The perpetual calendar [Math]

Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!

From: Jerry Friedman on 25 Feb 2010 01:22

On Feb 22, 10:52 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:32:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in
> <news:ad442cf6-ce22-4ffe-b05b-786b865fb3fc(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
> in
> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
>
> > On Feb 22, 10:55 pm, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I can't imagine why you think that I'd change my mind. As
> >> far as I'm concerned, DST has no disadvantages at any time
> >> of year in any climate at any latitude. In winter at higher
> >> latitudes its advantages are minimal, but it still has no
> >> disadvantages. I couldn't care less how dark it is in the
> >> morning; it's in the afternoon and evening that I want the
> >> benefit of as much daylight as possible.
> > The point is that the kiddies shouldn't go off to school
> > in the dark.
>
> I hadn't noticed that DST would make much difference to that
> in many of the places that I've lived.

Is that because you don't stay up that late?

It sure made a noticeable difference to me the winter we kept DST--was
that 1973-74? I was living in Shaker Heights, not far from where you
live now (or where your email address suggests you live, anyway). It
wasn't a big problem, though, since all I had to do was walk to the
corner and wait for the schoolbus.

--
Jerry Friedman

From: sjdevnull on 25 Feb 2010 01:27

On Feb 25, 12:16 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 2:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > > > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47):
>
> > > > > I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away
> > > > > from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic
> > > > > chuch.
>
> > > > > Certainly the Anglicans do. The Anglican covenant says,
>
> > > > > "(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
> > > > > Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy
> > > > > Spirit."
>
> > > > Of course they do. But when it comes to self-identify, only one church on
> > > > this planet consistenty refers to itself simply as 'the Catholic Church' (it
> > > > also uses other names, namely 'the Church', and where pragmatism requires
> > > > 'the Roman Catholic Church' - but the 'Roman' adds nothing, unlike 'Old' or
> > > > 'Polish National' - the RC doesn't see any added value in Roman, it doesn't
> > > > contribute to the meaning with anything that wasn't there before).
>
> > > > Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal ('catholic')
> > > > vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as a central structuring
> > > > element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian Church' even when popes were
> > > > italian for centuries long.
>
> > > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or
> > > without the _filioque_.)
>
> > Not at all. The Nicene creed was explicitly designed to advocate a
> > Trinitarian position and to brand non-Trinitarian sects (the Arians in
> > particular) as heretics. It quite intentionally defines one subset of
> > Christianity (and not every Trinitarian sect uses the Nicene Creed--
> > Quakers, for instance, explicitly reject using any creed).
>
> > Some examples of modern-day non-Trinitarians, who would reject the key
> > Nicene doctrinal tenets:
>
> Then they are, by definition, not Christians.
>
> The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the
> gatekeepers do.
>

FWIW, after looking at Merriam-Webster, the OED, and Wikipedia, all of
the above seem to fit squarely within the definition of Christianity.

I'll certainly state my biases ahead of time, and say that although I
was raised in the Catholic tradition all of the churches I described
seem to sit clearly within the bounds of what "Christian" means--even
when used by Catholic priests. I intentionally tried to avoid any
faiths where I thought there was even a remote chance of controversy
(e.g. Mormonism, Jews for Jesus, Unitarians, etc).

I'd suggest that if you actually have a definition of Christianity
that excludes Quakers, Adventists, the various Apostolic Churches and
Churches of Christ, Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the like that you
should state it and explain why it's superior to what most recognized
lexicographers have settled on.

From: sjdevnull on 25 Feb 2010 01:30

On Feb 25, 12:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 5:29 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes:
>
> > > > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE.
>
> > > > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates.
>
> > > "Which is why"? What astronomically-significant date more than 2010
> > > years in the past did you have in mind for which an error of one year
> > > would be considered significant by astronomers? Other, I guess than
> > > recorded astronomical observations and predictions by people back
> > > then, but I'd expect them to use "BC" when talking about them. What
> > > do they used when such precision is required?
>
> > It's not uncommon to make tables of historic astronomical events.
> > They might be used purely for statistical analysis, or they may be
> > helpful for trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing carved
> > in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever.
>
> Or, "What is the absolute date of the eclipse meticulously recorded
> and described in this astronomical cuneiform tablet?"

Absolutely. There are a whole host of reasons to care about
astronomical dates, even ranging down to simple curiosity about when
things happened.

From: James Hogg on 25 Feb 2010 02:14

Robert Bannister wrote:
> Andrew Usher wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised
>>>> adjective (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun.
>>> Are you positive it isn't related to French "on" (as opposed to
>>> French "un")?
>>
>> Well, it certainly could be, and that is the usual derivation
>> given, although I don't think there's any direct proof.
>>
>> Anglo-French 'on' and Middle English 'one' would be very close in
>> pronunciation, both being some variant of [On]. But still, I think
>> if that was the origin it was assimilated into English as if it
>> were the number one.
>>
>> Andrew Usher
>
> The equivalent in other Germanic languages is not the same as their
> word for the number "one".

Some languages use the word for "man", e.g. German and French. Swedish
has "man", but the object form is "en" and the possessive is "ens", both
from the word for the number one.

--
James

From: Trond Engen on 25 Feb 2010 02:57

Peter T. Daniels:

> On Feb 24, 3:27 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Some examples of modern-day non-Trinitarians, who would reject the
>> key Nicene doctrinal tenets:
>
> Then they are, by definition, not Christians.
>
> The wannabes don't get to say who is a member of the club; the
> gatekeepers do.

Is that a tenable definition? Every time there's a schism both sides
claim to be guardians of the truth and gatekeep the other out of the
club (the club being Christianity, or the Party, or the IRA, or
whatever), but both movements are "sprung from some common source,
which, perhaps, no longer exists".

--
Trond Engen