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: Andrew Usher on 23 Feb 2010 07:13 Adam Funk wrote: > > 'The Catholic Church' or simply 'The Church' refers to exactly one > > organisation. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, it's been > > longer than half a millennium if one includes the East. > > The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church", and the > "Polish National Catholic Church" are independent of each other. Yes, but only one is called outside of itself _the_ Catholic Church. Andrew Usher
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2010 07:28 Andrew Usher wrote: > Joachim Pense wrote: > >>>>>> But 0 is the start of computer indexing - at least in real programs. 0 >>>>>> = Sunday. >>>>> Ahem. In low level, pointer oriented languages such as C and its >>>>> family. And those who chose to imitate it. >>>> But not in the first language I used when working for a living (COBOL). >>>> >>> Nor FORTRAN DO statements. Most people start at 1. You can also >>> write an off-by-1 bug in loops depending on whether you start the loop >>> with 0 or 1. >>> >> Neither Pascal. > > 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. > You always count items starting with 0? /BAH
From: António Marques on 23 Feb 2010 07:15 PaulJK wrote (23-02-2010 07:49): > Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:32:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in >> <news:ad442cf6-ce22-4ffe-b05b-786b865fb3fc(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> >> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> On Feb 22, 10:55 pm, "Brian M. Scott" >>> <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> I can't imagine why you think that I'd change my mind. As >>>> far as I'm concerned, DST has no disadvantages at any time >>>> of year in any climate at any latitude. In winter at higher >>>> latitudes its advantages are minimal, but it still has no >>>> disadvantages. I couldn't care less how dark it is in the >>>> morning; it's in the afternoon and evening that I want the >>>> benefit of as much daylight as possible. >> >>> The point is that the kiddies shouldn't go off to school >>> in the dark. > > But how is DST helping kids not to go to school in the dark? > > We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer > because in summer it's bright earlier. > In summer kids go to school an hour earlier but in winter > they go to school at the time they always used to go. It's not DST that is supposed to keep the kids awake, it's Nightdarkness Wasting Time. Without NWT, they'd go to school one hour earlier during Winter. Of course, it doesn't work. Kids shouldn't have to be up before 10. > pjk > >> I hadn't noticed that DST would make much difference to that >> in many of the places that I've lived. >> >> Brian
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2010 07:30 Andrew Usher wrote: > Transfer Principle wrote: > >>>> Just use a 364-day year with a leap week. What's troublesome about that? >> I never thought about it that way, but come to think of it, >> the calendar that Usher describes really is a "leap week" >> calendar in disguise. > > It could be understood as a leap week calendar that retains the > traditional months and dates, yes. > >> To answer the question, "what's >> troublesome about that?" it must be emphasized that the >> more changes there are to the standard calendar, the less >> likely it would actually be implemented. Of course, it's >> unlikely that any calendar change would be implemented at >> all, but still, slight changes to the current leap year >> rule are more likely to be implemented than changing to a >> full leap week calendar. More radical changes, such as >> switching to 13-month years, are even less likely to be >> implemented than either type of calendar. > > That's what I thought. My adjustments retain all the familiarity with > the calendar that people have now, excepting the date of Christmas. > >> As I mentioned earlier, the Usher calendar contains three >> leap weeks every 17 years. > > I have revised my rule (see my other reply to you) to 22 leap weeks > every 124 years. This gives 365.2419 days/year, which is perfect. I > intentionally want the year to be a bit short, keeping the calendar > accurate for a longer time, as due to the Earth's slowing rotation the > year loses 0.0001 day every one or two millennia. > How are you going to calculate interest? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Feb 2010 07:34
Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 22, 10:55 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:37:43 +0800, Robert Bannister >> <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote in >> <news:7ugpr7Fll6U1(a)mid.individual.net> in >> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: >> >>> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>>> R H Draney wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> If you want a crank, find the person who came up with >>>>> Daylight Saving Time.... >>>>> Then find his successor who decided that DST should apply >>>>> for more of the year than "Standard" time....r >>>> I like DST; my only objection is that we don't have it all >>>> year round. >>> I think you should go and live in Inverness until you >>> change your mind. >> I can't imagine why you think that I'd change my mind. As >> far as I'm concerned, DST has no disadvantages at any time >> of year in any climate at any latitude. In winter at higher >> latitudes its advantages are minimal, but it still has no >> disadvantages. I couldn't care less how dark it is in the >> morning; it's in the afternoon and evening that I want the >> benefit of as much daylight as possible. > > The point is that the kiddies shouldn't go off to school in the dark. They do anyway if you live on the western side of a time zone. It's an old reason which is no longer valid. Kids take buses or are driven by parents; most don't walk to school anymore. /BAH |