The perpetual calendar [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 23 Feb 2010 11:37

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:47:50 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote in
<news:f7fabd1d-91cc-413d-96ca-38c1f6ba3d09(a)f8g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

> 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"?

I did. So? 'Morning' covers rather a lot, and the fact
remains that at the time of day that kids are going to
school, DST doesn't necessarily make a great deal of
difference in the amount of daylight.

From: Brian M. Scott on 23 Feb 2010 11:40

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:19:21 +1300, PaulJK
<paul.kriha(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote in
<news:hlvvbr$50g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> 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 would prefer if every 24 hour day was made longer by one
> hour, i.e. 25 hours long. [...]

I'm not sure that 25 hours would be quite long enough.

Brian

From: sjdevnull on 23 Feb 2010 11:54

On Feb 23, 9:36 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On 2/23/2010 8:39 AM, sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 6:19 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> >> Dunno about the rest of the world, but in the US court-ordered busing
> >> has most kids riding the bus to school anyway
>
> > Court-ordered busing never affected a substantial fraction of US
> > school children (it peaked at below 5%, IIRC) and since 1980 or so has
> > been very limited. Post-2000, it's headed toward extinction.
>
> In what jurisdiction has it been discontinued?

Most of them.

See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/11/us/by-court-order-busing-ends-where-it-began.html?pagewanted=1
"CHARLOTTE, N.C., Sept. 10 The school system that pioneered busing
for desegregation three decades ago was ordered today to halt the
program by a Federal judge who ruled that forced integration was no
longer necessary because all vestiges of intentional discrimination
had disappeared."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-52114978.html
"DAYTON, Ohio (AP) _ A federal judge lifted a desegregation order
Monday after the city agreed to spend at least $30 million to improve
public schools, ending more than 25 years of cross-town busing
designed to achieve racial balance in the schools."
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/views/y/1999/03/delaney.busing.mar18/
"Court-ordered busing ended in Boston in 1987."

Feel free to Google more.

From: Brian M. Scott on 23 Feb 2010 11:56

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:16:59 +0000, Ant�nio Marques
<antonioprm(a)sapo.pt> wrote in
<news:hm0kgg$548$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 11:39):

>> On 2010-02-23, Andrew Usher wrote:

>>>>> The Catholic Church has stated, I believe more than
>>>>> once (it's linked to somewhere in this thread) that
>>>>> fixing Easter to a particular week would be
>>>>> acceptable.

>> ("Catholic" is a commonly used but imprecise abbreviation
>> of "Roman Catholic".)

>>> 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.

>> The "Roman Catholic Church", the "Old Catholic Church",
>> and the "Polish National Catholic Church" are
>> independent of each other.

>> The "Eastern Catholic Churches" are under papal authority
>> but I don't think they describe themselves as "Roman
>> Catholic".

> Gad, not again! You're trolling, aren't you?

> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION.
> ANYWHERE.

It and RC are, however, widely used popular designations.

> In the tradition from which the Roman and the Greek
> Churches come, the Church has no splitting qualifiers.

But this isn't really relevant outside that tradition.

[...]

> From the Church's point of view, there aren't multiple
> churches.

But from an external point of view there very obviously are.

[...]

> When someone mentions 'catholics', it's not to eastern
> orthodox, old or polish catholics that they are refering
> to.

I have personally heard counterexamples to this assertion,
though I grant that they are rare.

[...]

> but it *is* accurate to say that the ECC are 'non-Latin
> CC', even if it's somewhat unwieldy.

Which in a widely used popular terminology becomes 'Catholic
but not Roman Catholic'.

Brian

From: Yusuf B Gursey on 23 Feb 2010 12:15

On Feb 23, 10:22 am, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 15:01):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 7:26 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote:
> >> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17):
>
> >>> speaking of Eastern Churches, Easter is more important in Eastern
> >>> Churches. significantly, modern Turkish borrows "Easter" from Greek
> >>> (Paskalya) and "Christmass" from French (Noel).
>
> >> What you certainly mean is that the Middle East isn't as dechristianised as
> >> the US.
>
> >>> also Monophysite Churches (Armenian Orthodox, Jacobite Syrian, Coptic)
> >>> reject Dec. 25 as the date of Christmass.
>
> >> It's miaphysite!
>
> > no, it's Monophysite (Mono, from one, Christ having only a divine
> > nature).
>
> No, it's miaphysite! (Mia, united)
> Christ having only a divine nature (monophysitism) is a heresy to all of
> Latins, Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites, Copts and Assyrians.
>
> >> Again, the date of Christmas isn't religiously significant, other than being
> >> at that time of the year. The fact that different churches use different
> >> dates doesn't mean they are in disagreement (as your 'reject' implies), any
>
> > IIRC they considered Dec. 25 as having pagan implications.
>
> Only the Armenians use a different date, does that mean that the Copts, who
> they are in communion with, are under pagan influence? Either way, it's not

OK, maybe it's just the Armenians and the Copts just due to calendar,
but the Armenians did object (better word?) to Dec. 25. I know very
well in Turkey two different Christmas greetings (it's not a holiday
there) are issued by government.

> a religiously signfiicant matter, just a convention.
>
>
>
> >> more than having different feast days for the same saint.
> >> The only religiously significant dates are those of the moveabe cycle. Over
> >> which there isn't much disagreement other than what calendar to use.

> - Show quoted text -