The perpetual calendar
in [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: Tak To on 26 Feb 2010 01:06 Peter Moylan wrote: > Adam Funk wrote: >> On 2010-02-24, Bob Myers wrote: >> >>> Andrew Usher wrote: >>>> Well, I'm astounded. Indexing from 0 is so obviously the Right Way >>>> that I can't imagine why anyone would do it the other way. >>> >>> Oh, absolutely. Why, I see people in the stores every day, >>> counting out their money or the number of items they're >>> going to purchase, and saying to themselves "Zero, one, two..." >> >> The initialized state of my shopping basket contains 0 items. Each >> item I put in increments it. If I initialized at 1, my shopping would >> crash with a 1-off error on unpacking. > > If your shopping basket had been designed by a C programmer, its initial > state would be the state just before the zeroth item was inserted. That > suggests that initially the basket contains -1 items. This kind of speculation is bizarre. No, a programmer well verse in 0-base indexing would simply recognize that the number of items in the basket _before_ the <n>th item is inserted is <n>. Thus he would initialize the basket correctly at 0. Similarly, a programmer well verse in 1-base indexing would recognize that the number of items in the basket _after_ the <n>th item is inserted is <n>. Working back from there, he would thus also initialize the basket correctly at 0. 0-base indexing is more handy if one is interested in the "before" cardinality; whereas 1-base is more handy for the "after" cardinality. A prori, neither one is more "natural" than the other. However, in practice, it seems that the before cardinality is needed more often than the after one. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto(a)alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
From: PaulJK on 26 Feb 2010 01:40 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 24, 4:49 am, "benli...(a)ihug.co.nz" <benli...(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote: >> On Feb 24, 11:43 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: >>> Brian M. Scott <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu>: >>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:11 -0800, Skitt >>>> <skit...(a)comcast.net> wrote in >>>> <news:hm18ef$9gh$1(a)news.albasani.net> in >>>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>>> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>>>>> Skitt wrote: >>>>>>> PaulJK wrote: >>>>>>>> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer >>>>>>> forward >>>>>> That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., but it >>>>>> does depends on one's point of view. >> >>>>> Deciding whether a clock runs forward or backward, you mean? >> >>>> No. When you push the time from (say) 10 to 11, you can see >>>> this as pushing it away from you, just as you might push an >>>> opponent back. When you let it go from 11 to 10, you're >>>> then letting it approach you, i.e., come forward. >> >>> That's true only before the event. Afterwards, going from 11 to 10 is >>> receding. >> >>> But I have some sympathy with your confusion. I get totally confused >>> when someone describes a time zone as being "ahead of" or "behind" >>> another. It can be either, depending on one's viewpoint. >> >> Discussion on sci.lang during the Beijing Olympics: >> >> Ross in New Zealand: >> >>>> We are 4 hours later than China. During the games we were getting live >>>> coverage from noon to 2am, i.e. 8am to 10pm Beijing time. >> >> Peter in NY: >> >>> I think you're earlier, because your 8:00 was 4 hours before their >>> 8:00. >> >> Ross: >> We are earlier in arriving at a given time, but on the other hand, if >> you ask "What time is it?", it is four hours later here than there. >> >> Peter: >> >>> Surely you can't say that NY is 12 hr earlier than China? We're >>> _behind_ them, you're _ahead_ of them. >> >> etc.- > > It's really annoying this year -- Vancouver is only three hours ahead > of us (i.e., they've already had their morning events by the time it's > morning here), aren't they behind? :-) > so lots of what NBC is showing us on tape could easily > have been done live. (The first night of figure skating had the magic > notation "Live," but it disappeared since -- presumably so they can do > time compression and eliminate the waits between performance and > score, and between performances. They even broke in the other day to > show the last minute of the US-Canada hockey game, which was being > shown live on MSNBC for those with cable, instead of their prepared > piece on the day's [yawn] two-man bobsledding.) > > Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do? Ignoring the various pay, satellite, and cable channels, there are about twelve free-to-air locally broadcast channels. One of the free-to-air channels (Prime) broadcasts Winter Olympics every day nonstop from 5:30am to 6:30pm. Looking at today's Friday schedule, apart from the half-hour WO news at 5:30am and Cross Country skiing at 10:30-11:30am all the events are live. If by "same coverage" you mean "identical programming" then the answer is no. All commentators are either New Zealanders or people who are aware of commenting for the downunder or specifically kiwi audience. Now and then they interrupt the program to switch to another competition to show a kiwi athlete, who would we normally not see, perform their shtick and then switch back. The boring waits between performances don't worry me too much. I hardly ever watch TV in real time. I record all 13 hours of it every day and then watch it later in the evening skipping over the boring bits and replaying in slow motion the interesting sections. I take it slowly, I watch the Olympics only when I feel like it. Today I am already five days behind. :-) Thankfully, most of my friends are not interested in winter sports as I am and kiwi athletes are not expected to do spectacularly well, so I don't run the risk of overhearing the results before I watch the events days later. pjk > -- I will never forget what the BBC did to the 1992 World Series. See > the archive for a description, several times. --
From: PaulJK on 26 Feb 2010 02:01 R H Draney wrote: > PaulJK filted: >> >> Trond Engen wrote: >>> Brian M. Scott skrev: >>> >>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:41:20 -0800, Skitt >>>> <skitt99(a)comcast.net> wrote in >>>> <news:hm17gp$89l$1(a)news.albasani.net> in >>>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>>> >>>>> PaulJK wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer >>>>> >>>>> forward >>>> >>>> That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., but it >>>> does depends on one's point of view. >>> >>> And everything is the other way around in New Zealand. >> >> Just try to remember exactly which way to wind your clock >> when its face is upside down and you are standing on your head. > > ...and with the water in the toilet swirling the wrong way. Nah. It always swirls around the right way. It's over there upover where it goes around the wrong way, the moon is upside down, and the digits on the telephone dials went up wrong way. pjk > ....r
From: PaulJK on 26 Feb 2010 02:10 Mike Barnes wrote: > PaulJK <paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz>: >> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:21 +1300, PaulJK >>> >>>> I would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one >>>> hour, i.e. 25 hours long. [...] >>> >>> I'm not sure that 25 hours would be quite long enough. >> >> I agree, it wouldn't. I just didn't want to sound like some kind >> of an extremist. 28 was mentioned by some other posters. >> That would do me rather well. Yes, 28, that would be perfect. > > Four extra hours in a day, but about twelve fewer years in a life. Are > you sure? When I freewheel I still need only 7-8 hour sleep. I am sure. In 20 active hours/day I could accomplish 25% more in my life. Or enjoy things I like doing for 25% longer. I wouldn't care about the number of years, if I could have 25% more awake time in life. pjk
From: PaulJK on 26 Feb 2010 02:31
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> writes: > >> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: >> >>> >>> Interestingly, Labour Day [in Australia] is all over the calendar: >>> >>> Mar. 7th Western Australia >>> Mar. 8th Victoria >>> May 3rd Queensland >>> Oct. 4th ACT, NSW, SA >>> >>> I don't see it listed for the Tasmanian sites (Launceston and Hobart) >>> >> The original form of this holiday was called "eight hour day". (I think >> it's still called that in Tasmania.) I'm not sure when it became a >> public holiday in Australia, but I think it was well before the custom >> of using May Day as a celebration of workers' rights. Because Australia >> already had an Eight Hour Day, May Day never became a public holiday the >> way it did in most other countries. > > Ah, that's where Tasmania went. Launceston gets "Eight Hour Day" on > March 8th and Hobart gets "Eight Hours Day" the same day. Or, at > least, those dates are listed, though they don't have "Company > Holiday" in the text. > > Others that aren't flagged as company holidays are Australia Day, > Royal Regatta Day, Launceston Cup Day, Canberra Day (ACT), Good > Friday, Easter Tuesday (in Hobart), Foundation Day (WA), Queen's > Birthday (June 14th except in WA where it's September 27th), Bank > Holiday (NSW), Royal National Show Day (Qld), Family & Community Day > (ACT), Royal Launceston Show, Royal Hobart Show, Melbourne Cup Day, > and Proclamation Day (SA). (I may have missed a couple.) I have no > idea whether any or all of them are paid holidays. When I lived in Toorak, Melbourne Cup Day was definitely a paid state holiday. pjk >> That's part of the explanation of why it's not celebrated on the >> traditional Labour Day (1st May). The other part of the explanation is >> that public holidays are controlled by the states, and the different >> states have shown no urge to move towards a more uniform system. |