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: jimp on 23 Feb 2010 23:35

In sci.physics Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>
>> It's not a matter of true or false. The start of the week is a
>> perception, not a fact. Different people have different perceptions. If
>> you appear not to recognise this, you risk being thought a crank.
>
> You can define the week any way you want, but the historical seven-day
> week begins on Sunday.

In some cultures, not all.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

From: António Marques on 24 Feb 2010 00:02

On Feb 24, 4:30 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> writes:
> > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02):
> >> On 2010-02-23, António Marques wrote:
>
> >>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE.
>
> >> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s
> >> Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs,
> >> newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I
> >> think this is common in much of the USA too.)
>
> > I doubt that that's their legal name where they have one.
>
> On what basis? If it's the name they put on their sign and on their
> web site, why would you assume that their "official" or "legal" name
> is something else?

Based on all sorts of instances where that happens. Duh.

(Your keyboard may be damaged. It inserted <"official"> and <"legal">
wehere you meant <official> and <legal>.)

> Would it give you any doubt if I were to point you to, say the
> articles of incorporation for "Our Mother of Sorrows Roman Catholic
> Parish - Tuscon":
>
> http://www.omosparish.org/DOT-ArtIncorp.pdf
>
> or the official latest annual financial report of "the Roman Catholic
> Dicoese of Brooklyn, NY":
>
> http://dioceseofbrooklyn.org/FinancialReport.aspx
> <URL:http://dioceseofbrooklyn.org/uploadedFiles/
> About_The_Diocese_and_Our_Parishes/Diocesan_Administration/
> Finance/AR%208-31-09%20Central%20Funds%20.pdf>

Those documents indicate that the RC sometimes refers to itself as
'Roman Catholic'. Maybe you missed it, but I did mention that in my
original text (the one introduced by the very first sentences in this
message). The fact that you sometimes refer to yourself using some
name doesn't mean that that name is among your self-designations. The
fact that you travel often to some town doesn't make it your home.

From: Transfer Principle on 24 Feb 2010 00:14

On Feb 23, 5:33 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > 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.
> It depends where you live and what time school starts and finishes in
> your area. To get to school by 8 or 8:15 am, some country kids need to
> be on the school bus by 7. Now, when daylight saving was first
> introduced, it only covered the summer months, but then they had to
> tamper with it, so that by the end of the period now, 7 am is before
> sunrise.

Somehow, the original thread, which was about a proposed
calendar reform, has branched off into several discussions,
including this one on Daylight Saving Time.

Here's the original purpose of DST. In certain higher
latitudes (including most of the UK), the length of the
daylight at the summer solstice was around 16 hours. With
the period of daylight centered at noon GMT, this would make
the sun rise at around 4AM, before most people awake. And
so we set the clock forward in the spring. The reason we set
it back in autumn is because if we didn't, the sun wouldn't
rise at the winter solstice until around 9AM, after most
people need to be at work or school.

In other words, the only way to avoid _both_ objectionable
sunrise times (4AM and 9AM) is to have a biannual clock shift.

Some people oppose the biannual clock shift. Obviously, such
people (who live in higher latitudes) don't mind having a
four-hour swing in sunrise times. This group can be divided
into those who prefer that the clock be set back all year
(Year Round Standard Time) and those who prefer that the
clock be set forward all year (Year Round DST). In general,
those who have young children prefer Year Round Standard
Time in order to avoid the 9AM winter sunrises that would
affect schoolchildren the most. Those who don't have children
often prefer Year Round DST because such adults seldom have
reason to wake up as early as 4AM.

In other words, a biannual clock shift might have been
unnecessary if we didn't have two different age groups with
differing waketimes and bedtimes.

As for myself, I'm of two minds on this issue. On one hand,
what's wrong with having a biannual clock shift so that the
hours of daylight actually match the hours I'm awake? On the
other, the clock shift does cause some inconvenience -- in
particular, earlier today I referred to a post that someone
wrote on February 2nd at 11:20PM local (California) time, and
so in order to address a worldwide Usenet audience, I chose
to convert this to 3rd February, 7:20AM GMT. But under DST, I
don't know whether to add seven or eight hours to my time. So
the clock shift causes an inconvenience in converting times
(especially since different countries switch at different
times in the year).

So officially I'll remain neutral and not actively contribute
to either side of the discussion. I probably have a slight
bias towards anti-clock shift because I live in California,
which being closer to the equator than Europe, has only about
a two- rather than four-hour swing in sunrise times. Also, I
don't have children, so my biases are probably:

1. Year Round DST
2. Biannual Clock Shift
3. Year Round Standard Time

but as I said, I won't actively support or defend either side
in the current discussion.

Bringing this subthread back on topic (namely, to the Usher
calendar reform proposal), notice that the current date to
set the clocks forward to DST is exactly four weeks before
Usher Easter. One may choose to set the clocks back exactly
18 days before Usher Thanksgiving -- this would put the date
in the November 2nd-8th range, which is only slightly off the
current date to fall back. Thus the DST start and end dates
fit the Usher calendar fairly well.

From: Brian M. Scott on 24 Feb 2010 00:41

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:48:16 -0800 (PST), Ant�nio Marques
<entonio(a)gmail.com> wrote in
<news:09ad53f7-db78-4c13-9164-3e14eb4d79ed(a)d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
in
sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

> On Feb 24, 4:41�am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote:

>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:02:19 -0800 (PST), Ant nio Marques
>> <ento...(a)gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:0c8b6c0c-594b-4407-9470-66ba79413e47(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
>> in
>> sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

>>> On Feb 24, 12:19 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote:

>>>> Ant nio Marques wrote:

>>>>> Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02):

>>>>>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote:

>>>> [...]

>>>>>>> From the Church's point of view, there aren't
>>>>>>> multiple churches. There's only one. To say that
>>>>>>> there is more than one church is heresy. It's not a
>>>>>>> matter of wishing to be the only one, it's a
>>>>>>> religious matter. The multiplicity of churches is
>>>>>>> anathema and downright sin.

>>>>>> Well, they would say that, wouldn't they...

>>>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is
>>>>> universal and Christ did found one Church, or it isn't.

>>>> It's by no means clear that the historical figure actually
>>>> founded *any* church, but even supposing that he did,
>>>> there's no reason to think that its message is universal.

>>> What, is it restricted to some specific culture(s)? Not
>>> applicable to other(s)?

>> Applicability is in the mind of the recipient, not a matter
>> of fact, so it obviously isn't universally applicable.

> What, so now universal health care isn't universal either?

Universal availability is not the same as universal
applicability.

> Besides which, the point is completely moot - did you read
> my 'Either...'?

Of course. It has no bearing on the point that I was
originally making, which is that contrary to the implication
of your either-or statement, there is no apparent connection
between 'Christ's message is universal' and 'Christ did
found one Church'.

>>>>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is like
>>>>> endorsing the idea of apartheid.

>>>> Hardly; it's more a matter of 'whatever floats your boat'.

>>> You're not listening.
>>> To endorse the idea of multiple churches is precisely like
>>> endorsing the idea of apartheid.

>> I heard you the first time. �I think that the assertion is
>> utter nonsense, at best.

> You don't even know what I meant by it. [...]

Quite possibly not. I *do*, however, know what it says.

Brian

From: Michael Press on 24 Feb 2010 01:21

In article <7ufdetFoc1U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperkins(a)mun.ca>
wrote:

[...]

> But we still lack a February holiday, unless we have a big enough snowstorm.

February is the cruelest month.

--
Michael Press