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: Brian M. Scott on 7 Mar 2010 18:12 On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:56:23 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote in <news:IU.D20100305.T155636.P9584.Q0(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> in sci.math,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >>> (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) >> Because there's no need for a word to contrast with "descent" with a >> special meaning. > There is, of course, a word "descension", and has been for some > centuries, making the above rationale for its non-existence somewhat > amusing. Oy! Denizens of sci.astro! Wakey wakey! This is (in part) > your technical terminology. But that's the wrong descension. Brian
From: Jared on 7 Mar 2010 22:13 On Mar 5, 10:56 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard- newsgro...(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: > >> (Why isn't there a word 'decension'?) > > > Because there's no need for a word to contrast with "descent" with a > > special meaning. > > There is, of course, a word "descension", and has been for some > centuries, making the above rationale for its non-existence somewhat > amusing. Oy! Denizens of sci.astro! Wakey wakey! This is (in part) > your technical terminology. I misread this as 'declension'.
From: PaulJK on 8 Mar 2010 03:39 Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:41:54 +0000, Jonathan de Boyne > Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote in > <news:IU.D20100305.T154207.P9507.Q2(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> > in sci.math,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > > >>> Having 13 months, in addition, would screw up a bunch of things ; in >>> particular, 13 can't be divided. > >> Of course it can be. It's evenly divisible by 13 and by 1. It's also >> (not evenly) divisible by any non-zero real number that you care to >> think of, and also by numbers that you can only imagine. > > I just thought of 6.5 ... > Brian And that ought to be fine even for the Pythagorians amongst us. pjk
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 5 Mar 2010 10:23 > >>> >>> But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. >>> >> Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. >> > The concept of zero was unknown to Dionysius Exiguus (or to anyone > else) when he devised the system. > Dionysius Exiguus didn't devise any year system named "CE". (Pop quiz: What were the initials of the name of the system that Dionysius Exiguus did invent?) It's humbling to see that Usenet in 2010 has yet to progress beyond where Notes and Queries was in 1864.
From: Jonathan de Boyne Pollard on 5 Mar 2010 13:43
> > > Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics > to the linguists. > It'll never get finished at that rate. |