You could take this a step further, and work out the average length of a microcentury. In every 4 centuries, 3 will contain ordinary centurial years, and 1 will contain a leap centurial year....

Thus one millionth of a century has 3155.6736 or 3155.7600 seconds, that is 52 minutes 35.6736 seconds or 52 minutes 35.7600 seconds.

You could take this a step further, and work out the average length of a microcentury.

In every 4 centuries, 3 will contain ordinary centurial years, and 1 will contain a leap centurial year. Therefore, an average microcentury is:

Yes, indeed. Since the length of a microcentury is very close to 52 minutes 35.7 seconds in both cases, the average also works out to be very close to the same length.

Yes, indeed. Since the length of a microcentury is very close to 52 minutes 35.7 seconds in both cases, the average also works out to be very close to the same length.

I just think it's tidier to have one value, rather than two. "The average length of a microcentury is 52 minutes, 35.7 seconds", rather than "For 300 out of 400 years, the length of a microcentury...

I just think it's tidier to have one value, rather than two. "The average length of a microcentury is 52 minutes, 35.7 seconds", rather than "For 300 out of 400 years, the length of a microcentury is 52 minutes 35.6736 seconds, but for 100 out of 400 years, the length of a microcentury 52 minutes 35.7600 seconds."

I agree and I do mention something to that effect at the end of the blog post: Did you see that section? I don't talk about average like you do. Your point about average is a great point. It just...

I agree and I do mention something to that effect at the end of the blog post:

Conclusion

A microcentury is very close to 52 minutes 35.7 seconds long.

Did you see that section? I don't talk about average like you do. Your point about average is a great point. It just didn't occur to me while writing the post. But I did see that in both cases the length of a microcentury is 52 minutes 35.7 seconds when we round off the number of seconds to one decimal place. So whether we average or not, we come to the same conclusion, don't we?

You seem to think I'm attacking you or criticising you - you're acting defensive. I'm just adding a point that I thought of. I'm sorry if that seems like I'm criticising your blog.

You seem to think I'm attacking you or criticising you - you're acting defensive.

I'm just adding a point that I thought of. I'm sorry if that seems like I'm criticising your blog.

Thank you for the clarification. Actually, I did not think you were attacking or criticising my blog post. I was only attempting to have a conversation about why we get the same number using both...

Thank you for the clarification. Actually, I did not think you were attacking or criticising my blog post. I was only attempting to have a conversation about why we get the same number using both methods: average and rounding off. I found that interesting and wanted to share it. Thank you for commenting on this thread. It was interesting to see this topic from a different perspective and realize that the result of 52 minutes 35.7 seconds holds good both as an average as well as rounded-off values.

You could take this a step further, and work out the

averagelength of a microcentury.In every 4 centuries, 3 will contain ordinary centurial years, and 1 will contain a leap centurial year. Therefore, an average microcentury is:

( ( 3 x 3155.6736 ) + ( 1 x 3155.7600 ) ) ÷ 4

= ( 9467 .0208 + 3155.7600 ) ÷ 4

= 12622.7808 ÷ 4

= 3155.6952 seconds

= 52 minutes, 35.70 seconds

Yes, indeed. Since the length of a microcentury is very close to 52 minutes 35.7 seconds in both cases, the average also works out to be very close to the same length.

I just think it's tidier to have one value, rather than two. "The average length of a microcentury is 52 minutes, 35.7 seconds", rather than "For 300 out of 400 years, the length of a microcentury is 52 minutes 35.6736 seconds, but for 100 out of 400 years, the length of a microcentury 52 minutes 35.7600 seconds."

I agree and I do mention something to that effect at the end of the blog post:

Did you see that section? I don't talk about average like you do. Your point about average is a great point. It just didn't occur to me while writing the post. But I did see that in both cases the length of a microcentury is 52 minutes 35.7 seconds when we round off the number of seconds to one decimal place. So whether we average or not, we come to the same conclusion, don't we?

You seem to think I'm attacking you or criticising you - you're acting defensive.

I'm just adding a point that I thought of. I'm sorry if that seems like I'm criticising your blog.

Thank you for the clarification. Actually, I did not think you were attacking or criticising my blog post. I was only attempting to have a conversation about why we get the same number using both methods: average and rounding off. I found that interesting and wanted to share it. Thank you for commenting on this thread. It was interesting to see this topic from a different perspective and realize that the result of 52 minutes 35.7 seconds holds good both as an average as well as rounded-off values.