login
A193879
Different leap years in the Gregorian and the revised Julian calendars
2
0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 28, 29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 64, 65, 68, 69, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 83, 84, 87, 88, 100, 101, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 119, 120, 123, 124, 136, 137, 140, 141, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 155, 156, 159, 160
OFFSET
1,2
COMMENTS
Terms divided by 100, e.g., 28 indicates year 2800, which is a Gregorian leap year, but not a revised Julian leap year. Values below 28 are "proleptic" (only based on the formula).
LINKS
M. Milankovitch, Das Ende des julianischen Kalenders und der neue Kalender der orientalischen Kirchen, Astronomische Nachrichten, volume 220 (1924), pages 379-384.
Claus Tøndering, Frequently Asked Questions about Calendars, Don't the Greeks do it differently?
FORMULA
( N // 9 = 2 | N // 9 = 6 ) <> ( N // 4 = 0 )
EXAMPLE
28 mod 9 is not 2 or 6, but 28 mod 4 is 0: 2800 is a Gregorian leap year.
29 mod 9 is 2, but 29 mod 4 is not 0: 2900 is a revised Julian leap year.
CROSSREFS
A008586 enumerates "Gregorian leap centuries" (N // 4 = 0).
A193910 enumerates "revised Julian leap centuries".
Sequence in context: A073140 A256342 A171820 * A226722 A187414 A187348
KEYWORD
nonn,easy
AUTHOR
Frank Ellermann, Aug 07 2011
STATUS
approved