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: Adam Funk on 24 Feb 2010 06:04 On 2010-02-23, R H Draney wrote: > Adam Funk filted: >> >>On 2010-02-22, R H Draney wrote: >> >>> (Comments are denoted by the "lamp" character, made by overstriking "jot" and >>> "up-shoe")....r >> >>As an emacs user, I'm not going to mock someone else's mnemnonics. > > (Not as long as the word "hexlify" appears in the standard command set, you're > not....) Thanks for the tip. I wasn't familiar with that command, and from now on it will save me the trouble having to drop out to hexedit (not very often, I admit). -- Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about its friends.
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 06:28 António Marques wrote: > Hatunen wrote (23-02-2010 22:47): > >> I believe that a great many of the churches which once split away >> from the church of Rome considered themselves the true catholic >> chuch. >> >> Certainly the Anglicans do. The Anglican covenant says, >> >> "(1.1.1) its communion in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic >> Church, worshipping the one true God, Father, Son, and Holy >> Spirit." > > Of course they do. But when it comes to self-identify, only one church > on this planet consistenty refers to itself simply as 'the Catholic > Church' (it also uses other names, namely 'the Church', and where > pragmatism requires 'the Roman Catholic Church' - but the 'Roman' adds > nothing, unlike 'Old' or 'Polish National' - the RC doesn't see any > added value in Roman, it doesn't contribute to the meaning with anything > that wasn't there before). > > Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal > ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as a > central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian > Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. The Anglicans did and do. There may have been that little disagreement with the Pope a few hundred years ago, but that doesn't mean we aren't part of the universal church, and haven't been preaching the fact from that day to this. I found it very confusing as a child that I was supposed to say every Sunday that I belonged to the catholic church, when I knew that the Catholic church was the one down the road some of my friends went to, so I asked about it and had it explained to me that we were part of the 'small-c catholic', meaning world-wide, universal church. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the other Protestant churches also had the conviction that their bit of the universal church also had a universal vocation. But I agree with you that in common speech, at least in parts of the world where there are lots of Roman Catholics, people tend to refer to the 'Catholic church' and mean the 'Roman Catholic church'. There are, or have been within living memory, Anglicans who invariably use 'Roman Catholic Church' to refer to the followers of the Pope in Rome, because they (the Anglicans) refer to themselves as members of a Catholic church, and to use the term for the RCs was confusing. As I said, in my childhood, I wasn't taught this; but I was taught to distinguish the two groups with a capital or lower-case 'C'. -- Cheryl
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 06:40 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> Adam Funk wrote: >>> 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 won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever >> seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the >> architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or >> long-winded way of saying Mary). > > Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or > so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? I think that's probably the key - the size and/or homogeneity of the location. I associate signs saying "St. So-and-So's Roman Catholic Church" with Toronto, which is a big enough and heterogeneous enough that it's a pretty good bet a good proportion of the population doesn't know which church is which. On the other hand, even in quite small towns, I've seen signs like "TownName United Church" or "St. So-and-So's Anglican Church", so that can't be the entire explanation. One of my families' old stories is about the time that my father's very devout uncle came to visit him in his new home, a small town with something like 4 or 5 churches serving various denominations. My father knew that although none of them were Methodist (the denomination to which his uncle, and, nominally at least, my father belonged) but that one of them was pretty close theologically. It took him about three tries to hit the right one - eliminating some, such as the Salvation Army and the Roman Catholic one by cues from the architecture. Fortunately, his uncle had a great sense of humour and no illusions about my father's religious practices. -- Cheryl
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Feb 2010 07:53 António Marques wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote (23-02-2010 12:28): >> 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? > > It's a matter of stupid perspective. Since the array's position is the > 'first', the 'first' element's position is the array's ('first') plus 0. > First plus 0 = first! How do you find the second if the data is stored from the bottom up; how do you find the second if the data is stored from the top down. How do you find the nth? Subtract one from your index register? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Feb 2010 07:54
sjdevnull(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. Why are you assuming that kids don't use busses? Just because the courts have recused themselves out of this business does not imply that those kids now walk to school. /BAH |