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: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 10:39 Cheryl <cperkins(a)mun.ca> writes: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> On Feb 24, 6:40 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: >>> 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? > >> "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 had assumed it was United Church of Christ, also a denomination, and one you see in the US. Wikipedia has an article on "United and Uniting Churches" which lists these. the United Methodist Church, and several others around the world (although many don't have "United" in their names, even in translation). -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 10:47 Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > >> 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? > > Under the definition that they consider themselves Christians, that > they worship Jesus as divine, and that they use the New Testament as a > holy book. Under what definition (other than one that says that you > have to accept the Nicean Creed--hence my "begging the question") are > they not? I'd heard a long time ago from a non-Mormon who had lived in Utah that at one time, Mormons didn't consider themselves Christian, and it was only fairly recently that they had started doing so. A quick Google turned up a LOT of debate on the subject, mostly concerned with the traditional Christian teachings that the Mormons don't hold, and Mormon ones that most Christians don't hold, but one started with "Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations, which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong ... all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19). " http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/are_mormons_christian.htm Surely in all these groups there must be a Mormon who can inform us whether Mormons have or presently do consider themselves Christians. -- Cheryl
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 10:53 Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> writes: > Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net>: >>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? You don't have to get up with the chickens, do you? But I believe that the main objection was that people had to spend money on light in the evening when there were hours of daylight just going to waste before they got up. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 11:12 Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> writes: > Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com>: >>You can define the week any way you want, but the historical >>seven-day week begins on Sunday. > > Not everywhere. I'd say that the *historical* seven-day week began on Sunday. Or are there modern seven-day weeks that don't go back to the Jewish "on the seventh day he rested" week? Wikipedia lists a whole bunch of weeks of different lengths, ranging from three days to thirteen days (the Romans used eight, the Chinese ten), but the seven-day weeks all appear to have been borrowed (ultimately) from the same source. -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There's been so much ado already 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that any further ado would be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |excessive. | Lori Karkosky kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Tak To on 24 Feb 2010 11:59
Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 23, 8:07 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Ant�nio Marques wrote: >>>>> 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! >> Indeed, indexing is not the same thing as counting. If I were creating >> a non-computer _indexing_ system, I would start from 0 as well. > > What would you be indexing? Books, for instance, don't have a p. 0. OTOH, indexing years starting with Year 0 makes a lot of sense. Tak -- ----------------------------------------------------------------+----- Tak To takto(a)alum.mit.eduxx --------------------------------------------------------------------^^ [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr |