You are quite welcome. After poking around a bit more, I can offer a more detailed explanation on Excel. It does treat 1 January 1900 as the origin. However, while R treats origin as 0, Excel treats it as 1. This explains 1 of the two day change needed for R to get the same results as Excel. The second day is explained by the fact that Excel treats the year 1900 as a leap year, although it is, in fact, not a leap year. To correct for this, the date specified as origin in R must be a day earlier.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM, anna <lippelann...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Josh! yes definitely it makes sense as I got to retrieve a date, but a > different one! thanks a lot for the explanation ) > > ----- > Anna Lippel > -- > View this message in context: > http://n4.nabble.com/Convert-number-to-Date-tp1691251p1691294.html > Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > -- Joshua Wiley Senior in Psychology University of California, Riverside http://www.joshuawiley.com/ ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.