clarification on julian/gregorian calendars & Easter

[Getulio Medeiros]

At 16:38 29/04/97 -0500, you wrote:
>There will be no leap day in the year 2000, so the disparity between the
>two calendars will not increase:
>
>[I wrote:]  >>Thanks for your posting, through Tom Priestly, of the dates
>for Easter.  Am
>>>I correct, however, in assuming that the difference between old and new
>>>calendars grows by one day as of the year 2000?  (There's been some
>>>discussion of that on SEELANGS.)  That would mean the second dates listed
>>>for the years 2000 and later would actually be off by one day.
>>>
>[AH responded:  ]>There has indeed been considerable discussion (and more
>misunderstanding)
>>about this, but the difference of 13 days between the calendars does not
>>change from the 20th to the 21st century.
>>
>>As a general rule, years divisible by 4 are leap years, but in the Gregorian
>>system this does not apply to century years, unless they are divisible by
>>400. As a result of this, the difference between the Julian and Gregorian
>>calendars increased by one day in 1700, 1800 and 1900 because these were
>>leap years in the Julian system, but not the Gregorian one. 2000, however,
>>is divisible by 400 (as was 1600), making it bissextile, so on that year the
>>difference between the calendars will not increase by a day.
>>
>>Have I made myself perfectly obscure?
>>
>>Andrij Hornjatkevyc
>
>
>**********************************
>Benjamin Rifkin
>Department of Slavic Languages & Literatures
>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>1432 Van Hise Hall, 1220 Linden Drive, Madison, WI  53706
>voice (608) 262-1623; fax (608) 265-2814
>e-mail:  brifkin at facstaff.wisc.edu
>
>
I have a programm that translates the Gregorian calendar into Julian system.
If someone is interested, please send me your e-mail and I will upload this
free software.
>
Getulio Medeiros
email: gm at svn.com.br
URL:   http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/8527