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 09:02 On Feb 24, 4:49 am, "benli...(a)ihug.co.nz" <benli...(a)ihug.co.nz> wrote: > On Feb 24, 11:43 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...(a)bluebottle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Brian M. Scott <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu>: > > > >On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:11 -0800, Skitt > > ><skit...(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 > > Discussion on sci.lang during the Beijing Olympics: > > Ross in New Zealand: > > > > We are 4 hours later than China. During the games we were getting live > > > coverage from noon to 2am, i.e. 8am to 10pm Beijing time. > > Peter in NY: > > > I think you're earlier, because your 8:00 was 4 hours before their > > 8:00. > > Ross: > We are earlier in arriving at a given time, but on the other hand, if > you ask "What time is it?", it is four hours later here than there. > > Peter: > > > Surely you can't say that NY is 12 hr earlier than China? We're > > _behind_ them, you're _ahead_ of them. > > etc.- It's really annoying this year -- Vancouver is only three hours ahead of us (i.e., they've already had their morning events by the time it's morning here), so lots of what NBC is showing us on tape could easily have been done live. (The first night of figure skating had the magic notation "Live," but it disappeared since -- presumably so they can do time compression and eliminate the waits between performance and score, and between performances. They even broke in the other day to show the last minute of the US-Canada hockey game, which was being shown live on MSNBC for those with cable, instead of their prepared piece on the day's [yawn] two-man bobsledding.) Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do? -- I will never forget what the BBC did to the 1992 World Series. See the archive for a description, several times. --
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 09:19 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 24, 6:40 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: >> 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. > > Do these "small towns" even _have_ a popish parish? Sometimes, yes, although more commonly if they're THAT small, they'd have one or the other - some version of Protestant or Roman Catholic. My home province has close to 40% of the population reporting themselves in surveys as Roman Catholics, so even thought they're not entirely evenly sprinkled over the entire area, there are lots of small towns that are or are part of a Roman Catholic parish. Nowadays, they usually have to share a priest with several other small towns, but they still have their church. > "United" means exactly that -- it's not a denomination, but a bunch of > congregations that got together in order to survive at all despite the > organization of their individual hierarchies. Baptists and > Presbyterians are probably the easiest to assimilate to each other (no > clerical hierarchy), then Methodists (whose "bishops" don't claim the > apostolic succession of the Episcopalians and Catholics). So in a > really big and socially stratified small village, you might find a > Protestant church, an Episcopal one (that's the US term for the > Anglican Communion, which more and more seems as though it soon won't > be one), and a Catholic one. Ummm - in Canada, 'United Church' is a separate denomination, founded by Methodists, Presbyterians, and two other groups I tend to forget. http://www.united-church.ca/ Congregationalists. I thought there was a fourth (Church of Christ), but apparently not. Some Presbyterians remained independent - there are two Presbyterian churches in my city - but the United Church must be the largest and most mainstream of the Protestant churches in Canada. I was thoroughly confused for a time when I first encountered 'Unitarian ', as in 'Unitarian Universalism' and assumed that it was the same as the United Church. > When we went on vacation during the school year I had to bring > evidence of "church attendance" in order not to get penalized for > missing Sunday School. The one I most remember was the Church of the > Presidents, an Episcopal church very close to both the White House and > our hotel (which was still the one presidents would occasionally turn > up at, although that practice has recently become quite a burden on > whichever church would be involved). Thus a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian > congregation wasn't particularly particular in the 1950s/60s. Particular enough to require proof of attendance, though! The only person who insisted I attend Sunday School at all was my mother, and I became so bored with it that I did a deal with her - I didn't have to go to Sunday School, and I wouldn't complain at all about attending the regular services, which at that time were in traditional language with no special children's talk or any other accommodation for children. I still think I got by far the better part of that deal, although it did leave me with a fondness for Victorian hymns. -- Cheryl
From: Tak To on 24 Feb 2010 09:53 António Marques wrote: > Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 17:03): >> On Feb 23, 10:01 am, Yusuf B Gursey<y...(a)theworld.com> wrote: >>> On Feb 23, 7:26 am, António Marques<antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: >>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote (23-02-2010 11:17): >>>>> 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). >> >> OK. Miaphysite is the term the Churches themselves use, but the other >> Churches characterise them as Monophysites, as does most of the scholarly >> historical literature. > > Nowadays only when being ignorant (in which case such literature probably > isn't the best source of knowledge) or deliberately offensive. It is not clear that "monophysite" [I prefer lowercase] is offensive. But then, I am not a member of any of the non- Calcedon churches. As you yourself have noted, the difference between "Monophysite" and "Miaphysite" is more political than philosophical. Miaphysitism has no common doctrine regarding how the two natures of Christ are reconciled/combined, or how it differs from the "hypostatic union" model of the Chatholics (Calcedon). Thus, from a philosophical point of view, Miaphylitism is just a blanket name of monophysitic formulation(s) that have not explicitly condemned. The post- Calcedon emergence of Monothelitism was a testament to the unresolved issues between the dyophylitic nature of the Catholics and the monophylitic nature of non-Calcedons. (More below). Actually, for many members of the non-Calcedon churches, not only they are monophylites, the Catholics have been monophylites all along, just using different words! > To be clear: the 3rd-4th century church met a serious christological > problem. First some said Christ had two independent, orthogonal natures > ('Nestorianism'). That was considered heretical. Then some went to the > opposite and said Christ had only one nature (monophysitism). That was > considered heretical as well. Orthodoxy always maintained that Christ > had two natures, 'united but not confused'. 'Miaphysitism' is orthodox; > in fact, the Roman or the Greek church are just as miaphysite. Perhaps, but they are formally dyophysitic (as is Nestorianism) though with "hypostatic union". To be exact: Nestorianism: 1 person (Gr prosopon), 2 hypostases, 2 natures (Gr physis) Catholicism (Calcedon): 1 person, 1 hypostasis, 2 natures Miaphysitism: 1 person, 1 hypostasis, 1 "composite?" nature Monophysitism: 1 person, 1 hypostasis, 1 nature (Of course, it was the Catholics who defined what "hypostasis" mean.) There are three main varieties of Monophysitism: Eutychianism: human nature dissolved into divine nature Apollinarism: human soul with divine mind/spirit (Gr logos/nous) Monotheletism: the 2 natures act with 1 will (Gr thelein) and through 1 action (Gr energeia/operatio). Nestorianism was declared heretic at Ephesus (431 CE); Eutychianism at Calcedon (451) and Apollinarism acutally as early as 377. Monotheletism appeared at a later time but was eventually condemned in 680. All the christological debates were word games in a sense, with the victors defining previous vague words to have concrete meanings. > actual reasons for schism were political, as ever: > > - First, the Assyrian Church was connotated with Nestorius, though it > never actually followed the heretical parts of Nestorius's doctrine. > More importantly, the ACE belonged to Persia and India afterwards, so > contact was broken off by simple geographic distance. > > - Later on, the Copts et al were connotated with monophysitism, though > they never actually were monophysites. More importantly, Alexandria and > other peripherial parts of the Eastern Empire resented the dominance of > the Greeks. > > Orthodoxy is wider than it may seem. Nestorianism and monophysitism are > in fact unorthodox, but within orthodoxy it's possible to put the > emphasis on different sides of the question. In fact, Nestorianism was > orthodox in intent, if not in formulation, and miaphysitism is merely a > reaction against Nestorianism. Not wholly dissimilarly, the filioque > clause was first inserted into the Creed in Hispania not because of any > wish to distort orthodoxy but as an orthodox clarification against > Arianism. One needs to know the historical background and intent before > knowing how to interpret such things. > > Of course, not all people in all sides necessarily knew/know their own > doctrine. There's a thing called the 'us v. them' mentality. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto(a)alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
From: tony cooper on 24 Feb 2010 09:56 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:24:18 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> 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. As far as I can tell, the only employers that are closed on President's Day are government offices, schools, and banks. To the rest of the working stiffs, President's Day is just another work-day...a busier work-day for retail employees, in fact. For some reason, retailers think that I will be in the market for a new refrigerator, set of pillow cases, or an automobile in honor of President James J. Polk. Newspapers benefit from President's Day from all of the full-page sale advertisements. My son was shopping for new tires and found that a local tire store, that normally offers a 25% discount on purchase of four tires, had a President's Day sale offering of four tires for the price of three. Was P.T. Barnum ever President? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chuck Riggs on 24 Feb 2010 09:59
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:54:36 -0800, "Skitt" <skitt99(a)comcast.net> wrote: >Brian M. Scott wrote: >> Skitt wrote: >>> 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 is a strange way to look at it with regard to time. What happens to >the "spring forward" and "fall back" reminder? It gets reversed for the >people of that persuasion? Reciting that mnemonic, I've noticed, is one of the few times an Irish person has any use for the AmE word, fall. -- Regards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE |