From AllenAmet@aol.com Sun May 20 16:15:16 2001
Received: from mxu4.u.washington.edu (mxu4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.8])
	by lists.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f4KNFF062412
	for <classics@lists.u.washington.edu>; Sun, 20 May 2001 16:15:15 -0700
Received: from imo-r15.mx.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69])
	by mxu4.u.washington.edu (8.11.2+UW01.01/8.11.2+UW01.04) with ESMTP id f4KNFFs22399
	for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sun, 20 May 2001 16:15:15 -0700
Received: from AllenAmet@aol.com
	by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.10.) id d.d1.6d261c3 (4456)
	 for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sun, 20 May 2001 19:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: AllenAmet@aol.com
Message-ID: <d1.6d261c3.2839a9f3@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:14:59 EDT
Subject: Re: leap day (well)
To: classics@u.washington.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 64

In a message dated 01-05-19 19:57:19 EDT, JMP writes:

<< Right you are. February had already been stuffed with an 
 intercalation of 23 days, and 23 + 67 + 355 (the length of the 
 pre-Caesarian year) adds up to 455, the number of days in the "year 
 of confusion" 46 BC. I should have run the numbers. >>
**********
  i will assume this is a typo for 445? Or does "confusion" still reign?  ;-)

  The "42 BC leap year" was already based on the errant 3-year model.

  I suppose it is a sign of the times that the measure of the intercalation 
grows increasingly smaller - i believe we are now down to "leap seconds." No 
doubt we are all the better for it...

allen koenigsberg
bc
.