  0














                  One issue - this is a complex issue going back to when the modern calendar was created - is convenience, at least for the layperson.



                  It's exceptionally easy to remember and apply the current system, even if said system is complicated.




                  "Add an extra day on years which are multiples of $4$, unless they're multiples of $100$, unless they're multiples of $400$."




                  Divisibility by each number is easy! Numbers divisible by $4$ can be shown to have their last two digits divisible by $4$. And then the only complications occur every century, and divisibility by $100$ and $400$ are equally trivial: end in $2$ zeroes to be divisible by $100$, have third-and-fourth to last digits divisible by $4$ as well for divisibility by $400$.



                  Meanwhile, on the other hand, for a layperson, divisibility by $128$ ... not so easy. The only method that would have any simplicity that comes to mind is just dividing by $2$ seven times ($2^7 = 128$) and if at any point you get a remainder, then no extra year.



                  The issue being it's not immediately apparent to someone, when if you're somehow not sure it just takes a few seconds under the current system to check: for the "better" system, while more accurate, most would have to break out a calculator. (And I imagine that $128$ is not exact enough and would cause overages/shortages every few millennia or so in its own right, which would likely make it even harder.)






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    0












                    0








                    0






                    One issue - this is a complex issue going back to when the modern calendar was created - is convenience, at least for the layperson.



                    It's exceptionally easy to remember and apply the current system, even if said system is complicated.




                    "Add an extra day on years which are multiples of $4$, unless they're multiples of $100$, unless they're multiples of $400$."




                    Divisibility by each number is easy! Numbers divisible by $4$ can be shown to have their last two digits divisible by $4$. And then the only complications occur every century, and divisibility by $100$ and $400$ are equally trivial: end in $2$ zeroes to be divisible by $100$, have third-and-fourth to last digits divisible by $4$ as well for divisibility by $400$.



                    Meanwhile, on the other hand, for a layperson, divisibility by $128$ ... not so easy. The only method that would have any simplicity that comes to mind is just dividing by $2$ seven times ($2^7 = 128$) and if at any point you get a remainder, then no extra year.



                    The issue being it's not immediately apparent to someone, when if you're somehow not sure it just takes a few seconds under the current system to check: for the "better" system, while more accurate, most would have to break out a calculator. (And I imagine that $128$ is not exact enough and would cause overages/shortages every few millennia or so in its own right, which would likely make it even harder.)






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    One issue - this is a complex issue going back to when the modern calendar was created - is convenience, at least for the layperson.



                    It's exceptionally easy to remember and apply the current system, even if said system is complicated.




                    "Add an extra day on years which are multiples of $4$, unless they're multiples of $100$, unless they're multiples of $400$."




                    Divisibility by each number is easy! Numbers divisible by $4$ can be shown to have their last two digits divisible by $4$. And then the only complications occur every century, and divisibility by $100$ and $400$ are equally trivial: end in $2$ zeroes to be divisible by $100$, have third-and-fourth to last digits divisible by $4$ as well for divisibility by $400$.



                    Meanwhile, on the other hand, for a layperson, divisibility by $128$ ... not so easy. The only method that would have any simplicity that comes to mind is just dividing by $2$ seven times ($2^7 = 128$) and if at any point you get a remainder, then no extra year.



                    The issue being it's not immediately apparent to someone, when if you're somehow not sure it just takes a few seconds under the current system to check: for the "better" system, while more accurate, most would have to break out a calculator. (And I imagine that $128$ is not exact enough and would cause overages/shortages every few millennia or so in its own right, which would likely make it even harder.)







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 2 hours ago









                    Eevee Trainer

                    3,880428




                    3,880428























                        0














                        Sorry, I misread your original question. My other answer was not really to the point. You asked:




                        So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.




                        The rule in the Gregorian calendar subtracts out the leap day 3 times in 400 years. (The leap days in years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were skipped; 2000 was not skipped, and 2100 will be skipped again.)



                        So we subtract out a day, on average, every $frac{400}3$ years, and guess what, $frac{400}3≈133.3$, which is quite close to the 128 you suggested.






                        share|cite|improve this answer




























                          0














                          Sorry, I misread your original question. My other answer was not really to the point. You asked:




                          So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.




                          The rule in the Gregorian calendar subtracts out the leap day 3 times in 400 years. (The leap days in years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were skipped; 2000 was not skipped, and 2100 will be skipped again.)



                          So we subtract out a day, on average, every $frac{400}3$ years, and guess what, $frac{400}3≈133.3$, which is quite close to the 128 you suggested.






                          share|cite|improve this answer


























                            0












                            0








                            0






                            Sorry, I misread your original question. My other answer was not really to the point. You asked:




                            So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.




                            The rule in the Gregorian calendar subtracts out the leap day 3 times in 400 years. (The leap days in years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were skipped; 2000 was not skipped, and 2100 will be skipped again.)



                            So we subtract out a day, on average, every $frac{400}3$ years, and guess what, $frac{400}3≈133.3$, which is quite close to the 128 you suggested.






                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            Sorry, I misread your original question. My other answer was not really to the point. You asked:




                            So why aren't we subtracting a day back out every 128 years? Instead we're subtracting the day out after 400 years instead.




                            The rule in the Gregorian calendar subtracts out the leap day 3 times in 400 years. (The leap days in years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were skipped; 2000 was not skipped, and 2100 will be skipped again.)



                            So we subtract out a day, on average, every $frac{400}3$ years, and guess what, $frac{400}3≈133.3$, which is quite close to the 128 you suggested.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            answered 49 mins ago


























                            community wiki





                            MJD























                                Tyler T is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                Tyler T is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                Tyler T is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                Tyler T is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid



                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function () {
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054479%2fwhy-dont-we-subtract-out-ignore-the-leap-year-every-128-years%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                }
                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Plaza Victoria

                                In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                                How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...