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: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 08:14 jmfbahciv wrote: > Michael Press wrote: >> 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. >> > February is the longest month. I thought US had President's Day in > February now. > > /BAH But I'm in Canada, so we don't celebrate President's Day at all, whenever it comes. I'd make do with a 'mid-February Holiday' in honour of nothing in particular if I could be guaranteed a break in that dreary month. I suppose we could adopt Valentine's Day as a public holiday. -- Cheryl
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Feb 2010 08:29 Mike Barnes wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net>: >> 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. > > Here those extreme sunrise times would be 3:40 and 9:20. I can see the > objection to 9:20, but what's the objection to 3:40? > The objections to 03:40 I've heard is grumbling about hearing birdsong; these grumblers were all city slickers. /BAH
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 08:32 On Feb 24, 8:14 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: > > Michael Press wrote: > >> In article <7ufdetFoc...(a)mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> > >> wrote: > > >> [...] > > >>> But we still lack a February holiday, unless we have a big enough > >>> snowstorm. > > >> February is the cruelest month. > > > February is the longest month. I thought US had President's Day in > > February now. > > > /BAH > > But I'm in Canada, so we don't celebrate President's Day at all, > whenever it comes. I'd make do with a 'mid-February Holiday' in honour > of nothing in particular if I could be guaranteed a break in that dreary > month. We used to have Lincoln's Birthday on Feb 12 and Washington's Birthday on Feb 22. A while ago, they were rolled into one movable feast. > I suppose we could adopt Valentine's Day as a public holiday. A holiday in honor of a single industry? What's significant about Mr (formerly St) Valentine?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 08:33 On Feb 24, 2:48 am, James Hogg <Jas.H...(a)gOUTmail.com> wrote: > Andrew Usher 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 people"? As in, "Have your people get in touch with my people!" Them math or physics guys must live pretty high on the hog.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 08:36
On Feb 24, 3:09 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > > On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Ant nio Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > > without the _filioque_.) > > Assuming that you're not begging the question, no. Mormons don't. I > don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses do. I see claims that Seventh-Day > Adventists accept the original (325) Nicene Creed but not the revised > (381) version. I'm not sure about Christian Scientists. And I would > be surprised if there weren't a number of churches (minor, but more > mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't > actually use it. Er, under what definition of "Christian" are Mormons Christians? Same for the other two aberrant American movements you mentioned. As for the Adventists (also an aberrant American movement, but less so), what are the "original" vs. "revised" versions? |