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: Robert Bannister on 27 Feb 2010 19:52 DKleinecke wrote: > On Feb 26, 5:12 pm, Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> On Feb 26, 6:08 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp(a)retep> wrote: >>> jmfbahciv wrote: >>>> I used to solve my really pesky problems by dreaming the solution, >>>> or workaround. Sleeping is useful. >>> There once was a time when I was struggling with difficult theoretical >>> problems, and I would wake up in the middle of the night with solutions, >>> or at least with important insights. Once the morning arrived, I would >>> recall getting the insights, but couldn't remember what they were. >>> To fix the problem I put a notepad and pen beside my bed, and went to >>> bed with the firm resolve to write down any ideas I got in the night. It >>> worked: I woke up with yet another brilliant idea, and spent some time >>> writing down all the details. >> My subconscience was not, in fact, >> dreaming up useful ideas. I wasn't missing anything by not writing >> them down. > > I generally put myself to sleep by working on one or another kind of > intellectual task - writing a paper or solving a problem. I find it > very soporific. > > While I am dozing off I will jerk back from my line of thought to > something resembling a waking state and generally discover that I have > instantly forgotten the chain of thought. The relatively few times I > do remember something have convinced me I have lost nothing > worthwhile. My subconscious or whatever is guiding me deals, it seems, > entirely in nonsense. My first computer at the beginning of the 80s used to spend up to 4 minutes "cleaning up" every couple of days. I figure that is what dreams are about: wiping unused variables, erasing unnecessary data, having one last check before erasure on the dirty pictures... -- Rob Bannister
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 00:27 On Feb 27, 6:07 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Jerry Friedman wrote: > > On Feb 26, 5:31 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > >> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > >>> Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> writes: > >>>> Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal > >>>>> and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > >>>> Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even > >>>> wanted a church. > >>> And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock > >>> I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail > >>> against it. [Matt. 16:18, KJV] > >> As I said in another post, what word is used for "church" and what did > >> it mean at the time? I somehow doubt it meant bricks and mortar and > >> costly raiment. > > > I don't understand statements such as "Christ founded one Church," but > > I'm pretty sure it's not about bricks or mortar or ever gargoyles. > > > -- > > Jerry Friedman > > Although the "gates of hell" bit takes the reader straight back to > buildings and possibly even gargoyles. I have difficulties anyway in > understanding the image of gates prevailing. Metonymy?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 28 Feb 2010 00:30 On Feb 27, 4:58 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote in > <news:02dc31c7-bbee-4dd6-8c8f-f915da3acdab(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> > in > sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > > On Feb 27, 1:40 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >> Until you offer a definition of "Christian" with an > >> explanation and evidence as to why it's superior to > >> those generally accepted by lexicographers, there's not > >> really much left to discuss.- > > Again I point out, as a linguist, that lexicographers have > > no special handle on truth, especially as concerns > > technical terminology. > > But 'Christian' is very far from being exclusively a > technical term. When it concerns Christians' official definitions of what constitutes a Christian, it certainly is.
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 01:30 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > 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 křestní list", >>>> (Birth and Christening certificate). >> >>>> Under "Religion / Náboženství" is pre-printed "römisch-katholische / >>>> římsko-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 Čechy 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? Mother's, father's, godfather's, godmather's, all present relatives' and family friends', most of whom were well known to the pastor, who assumes that they would never lie, especially not on the holy ground. There is also a name of the delivering surgeon who I suppose produced some certification. I expect the surgeon to be a reasonably reliable witness. The christening took place seven days after my birth. Are you suggesting that some (often disinterested) government official would have more reliable sources of detail of the birth? Be it as it may, this all somewhat irrelevant. This is a follow up to the earlier post from some nutcase who was screaming: <quote> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE <unquote> The fact is that my birth certificate is an official document issued by the Roman Catholic Church in which they do exactly that. >> 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, mid 19th century and earlier is before the time I was thinking about, that is decades before 1918 and decades after. You are right, I have no paternal ancestors' birth dates from earlier centuries, just dates of baptism, death/burrial, and civil records of farming estate being nominally sold from the father to his son or daughter. >> 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? To me, it doesn't immediately indicate anything obvious. If I had to guess, I'd say it could be derivation of користный = mercenary, selfish? Roman-Mercenary? Corsica? pjk
From: PaulJK on 28 Feb 2010 01:42
Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 26, 1:40 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: [...] >>> 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?? Whoops, sorry, I didn't realise that by "Pacific states" you meant "US Pacific states". > 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. Of course, it's more than 13 hrs. I only described what one free-to-air terrestrial digital channel does over here. > NBC > claims that with their set of five networks (four of them cable), they > broadcast _everything_. |