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 25 Feb 2010 00:18 On Feb 24, 3:43 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...(a)csuohio.edu> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 24, 10:04 am, Evan Kirshenbaum > > <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > [...] > > >> What's "reportage" is the "I've heard it commented". > >> If Dave, living in Arizona, has heard it told about > >> Indians, then that's the tale he's reporting having > >> heard. And the choice of ethnicity is an interesting > >> part of the tale, giving insight into the attitudes of > >> those who tell it (as distinct from those who merely > >> report having heard it). > > So ... that Dave has a prejudice concerning American > > Indians is something he thought we all should know? > > No. It's an asinine unjustified inference on your part. So you think that telling racist, or sexist, or whatever, jokes doesn't reveal the teller's attitude toward the group mocked? Or is it that you have no problem with mocking groups? Or with negative attitude toward groups?
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 00:26 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? One very practical thing astronomers do is calculate the dates of eclipses, which are tremendously useful in determining the absolute dating of annals that mention eclipses. Look at any treatment of ancient chronologies.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 00:27 On Feb 24, 5:45 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Or, "What is the absolute date of the eclipse meticulously recorded and described in this astronomical cuneiform tablet?" > FWIW,http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/dates.htmlsays: > > 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: Peter T. Daniels on 25 Feb 2010 00:31 On Feb 24, 6:02 pm, Mensanator <mensana...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 1:41 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 11:59 am, Tak To <ta...(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > But there was no Year 0. > > Yes there was. 0 CE preceeded 1 CE. The concept of zero was unknown to Dionysius Exiguus (or to anyone else) when he devised the system. > > 1 BCE > > Is a different number system. > > > was immediately followed by 1 CE. > > No, it was immediately followed by 0 BCE, then -1 BCE, -2 BCE, etc. What do you mean by "was followed by"? > > Which is why astronomers don't use BCE dates. > > Duh. What they use is -2 CE, -1 CE, 0 CE, 1 CE, 2 CE, etc.- ??????????????? Where "1 CE" = "-1 BCE" ??????????
From: Joachim Pense on 25 Feb 2010 00:41
Hatunen (in sci.lang): > 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. > Indexing is about _ordinal_ numbers. Joachim -- My favourite # 83: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwbzpU9SRN4> My favourite # 47: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKDAbp9m5yw> |