gbdoc

Now I think I understand. It seems to boil down to a difference between scientific accuracy and convention. The former isn't practical for most everyday use, and the convention is practical and accurate enough. Thanks, comment, for taking the time. I've learned good things from you and Lee.

How does this affect the FM calculations above? To what extent is the difference of practical significance? So which number is more appropriate for FM calculations? In any case, it would seem that 365.25 is inaccurate, and should not be used. Right? George

To add just a little more: FM's own KB (which I couldn't connect to yesterday) provided the following formula (at Calculating Elapsed Time Between Two Dates Broken Into Year, Month, And Day ). At age around 65, FM's formula makes someone the same age as Lee's formula. If you really get obsessive, as I did, and replaced what FM calls a year in their formula, 365.25 days, with what I found on the web, 365.242199, which also shortens the average length of a month to 30.4368499, the difference is 1 day older (over a span of 65+ years) according to the FM formula. George

and . Lee, you're a gentleman and a scholar! Many, many thanks - I've been fooling with this on and off for weeks! George

Using FMP 7 on Mac Jaguar, I tried Lee's solution (above) with no luck: the "NumToText" function no longer exists in this version (except for Japanese!!!) (I, too, seem to recall having it on earlier FMP versions) . While I have found an accurate calculation for age in years only, I still can't do years, months, and days. I'm new to this forum, and I also haven't been able to find the solution by Jason, referred to by RalphL. As much as I like FMP, it's really upsetting that it's so hard to calculate this, and that they haven't simply made this a function (or a number of functions for elapsed time). Any help would be greatly appreciated.