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: Peter Moylan on 25 Feb 2010 05:06

John Atkinson wrote:
> Androcles wrote:

>> "Michael Stemper's blunder" is a contraction of "Michael Stemper, his
>> blunder".
>>
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraction
>> : a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a
>> sound or letter;
>>
> Like most of what you write, this is false as it stands. The 'his'
> genitive did indeed have a short vogue in English around 1600, though
> probably only in writing and as a folk etymology, not in the spoken
> language. The apostrophe s spelling in place of etymological '-es' may
> indeed have originated from the false belief that 'his' was the original
> form; it would have then spread to the other genders.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive

Hmm. I'm not sure where to look this up, but I have the strong
impression that the spoken -s form entered English before the (brief)
appearance of the 'his' genitive. Indeed, the false belief you mention
probably could not have arisen before some version of the apostrophe s,
whether or not the apostrophe was actually used at the time.

At some stage, the pronunciation of the -es genitive ending changed. The
above-cited Wiki article suggests that it was being pronounced -is prior
to the rise of the 'his' genitive. At a later stage - I don't know when
- it must have become an unstressed schwa, and a little later English
speakers stopped pronouncing the vowel, so the -es became a simple -s.
That is, it became so in speech. Spelling tends to lag behind spoken
changes, so the -es would still have been there in the consciousness of
writers ... except that eventually the writers started putting in
apostrophes to indicate letters that weren't pronounced. I'm quite
convinced that today's "possessive apostrophe" is, historically, simply
a "missing letter" apostrophe.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

From: Mike Lyle on 25 Feb 2010 06:57

sjdevnull(a)yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
>
> 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.

Your general point is right, but note that you don't have to be a
Christian to be a Quaker. Muslims, Jews, pagans, whoever. I've read that
about of a quarter of British Quakers are atheists.

--
Mike.

From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 07:31

On Feb 25, 1:27 am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.-

Lexicographers have the power to determine who is a Christian?

From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 07:33

On Feb 25, 1:30 am, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.-

(The notion that the inquiry was limited to "comet-shaped thing carved
in the sky" is a bit naive -- Bayeux Tapestry level.)

From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2010 09:16

Cheryl wrote:
> jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> What is wrong is forcing the entire populace to go through
>> a jetlag twice a year. Their driving is more dangerous
>> and productivity falls until each person has adjusted his/her
>> internal time clock. Congress has been passing laws
>> about truckers getting enough sleep. OTOH, they pass clock
>> resetting laws which causes everybody to not get enough sleep.
>> What's wrong is that it's dangerous and unhealthy.
>
> What's stopping people from going to bed an hour earlier that night?

We're talking about resetting the biological cycle. People, essentially
do go to bed an hour earlier (or later) depending on the clock switch.
That changes the biology.

>
> Anyway, that only works for one direction. The other time, everyone gets
> an extra hour of sleep, and therefore should be more rested and less
> likely to have accidents.
>

Wrong. An hour extra, from the usual habit, creates a hangover.

/BAH