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 23 Feb 2010 07:36 On Feb 23, 7:09 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Mike Barnes wrote: > > Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com>: > > >'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective > > >(the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. > > > That's a matter of perception rather than fact. Most people's perception > > is different from yours, I suspect. > > Mine is based on logic. One declines like a noun, not a pronoun, and > is clearly identical to the number one, which is a noun (adjective), > not a pronoun. It's already been noted that this thread is widely crossposted. Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics to the linguists.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 07:42 On Feb 23, 7:04 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > > "The Catholic Church" (which refers to no specific organization) > > > > hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a millennium. > > > > '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. > > > One doesn't "include the East." One has to wonder what knowledge you > > have of the Eastern churches. > > The word 'Christendom', which you used, would normally be taken to > include the Eastern Orthodox. One wonders why you wouldn't. They are among the many churches for which the Roman Catholic Church (which may have been what you meant by "the Catholic Church"?) does not speak. > > Are you by any chance one of those crackpots who want the Mass > > peformed in Latin, who think Jesus decreed that clergy be celibate, > > and the congeries of heterodox beliefs that go along with those two? > > I don't believe in Jesus. But if I did, I might well be one of those, > as religion if it were true could not be suffered to modernise in the > way you leftists want. If you're not even a Christian, why the hell are you structuring your calendar around the Roman Catholic church?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 07:43 On Feb 23, 7:13 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Only by people who don't know what they're talking about.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 07:46 On Feb 23, 7:10 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Mike Barnes wrote: > > Wrong. It's not believing that the first day of the week is a Sunday > > that makes you a crank. > > > What makes you a crank is writing that it's an incontrovertible fact. > > Isn't that a tautology though? If one believes something, one believes > it to be true. Is it the word "fact" or the word "believe" that you don't understand? ("Incontrovertible" is just window-dressing.)
From: Peter T. Daniels on 23 Feb 2010 07:47
On Feb 23, 12:52 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:32:03 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <gramma...(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. > > I hadn't noticed that DST would make much difference to that > in many of the places that I've lived. Who was it said "I couldn't care less how dark it is in the morning"? |