I too found the wording of the question awkward, I have posted the solution as in my book. It seems that the question can be interpreted as a summation (each day of the first century increasing by 0.01s and each day of the second century being 24 hours + 0.02s and so on) or as responder SammyS puts it :
SammyS said:
As one century elapses, the length of a day will have increased from 24 hours to 24 hours and 0.001 seconds.
Re #2 :
Doc Al said:
I don't understand either of those numbers. If after one century the day is 0.001 second longer, how much longer is a day after 20 centuries?
And once you've got that straight, what's the average increase of a day over those 20 centuries?
I interpreted this as responder SammyS did (#7). If I understand correctly, the day should be 0.020s longer after 20 centuries with an average increase of 0.001s per century(?) (If the question is interpreted as a summation then the average would be different...)
Re #3 : The same question has been asked previously as pointed out by responder archaic, yet the solution offered by OP differs (2hours as compared to 2.1 hours). OP in that case seems to have interpreted the increase to mean that each day of the century increases by 0.01(?). The solution going by that interpretation would be 2.1 hours (without factoring in leap years?). Now I see that the 'relevant equation' I mention is arrived at by integration in the solutions provided.
WWGD said:
I assume because the increase by 0.001 seconds can happen at any time in the century , since this has not been specified. So they may be assuming the second(ha-ha) the century starts, the 0.001 second delay is in effect.
Re #4 : I think that is the interpretation going by the solution. (Just to clarify : If the first century had a day 24 hours long then would the summation be upto 0.019?)
Re #5, #6, #7 : My book interprets this question as a summation (I understand this after going through all of your responses) while I interpreted it as responder SammyS does (#7) if I understand correctly. I thought that the total increase should be 0.020s and confused 0.21s with 0.021s (though 0.21 and 0.020 are arrived at through entirely different routes).
Re #8 : The solution in my book offered no explanation regarding the summation interpretation (once again, I realized this only after reading all the responses). I have a rudimentary understanding of integration ( I could make sense of the solutions on the link provided by archaic).