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 19 Feb 2010 12:44 On Feb 19, 12:40 pm, Zhang Dawei <fe...(a)sibianzhe.com> wrote: > António Marques wrote: > > How can you even *think* that is the case?? How can you even > > *notice* the holidays shown are US-specific? Obviously the US > > holidays are there to illustrate how it works, not to be used > > universally. Likewise the numerals and month names. Sheesh. Antonio, you forgot the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> delimiters. (Usually, "even" and "*...*" and "Obviously" would suffice, but evidently not here.) > I can simply think it is the case because the website gives no > indication at all that the holidays are there *merely* as an > illustration, and the way it is described suggests a definite proposal > of those dates (as well as the other holidays taken from a limited > selection of other countries) to be holidays. Furthermore, given the > lack of appreciation from some of the world's geography, it is not > unreasonable to suppose that one should take what is proposed in that > website at face-value. If they were there *merely* as an illustration, > then that should have been made clearly known. So, it is not obvious > at all, and your complaint that I have somehow been deficient in not > engaging in mind-reading here is unwarranted. > > In fact, there should be no country-specific holidays shown at all if > the intent is to try to persuade as many people as possible, from as > many countries as possible, round to thinking this kind of calendar is > a good thing. Instead, a better tactical move would be to always use > generic names, holidays, and so on (like the "Mid-Quarter days"), with > a note stating that additional holidays could be added, according to > each country's requirements. > > So, it remains a failure if its intent is merely to illustrate the > concept because it fails to explicitly say that it is just an > illustration, and it fails to mention the country-specific > customizations of the holidays explicitly. Furthermore, if the overall > aim is persuade people from different countries round to accepting the > concept, the above slip ups are compounded into a tactical error > brought about by this by seeming to insist on just a small limited > number of specified country's holidays, which will not persuade people > from different countries to accept the proposals.
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 19 Feb 2010 12:49 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > On Feb 19, 11:52�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: >> >> > On Feb 19, 4:34 am, James Hogg <Jas.H...(a)gOUTmail.com> wrote: >> >> My Book of Common Prayer makes things easy by pointing out that >> >> "the moon referred to in the definition of Easter Day is not the >> >> actual moon of the heavens, but the Calendar Moon, or Moon of >> >> the Lunar Cycle, which is counted as full on its fourteenth day, >> >> reckoned from the day of the Calendar New Moon inclusive." Also, >> >> in a Bissextile Year "the number of Sundays after Epiphany will >> >> be the same, as if Easter Day had fallen one day later than it >> >> really does." >> >> > Which is why Easter and Passover rarely coincide -- we happen to >> > have had a spate of coincidence in recent years, but that'll soon >> > be over. >> >> Which years were those? �I had thought that the current Easter >> rules made it impossible for it to fall on the 15th of Nissan. > > I think it was two years ago that the first night of Passover was on > Holy Thursday (or vice versa), which precisely reproduced the > historical occasion. Oh, that's what you meant. I though that you were talking about Passover and Easter actually occurring on the same day. But if Holy Thursday is taken to run from midnight to midnight (rather than sundown to sundown), I don't think that that's possible, since the Hebrew calendar doesn't let Pesach fall on a Friday (with the seder on the preceding Thursday night). Of course, it also prohibits it from falling on a Monday, so a seder is never on a Sunday night. > Why would the "current" Easter rules have such a restriction? > There's certainly nothing about it in the several pages of small > type in the front of the Book of Common Prayer (1928), which I read > plenty of times while waiting for Morning Prayer to end. My admittedly fuzzy memory was that one of the Nicean councils had taken that as one of its constraints when setting up the rules that the two never coincide. The Wikipedia page on the First Council of Nicea says that I was wrong, but says it explicitly: Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan 15 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover") in the Hebrew calendar. which implies that it must be a common misconception. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way? Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be | a hero, you've got to do kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in (650)857-7572 | a while. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Halmyre on 19 Feb 2010 12:52 On 19 Feb, 09:12, John Atkinson <johna...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > Halmyre wrote: > > On 19 Feb, 04:58, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:65e2a2e7-1aef-4872-97a7-360fa6a10a6a(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > >>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > >>> and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I > >>> say the following: > >>> 1. That Christmas day should be fixed to a Sunday, and this should be > >>> the Sunday between Dec. 21 and 27, and that in all civilised countries > >>> the Monday should be considered a holiday, or the Saturday if not > >>> normally. > >>> 2. That similarly Easter day should be fixed to the Sunday which is 15 > >>> weeks following Christmas. > >>> 3. That the leap year rule be changed to have a leap year occur every > >>> fourth save that it be delayed when the leap year would start on a > >>> Thursday, and that this gives 7 leap years in every 29, which is near > >>> enough. > >>> 4. That the perpetual calendar can be made, by considering the first > >>> day of the year of weeks to occur on the Sunday after the Assumption, > >>> and if this is the first possible calendar day, it is called week 1, > >>> and otherwise week 2, and every year runs through week 53. And this > >>> calendar ensures that everything can be fixed to a day of a certain > >>> week, in particular the American Thanksgiving must be made 31 days > >>> before Christmas. > >>> 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, > >>> without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days > >>> inherited from the Romans. > >>> Andrew Usher > >> The calendar has several sources, not just the Rome and the onewe habe in > >> fine as it is > > > I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. > > But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as > well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you suggesting that we > only take holidays at Easter every four years or so, when your settled > date just happens to correspond with the right lunar phase? > We don't have Christmas only when there's a bright star in the east. It's like saying "I was born on a Wednesday, so I'll only celebrate my birthday when it falls on a Wednesday". -- Halmyre
From: Cheryl on 19 Feb 2010 13:02 Halmyre wrote: > On 19 Feb, 09:12, John Atkinson <johna...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> Halmyre wrote: >>> On 19 Feb, 04:58, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:65e2a2e7-1aef-4872-97a7-360fa6a10a6a(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>>>> Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, >>>>> and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I >>>>> say the following: >>>>> 1. That Christmas day should be fixed to a Sunday, and this should be >>>>> the Sunday between Dec. 21 and 27, and that in all civilised countries >>>>> the Monday should be considered a holiday, or the Saturday if not >>>>> normally. >>>>> 2. That similarly Easter day should be fixed to the Sunday which is 15 >>>>> weeks following Christmas. >>>>> 3. That the leap year rule be changed to have a leap year occur every >>>>> fourth save that it be delayed when the leap year would start on a >>>>> Thursday, and that this gives 7 leap years in every 29, which is near >>>>> enough. >>>>> 4. That the perpetual calendar can be made, by considering the first >>>>> day of the year of weeks to occur on the Sunday after the Assumption, >>>>> and if this is the first possible calendar day, it is called week 1, >>>>> and otherwise week 2, and every year runs through week 53. And this >>>>> calendar ensures that everything can be fixed to a day of a certain >>>>> week, in particular the American Thanksgiving must be made 31 days >>>>> before Christmas. >>>>> 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, >>>>> without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days >>>>> inherited from the Romans. >>>>> Andrew Usher >>>> The calendar has several sources, not just the Rome and the onewe habe in >>>> fine as it is >>> I just wish they'd settle on a date for Easter and be done with it. >> But, the whole point of Easter is that it has a full moon! You might as >> well scrap the whole thing otherwise. Or are you suggesting that we >> only take holidays at Easter every four years or so, when your �settled� >> date just happens to correspond with the right lunar phase? >> > > We don't have Christmas only when there's a bright star in the east. > > It's like saying "I was born on a Wednesday, so I'll only celebrate my > birthday when it falls on a Wednesday". > > -- > Halmyre I suppose it all comes down to how much predictability each person likes. Some people like all their holidays to come at the same time each year, and others are happy to put up with Easter, for example, coming late some years because other years it comes nice and early, which makes a much-needed break in a long winter. I never did consider Easter to be necessarily a spring holiday, myself. Of course, people living in places where they already have public holidays in all three of the dreary months of January, February and March wouldn't greet an early Easter with as much enthusiasm as I do. And I know Easter doesn't occur in January or February, but they seem much longer than they are when Easter comes in the latter part of April; and slightly shorter than they are when I have a March Easter to look forward to. I want an official long holiday weekend in every single month, no exceptions. -- Cheryl
From: JimboCat on 19 Feb 2010 13:08
On Feb 18, 11:13 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Owing to the inconveniences which attend the shifting of the calendar, > and attempting in passing to create a more perfect Church calendar, I > say the following: [snip] > 6. This is surely the best possible arrangement that can be made, > without disturbing the cycle of weeks or that of calendar days > inherited from the Romans. Nonsense! JRR Tolkien's creation of the "Shire Reckoning" is clearly the ultimate in rationality and convenience for a perpetual calendar. The year is divided into twelve months of thirty days each, with five additional days to make up a full 365-day year; six additional days in leap years. The additional days are not part of any week or month, so any date always falls on the same day of the week. And, of course, these additional days are always holidays, accompanied by festive eating and drinking in what my generation tends still to call "mass quantities". I didn't find a really good explanation of the system in a quick google search. Read the Appendix to JRRT's /The Lord of the Rings/ for the complete low-down. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- My adversary's argument is not alone malevolent but ignorant to boot. He hasn't even got the sense to state his so-called evidence in terms I can refute. - Piet Hein, /The Untenable Argument/ |