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: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 09:29 On Feb 25, 2:52 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 24, 4:28 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> I was just skimming through, but these screaming capitals > >> stopped me dead in my tracks. I reached into my legal files and > >> pulled out my "Geburts- und Taufschein / Rodný a kÅestnà list", > >> (Birth and Christening certificate). > > >> Under "Religion / NáboženstvÃ" is pre-printed "römisch-katholische / > >> ÅÃmsko-katolické". > > >> It's not in English but it is clearly stated in two different languages. > >> What could be a clearer example of self-designation. > > > That sounds like it was issued by the Czechoslovak government, > > Oh common :-), how could any Czechoslovak government ever > issue a bilingual birth certificates in German and Czech? > > As the certificate says on the top: the government at that time was > "Protectorat Böhmen und Mähren / Protektorát Äechy a Morava". > > > which > > assumed that there were no Protestants -- let alone any Jews -- born > > within its borders? (A church wouldn't be in a position to issue a > > birth certificate, would it?) I.e., not a _self_-designation. > > That is exactly what it is, a birth certificate issued by RC church, > as it says "Gegeben vom Dekanal-Pfarr-Amte in xxxx am xxxx" > (Pfarr crossed out) > > You will have to suspend your disbelieve. The Catholic birth/christening > certificates were indeed issued by the church during the baptism. > I only guess the civil government registry was updated behind the > scene. There is an official stamp affixed with a registration number. > That, I guess, confirms the registration in the government files. How do all those pastors know when and where the baby was born? Do they just take the mother's (or parents') word for it? > I know the various protestant churches who are also quite large > had their own certificates. I don't know if some people belonging > to various other religions had to go to a civil office to register > the births of their children. > > I believe the births were registered this way in all countries > of the old Austrian empire even after she was no more. > Perhaps it was then done the same way in Germany. Biographies of notables up to maybe the middle of the 19th century rarely know the birthdates of their subjects, but only the baptismal dates -- which are usually assumed to be a week or so later. > BTW, there was a certain stigma associated with having > a government birth certificate. A the government certificates > did not state any such detail, it was often taken to mean that > the child or any of the parents were born out of wedlock. > The church certificates record in great details marital statuses > of parents and grandparents, their names, religions, birthdays, > addresses, jobs and professions as well as the names, > addresses and professions of godfathers, godmathers, and > doctors present at the delivery. So, why didn't the government birth certificates record what would seem to be detalis useful to the governments? > Certificates like that are real gold mines for people > researching the genetical family trees. But not for birth dates. > > -- Does that mean Rimsky-Korsakov('s family) was Catholic? > > Could that be originally an old Greek Orthodox family from Lebanon? > :-) What does Korsakov indicate?
From: J. Clarke on 26 Feb 2010 09:15 On 2/26/2010 9:02 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > PaulJK wrote: >> 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. > > I used to solve my really pesky problems by dreaming the solution, > or workaround. Sleeping is useful. Damn I envy you. When I remember dreams they're seldom of anything useful.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 09:33 On Feb 25, 1:29 pm, Adam Funk <a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: > On 2010-02-24, sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > On Feb 24, 5:29 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> "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. > > "archaeoastronomy" No, that's speculation about the alignments of Stonehenge or the Nasca figures or whatever. Which is different from the sort of _recorded_ observations made from at least the early first millennium BCE in Mesopotamia (and from some point in China) down to the time of Tycho Brahe, on the basis of nothing but whose naked-eye observations, Kepler worked out the theory of elliptical planetary orbits.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 09:36 On Feb 25, 1:24 pm, Adam Funk <a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: > On 2010-02-25, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > On Feb 24, 3:22 pm, Hatunen <hatu...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > >> <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >> >On Feb 23, 8:07 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating > >> >> a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. > > >> >What would you be indexing? Books, for instance, don't have a p. 0. > > >> That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers > >> include zero. > > > No, it doesn't; books don't have a p. 0. > > Lots of books are printed without showing the page numbers on the > first page of each chapter, but those unprinted numbers are still in > the sequence. So page 0 is just the copyright page or whatever else > is facing page 1. No, the page before p. 1 is the last roman-numbered page of the front matter (always an even number, of course). If a book doesn't have roman-numbered front matter, so that the first visible page number is 7 or greater, if you count the unnumbered pages back, you'll find that the recto of the first leaf after the endpaper (which it has if it's a hardcover) is p. 1.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 09:43
On Feb 26, 1:40 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: > 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. Eh? You take "Pacific states" -- in the context of time zones -- to include New Zealand?? Washington, Oregon, and California are in the same time zone as Vancouver -- and we have already had testimony that NBC is showing the same delayed coverage there as it is here in Eastern Time. > 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. There are a lot more than 13 hr of activities going on each day. NBC claims that with their set of five networks (four of them cable), they broadcast _everything_. |