|
|
|
|
|
|
|
else
return (1);
}
else
return (0);
}
else
return (1);
}
else
return (0);
} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This leap year rule would enormously complicate the calculation of Julian Day number. Reingold, Dershowitz, and Clamen note (p. 11) that the complex rule necessitates reliance on the time-consuming method of "summation of days" for Julian Day number conversion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, the FRC leap year rule can be implemented in different ways, depending upon one's perspective, and the result in each case is a slightly different proleptic FRC calendar. Reingold and his fellow authors distinguish between actual years, anticipated years, and proposed years. The options are: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the actual historical occurrences of leap year and call this pattern the rule. This is the approach of the Hatcher equations and the SCDTL system. This approach produces a simple and fast Julian Day number conversion. This approach does have the disadvantage of implying the Julian rule for a calendar intended to be more accurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use the original rule. This is unworkable and cannot be considered in practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use the more complex rule. This prevents a simple mathematical solution to Julian Day conversion, requires a very inefficient summation method, and is inconsistent with the actual historical situation. Because the calendar expired before the rule could be implemented, it is arguable that the rule should be applied at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is really no way to be completely faithful to the FRC in this regard, since the original intention is unworkable and cannot be implemented by rule. Thus, the choice lies between implementing actual historical practice and thus ignoring the objective of the rule, or implementing a troublesome proposal that was never implemented in calendric practice and that contradicts actual historical fact. Practicality dictates the use of the simpler rule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The epoch of the calendar was chosen to be 22 September 1792 (Gregorian), the first day following the establishment of the Republic and the date of the autumnal equinox in that year. Saha and Lahiri state (p. 167) that Laplace had proposed A.D. 1250 as the epoch year for the calendar, since this year was, according to his calculations, one in which the equinoctial line was perpendicular to the apse line of the orbit of the Earth. This proposal was rejected by the rest of the committee, nationalistic |
|
|
|
|
|