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 17:29 "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim(a)verizon.net> writes: > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. "Which is why"? What astronomically-significant date more than 2010 years in the past did you have in mind for which an error of one year would be considered significant by astronomers? Other, I guess than recorded astronomical observations and predictions by people back then, but I'd expect them to use "BC" when talking about them. What do they used when such precision is required? -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |And the wildest dreams of Kew 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | are the facts of Khatmandhu, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |And the crimes of Clapham | chaste in Martaban. kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Rudyard Kipling http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: Evan Kirshenbaum on 24 Feb 2010 17:42 Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> writes: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Feb 23, 8:07�pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> 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. > > That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers > include zero. If they don't, how do you express the cardinality of the empty set? -- Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is error alone which needs the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |support of government. Truth can Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stand by itself. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
From: sjdevnull on 24 Feb 2010 17:45 On Feb 24, 5:29 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > > But there was no Year 0. 1 BCE was immediately followed by 1 CE. > > > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. > > "Which is why"? What astronomically-significant date more than 2010 > years in the past did you have in mind for which an error of one year > would be considered significant by astronomers? Other, I guess than > recorded astronomical observations and predictions by people back > then, but I'd expect them to use "BC" when talking about them. What > do they used when such precision is required? It's not uncommon to make tables of historic astronomical events. They might be used purely for statistical analysis, or they may be helpful for trying to determine "what's the comet-shaped thing carved in the sky on this obelisk" or whatever. FWIW, http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/dates.html says: The "astronomical" dating system refers to an alternative method of numbering years. It includes the year "0" and eliminates the need for any prefixes or suffixes by attributing the arithmetic sign to the date. Thus, the astronomical date for 2000 CE is simply +2000 or 2000. The astronomical year 0 corresponds to the year 1 BCE, while the astronomical year -1 corresponds to 2 BCE. In general, any given year "x BCE" becomes "-(x-1)" in the astronomical year numbering system. Historians should take care to note the numerical difference of one year between "BCE" dates and astronomical dates.
From: R H Draney on 24 Feb 2010 17:50 Evan Kirshenbaum filted: > >"Skitt" <skitt99(a)comcast.net> writes: > >> You're being robbed. At Lockheed, when I was still working, we got >> an average of 13 paid holidays per year. Most of them were the days >> between Christmas and New Year's (inclusive, of course). >> >> The others were Memorial Day, Independence Day (and the adjacent day >> if there was only one day between ID and a weekend), Labor Day, and >> Thanksgiving Day and the Friday after it. >> >> The days off at Christmas time varied in number, as there was usually >> an extra day or two thrown in, depending on what day of the week the >> actual holidays fell. >> >> A long time ago, we didn't get the time off between Christmas and New >> Year's. Then the company realized that no one did any actual work >> during that period and decided to institute the holiday schedule I >> described above. Everyone liked that, and the company saved a lot of >> money, practically shutting down all the plants. > >They did the same thing for us starting a few years ago, except they >said "We're closing. You *will* take vacation. If you don't have >enough vacation you can borrow against next year's". So essentially, >you can look at it as having taken several days of vacation away from >everybody in exchange for an equivalent number of holiday days. >(Unless you leave before the end of the year, of course, in which >case they have to pay you for those "holidays".) We used to get nine holidays (New Years, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas), plus four "floaters" and some number of vacation days based on seniority...around 1985 they took away Columbus Day and added MLK...a few years after that they did away with the separate categories and just handed out a fixed number of "PTO" (paid time off) days that could be used whenever we scheduled them, which meant that you could get stuck working Christmas Day if you'd taken off too many days earlier in the year, or if everyone else in your department had already requested it and a manager decided that "coverage" was required.... Before everything got lumped into a single category, the important distinction was that they had to pay you for any unused vacation days if you left before the end of the year; holidays (including floaters) were simply forfeited...one year, to simplify the bookkeeping, I changed my initial request for some days off from one category to the other, prompting a series of visits from managers afraid I was getting ready to jump ship....r -- "Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly." - Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
From: Hatunen on 24 Feb 2010 17:57
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:42:02 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: >Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net> writes: > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:15:35 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" >> <grammatim(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>On Feb 23, 8:07�pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >> That comes down to the question of whether the cardinal numbers >> include zero. > >If they don't, how do you express the cardinality of the empty set? That's been a mathematical know for some time, and comes down to how you define a cardinal number (which may not be quite the same as the contemporary concept of cardinality post Cantor.) I amke no claim to understand it all. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |