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 24 Feb 2010 01:56 On Feb 23, 8:40 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > 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. > > I have as much ability to analyse language as any of your people! Your ignorance is very impressive. I don't know whether you come from sci.physics or sci.math, but would you accept someone's assertion who claimed they had as much ability to do math or to do physics as do you with your (presumed) training in the field?
From: Mike Barnes on 23 Feb 2010 17:43 Brian M. Scott <b.scott(a)csuohio.edu>: >On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:11 -0800, Skitt ><skitt99(a)comcast.net> wrote in ><news:hm18ef$9gh$1(a)news.albasani.net> in >sci.math,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.lang,alt.usage.english: > >> Brian M. Scott wrote: >>> Skitt wrote: >>>> PaulJK wrote: > >>>>> We invented DST to set clocks back one hour in summer > >>>> forward > >>> That's the usual terminology, at least in the U.S., but it >>> does depends on one's point of view. > >> Deciding whether a clock runs forward or backward, you mean? > >No. When you push the time from (say) 10 to 11, you can see >this as pushing it away from you, just as you might push an >opponent back. When you let it go from 11 to 10, you're >then letting it approach you, i.e., come forward. That's true only before the event. Afterwards, going from 11 to 10 is receding. But I have some sympathy with your confusion. I get totally confused when someone describes a time zone as being "ahead of" or "behind" another. It can be either, depending on one's viewpoint. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 02:03 On Feb 23, 6:53 pm, António Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 20:35): > > On Feb 23, 8:44 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote (23-02-2010 12:42): > >>> 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. > > >> It's just that that's what he was saying. That the CC "hasn't spoken for all > >> of Christendom" for "longer than half a millennium". > > > That was I that said that. Count chevrons very carefully when deleting > > attributions. > > You said "hasn't spoken for all of Christendom for nearly half a > millennium". Usher said "longer than half a millennium". Ah. Your first quote was me, your second quote was him. I was thinking of Martin Luther. Presumably he was thinking of the Great Schism a century earlier. > >> You pretend not to know what "The Catholic Church" refers to, yet your > >> answer is built on equating it with a certain church currently led by one > >> Benedict XVI.- > > > It is Usher who said "'The Church' refers to exactly one > > organisation" (complete with the quaint British spelling). > > Well, I certainly wonder why he included that 'The Church' bit. > Maybe he's one of those persons who have come to admire the RC while not > necessarily believing a thing the RC says?- Note that he subsequently denied being a Christian at all.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 02:04 On Feb 23, 7:21 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > 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. > > Non sequitur. > > > > > 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? > > 1. There's no other equally universal set of reference points. > 2. Why does what I personally believe have to do with what's the best > calendar? It means you base "the best calendar" on what you consider no basis at all. Is that reasonable?
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 02:04
Ant�nio Marques <entonio(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Feb 24, 4:30�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> Ant�nio Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> writes: >> > Adam Funk wrote (23-02-2010 20:02): >> >> On 2010-02-23, Ant�nio 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>.) No. I used quotation marks to indicate that I was quoting. You, in this case. > >> 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. These documents indicate that the institutions in question have official legal names that include the phrase "Roman Catholic". That is, it is their official self-designation, their legal name. The thing that you doubted was true and that you asserted wasn't the case. Anywhere. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Specifically, I'd like to debate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |whether cannibalism ought to be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |grounds for leniency in murder, |since it's less wasteful. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |