Carobit Lounge Conversation: Excel problem

Your Connection

guest
Log out
Log in or Sign Up

Site Navigation

Home
Forum Home
Closed Conversations

For Members

Support
Feedback
Member Search
Carobit Mail

Helpful Links

Smilies
Formatting
Preview

Originator:	Hooligan	Printable Version
Title:	Excel problem

Back to

Attachments Add Attachment

History

From: Hooligan	On: 2008/04/25 09:21:42
I'm developing a number of days since 31/12/1899 function in javascript to match values given by Excel and have been testing against excel anyway I often seemed to be out by 1, it seems that in excel 28th feb 1900 has integer value 59 and 1st march 1900 has integer value 61 so 29th feb 1900 is 60, which excel has no trouble with displaying. problem is that all sources indicate that 1900 wasn't a leap year, is this an inheritance of the same bug in lotus 123? This is Excel2003. it does seem that 2100 is not a leap year in excel. anyone know if 1900 was in fact a leap year?

From: syscokid	On: 2008/04/25 09:26:59
All century years are leap years unless divisible by 400. Thus, 2000 was not a leap year but 1900 was. 2100 will also be a leap year. Here's one source: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.349

From: Hooligan	On: 2008/04/25 09:30:34
vb.net says that 28/2/00 was a wed and 1/3/00 was a thur and hold on excel agrees on the 1st march, but 28th feb it has tuesday, so i believe that excel is wrong, after how many years it's been out? ho ho ho

From: Hooligan	On: 2008/04/25 09:33:09
thanks for joining this debate syscokid, the microsoft pc date in the system tray has 29th feb foy year 2000, i thought it was a leAP yera if it divides by 400 to be honest

From: Hooligan	On: 2008/04/25 09:40:09
excel doesn't match with vb.net, that's for sure when I worked in insurance the company actuary told me that there'd once been a customer who claimed to be born on 29/02/1900 and he sent his birth certificate to prove it, the actuary had a theory that it was a slip up by the registrar, i could got to the library and see if i can find old newspapers from the date, or try wikipedia (lol)

From: syscokid	On: 2008/04/25 09:47:26
Oops, my link was right, my explanation wrong. 2000 was a leap year. 1900 was not and 2100 will not be. 2000 was divisible by 400, 1900 and 2100 are not.

From: Huntress	On: 2008/04/25 11:39:07
The year has to be divisible by 4 not 400 to be a leap year. So, in fact, all three of those years (i.e. 1900, 2000 & 2100) are leap years. Leap years are 4 years apart.

From: syscokid	On: 2008/04/25 11:44:57
Sorry to disagree, but there is a separate rule for century years. (Hey, I don't make this stuff up! )

From: Huntress	On: 2008/04/25 11:54:03
Here's the explaination from Wiki....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_year In the Gregorian calendar, the current standard calendar in most of the world, most years whose division by 4 equals an integer are leap years. In one leap year, the month of February has 29 days instead of 28. Adding an extra day to the calendar every four years compensates for the fact that a solar year is almost 6 hours longer than 365 days. However, some exceptions to this rule are required since the duration of a solar year is slightly less than 365.25 days. Years which are evenly divisible by 100 are not leap years, unless they are also evenly divisible by 400, in which case they are leap years.[1] [2] For example, 1600 and 2000 were leap years, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not. Similarly, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900, and 3000 will not be leap years, but 2400 and 2800 will be. By this rule, the average number of days per year will be 365 + 1/4 − 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425, which is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds.

From: Huntress	On: 2008/04/25 11:54:52
I was not aware of this because I wasn't around in 1900. ]

From: Huntress	On: 2008/04/25 12:00:28
to find out what years are leap years go here.... http://calendarhome.com/tyc/original.html

From: syscokid	On: 2008/04/25 12:02:28
Well, I'm a kid, I wasn't even around in 2000. And if you believe that...

From: Huntress	On: 2008/04/25 12:34:40


From: StevenB	On: 2008/04/25 16:32:32
This "bug" is actually a deliberate known issue with excel (to support the older Lotus 1-2-3 bug apparently!b). I'm assured it can be rectified by setting the file to use 1904 date format (see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/180162).

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2008/04/28 01:09:25
Yup. I remember the 29th of February 2000, so it most definitely was a leap year 1900 wasn't. 2100 won't be either.

From: Hooligan	On: 2008/05/06 04:06:27
This conversation is now closed.

Enter your comments here

As a guest you will only be able to see what a comment posted by you would look like by clicking the Preview button. You can't actually participate by posting comments to this conversation.

Number of viewers: 17