|
Re: June-September season
On 2009 Jun 23, at 19:58 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: I have posted a specific definition for the fixed version of the calendar that I propose. And I have posted several definitions for alternative nonfixed versions of it.
I specified how I'd place the calendar with respect to dates in our old calendar. I described the positioning of the beginning of North with respect to old-calendar June 1. My rules for that referred to the solar ecliptic longitude that was the center of the cyclical drift of June 1, in the 2004-2008 leapyear cycle.
I've posted all that, and it shouldn't be necessary to post it again. Likewise, I've posted complete definitions of the fixed version, and several nonfixed versions, including the one that Karl suggested, with calendar seasons beginning on June 1, October 1, December 1, and April 1 of our current old calendar. My rule for positioning with respect to June 1 is unchanged.
I have not seen clear rules posted by you, but OK, if you think that what you posted is sufficient to carry out calendrical calculations and date conversions, then try implementing, validating, and evaluating the necessary functions. I expect you will find that your specifications are actually too vague to carry out any such calculations.
-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
|
|
Re: June-September season
Dear Mike, Irv and Calendar People
Mike posted a lot of things. He can not expect calendar people to look
through his numerous posts to find the one with the calendar rules. I
suggest he tells us which specific post this is. If the calendar
definitions are in several posts. It'll be worth putting them all
together concisely in one appropriately titled post.
I also take the attitude that if the calendar is not simple enough to
post again and again, it's not simple enough for a calendar reform.
Irv is particularly interested in the rules that specify which day each
new year occurs. This includes any leap year rule.
Mike has completely specified one calendar in this note. It is the
Gregorian Calendar with seasons beginning on April 1, June 1, October 1
and December 1.
Mike has also specified a calendar with seasons of 17 weeks and 9 weeks
with a 17-week season beginning about 1 June. I don't know the other
rules of this suggestion. However, you can get such a calendar by taking
Irv's Symmetry454 Calendar and having seasons begin on April 1, June 1,
October 1 and December 1.
I don't think Mike cares much about which leap year rule is used. It
only needs to be simple and accurate.
Karl
10(10(01
-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto: CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
Sent: 24 June 2009 00:59
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: June-September season
Irv wrote:
> Yep, I'm totally confused as to what Mike wants his calendar to do. It
seems to be a design without rules.
I reply:
I have posted a specific definition for the fixed version of the
calendar that I propose. And I have posted several definitions for
alternative nonfixed versions of it.
I specified how I'd place the calendar with respect to dates in our old
calendar. I described the positioning of the beginning of North with
respect to old-calendar June 1. My rules for that referred to the solar
ecliptic longitude that was the center of the cyclical drift of June 1,
in the 2004-2008 leapyear cycle.
I've posted all that, and it shouldn't be necessary to post it again.
Likewise, I've posted complete definitions of the fixed version, and
several nonfixed versions, including the one that Karl suggested, with
calendar seasons beginning on June 1, October 1, December 1, and April 1
of our current old calendar. My rule for positioning with respect to
June 1 is unchanged.
Any specific questions or objections
Mike Ossipoff
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing(tm) now
http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try_bing_1x1
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: Middle vs. Start RE: June-September season
Dear Mike and Calendar People
MIKE SAID (first quoting me):
That argument does not work unless you state that the summer solstice is
in the middle (of an zero time-lag season).
I reply:
But the summer solstice is definitely in the middle of the time of high
declinations and those high declinations are what causes summer and what
summer follows.
KARL SAYS:
I don't disagree with that, but one cannot take it for granted that this
is what is meant by zero time lag summer. You need state (or at least
refer to) everything you rely upon in an argument.
Karl
10(10(02
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: June-September season
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Irv--
You wrote:
I have not seen clear rules posted by you
I reply:
Of course it's easy to say that, and it's easy for you to keep repeating it. My answer hasn't changed. It's a two-part answer:
1. I'm not going to repeat everything for you. I refer you to my previous postings.
2. Tell me what you think I failed to specify. What question do you think that I left unanswered? Tell me, and I'll answer it.
....I can't answer you if you don't have a question. I can't help you if you can't say what you mean.
You know, it's too easy to just keep repeating that I haven't fully specified my proposals. The fact that (though I asked you to) you have failed to say what I didn't specify, what I left out, what question I left unanswered suggests that you can't support your claim. It really goes without saying that any claim that I've left something out should be supported by a statement from you about what I've left out.
Yes, you could have forgotten. Then re-read the postings; you'll find the answers to your questions. Otherwise, as I said, you're welcome to tell me what you think I left out, what you think I didn't specify about my proposals. I didn't post clear rules? Rules about what in particular? I'd say that it is you who are being vague and failing to tell us what you mean.
I thoroughly described a month system for my fixed proposal, and several alternative month systems for nonfixed versions. I specified that I'd keep the Gregorian leapyear system for the unfixed versions. I described when I'd apply a leapweek for the fixed version. I described that in lengthy detail. If you didn't understand some part of my wording, then you're welcome to tell me what, in particular, you didn't understand.
Maybe you're confused because I posted about a number of alternative nonfixed versions, closely-related and similar, but not the same as eachother. But I made clear the distinctions between them, describing each one separately.
Look, Irv, you certainly have a right not to read what I posted, but that isn't my fault. Your not reading the proposals is one thing, and their being incomplete is another thing. The fact that you seem unable to say what remains to be specified suggests that it's the former.
It isn't enough to say that you "suspect" that my specifications are too vague. If they're vague, then you'd be able to point to something that remains unspecified.
You want date conversions? How about for today? Today is "Gregorian" June 24th. In all of my nonfixed proposals for an unequal-seasons terrestrial-seasonal calendar, today is SummerI/24. The 24th day of the month called SummerI. As I've said, for any applications involving both the north and south hemispheres, I'd call this month NorthI instead of SummerI.
The seasonal year division "Summer" (or "North") is divided into four months, in both the fixed and nonfixed versions. I've discussed at length all of the month systems that I propose for those versions.
As for my fixed proposal, though I described when I'd use a leapweek, it's true that I haven't yet said how Summer1/1 would be initially positioned, in the new calendar's first year of use, with respect to "Gregorian" June 1. So let me say it now: I suggest that the simplest rule would be that, in the new calendar's first year of use, Summer1/1 should coincide with "Gregorian" June 1. That initial date-match would be plausible and would make sense to people, to whom the calendar is new.
One thing that I'd like to change in my fixed calendar proposal: My specificication of when I'd use a leapweek made reference to the 2004-2008 Gregorian leapyear cycle. But the trouble with that is that the adoption of a new calendar could be a long way off. So it would be better to specify that, for the purpose of the leapweek rule that I described in that earlier posting, the Gregorian leapyear cycle referred to should be the one containing the calendar's first year of use.
I admit that maybe you genuinely don't understand, or forgot, my proposals. That that is entirely possible is suggested by your (continuing?) belief that the time-displacement between two seasonal periods should be measured by the duration between the middle of one and the beginning of the other, and by your apparent failure to ounderstand that that is an assumption.
Alternatively, saying "I don't understand your proposal", or "You haven't specified your proposal" can be just a cheap trick, a rhetorical strategy to argue against something when you don't have a specific argument. That, of course would be thoroughly dishonest. And so I want to emphasize that I'm not accusing you of thorough dishonesty--maybe you really don't understand, or forgot, or didn't bother to read, my postings about my proposals, and my answers to your questions.
In a way it doesn't matter which of those two explanations is the correct one. Either way, my answer is the same: I refer you to my previous postings. And, because it would be unreasonable to make a blanket request for me to repeat everything, you're invited to tell me what you think that I didn't specify, what "rule" I left out.
Mike Ossipoff
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
|
|
Re: June-September season
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Karl, Irv and Calendar People,
Karl, you wrote:
> Mike posted a lot of things. He can not expect calendar people to look > through his numerous posts to find the one with the calendar rules. I > suggest he tells us which specific post this is. If the calendar > definitions are in several posts. It'll be worth putting them all > together concisely in one appropriately titled post. > I also take the attitude that if the calendar is not simple enough to > post again and again, it's not simple enough for a calendar reform.
Ok, fair enough--it would be better, for any acceptance that I'd like my proposals to have, for them to all be included in one appropriately-titled posting. I can't deny that.
The reason why the proposals are in a number of postings is because I've proposed a number of different nonfixed proposals for an unequal-seasons terrestrial seasonal calendar.
So: Yes I should post one concise posting containing the complete details of all my proposals, the proposals that I've previously described in separate postings. But the fact that, largely due to wanting to keep the length of my postings down, I've posted the proposals separately, isn't enough to justify Irv's claim that my proposals aren't complete, unless he can say what it is that I've failed to specify.
Short answer: Yes, I'll definitly post all the proposals, complete, in one posting, appropriately-titled.
> Mike has completely specified one calendar in this note. It is the > Gregorian Calendar with seasons beginning on April 1, June 1, October 1 > and December 1.
> Mike has also specified a calendar with seasons of 17 weeks and 9 weeks > with a 17-week season beginning about 1 June. I don't know the other > rules of this suggestion.
I reply:
They'll all be posted together along with the specifications for my other proposals too.
But let me say a few words here: My rule for when I'd apply a leapweek was rather wordy, which is sometimes needed for clarity and precision. It goes without saying (from what I've said above) that I'll re-post it in that one posting that includes all my proposals. In my posting before this one, I specified that, instead of the 2004-2006 Gregorian leapyear cycle being the one referred to, in my leapweek rule, it would be better to instead refer to the Gregorian leapyear cycle that contains the new calendar's first year of use.
In the fixed calendar's first year of use, I specify that the first day of Summer coincide with "Gregorian" June 1.
The leapweek rule, which determines the calendar's positioning in the year measured by solar-ecliptic-longitude is as I described it (and will describe it again in the larger posting). That rule is about the relation of the first day of Summer to "Gregorian" June 1.
So, the fixed calendar's month system, its leapyear system, and the initial date-match (in the calendar's 1st year of use) have been specified and will be posted in my upcoming longer comprehensive posting.
You continued:
However, you can get such a calendar by taking > Irv's Symmetry454 Calendar
I reply:
Yes, if the 5-week and 4-week months can be arranged so that they nearly alternate, or more-or-less alternate, than that's something to be considered. The other way I like would be, for simplicity, to just start each seasonal year-division with a 5-week month. That, additionally, would give 5 weeks to the month containing the Christmas holiday and the winter solstice.
You continued:
and having seasons begin on April 1, June 1, > October 1 and December 1.
I reply:
My nonfixed proposals have Summer beginning on June 1, and Winter beginning on December 1. I have to admit that I haven't checked on whether Spring and Autumn can also being on April 1 and October 1, but of course I would certainly like for that to be possible. It's something that I'll check as soon as I send this posting.
But, for the fixed calendar, with its leapweeks, the cyclical drift will be different from, and greater than, that of the Gregorian leapyear system. So it won't be possible to always maintain any particular exact correspondence of fixed calendar dates and "Gregorian" dates. How I deal with the relation of SummerI/1 to "Gregorian" June 1 is, of course the unavoidably complicated part of any calendar that doesn't keep the Gregorian leapyear system. And yes, as you said, simplicity is desirable. That is an argument for a non-fixed calendar, with its _always_ match between SummerI/1 and "Gregorian" June 1; and between WinterI/1 and "Gregorian" December 1. And with the simplicity of not having to describe to people a new leapyear system, which, of necessity, will have some long and compliated-sounding wording.
You wrote:
> > I don't think Mike cares much about which leap year rule is used. It > only needs to be simple and accurate.
I reply:
Yes, that's true. I want to keep the Gregorian leapyear system for the nonfixed versions, for simplicity, and to preserve the date-matches that I've described. For the nonfixed version, I like the leapyear system I've described, but I'm always willing to compromise on details like that, if others who otherwise agree on the proposal want a different leapyear system.
That brings me to another things that Irv might have meant when he said I wasn't specific enough. One reason I"ve offered several nonfixed versions is because I'm telling of all the proposals I like, and people could take their pick. As I said, a proposal should initially be broad, and as flexible as it can be, without compromising away what is important. But please note that, though I've said I could compromise on various details, I've also defined specific and completely-specified proposals. Even if I won't refuse to budge on some particular detail, that doesn't mean that I should be vague or fail to specify complete details.
Mike
Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
|
|
Re: Middle vs. Start RE: June-September season
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Karl and Calendar People,
I'd said:
> But the summer solstice is definitely in the middle of the time of high > declinations and those high declinations are what causes summer and what > summer follows. >
You (Karl) replied:
> I don't disagree with that, but one cannot take it for granted that this > is what is meant by zero time lag summer. You need state (or at least > refer to) everything you rely upon in an argument.
Ok, in the past, both Irv and I weren't explicit about that because one way seemed the obvious way. But now I have made that explicit. I guess if Irv keeps using his different lag-definition, then we'll just have to convert between them, as we do between Fahrenheit and centigrade.
Mike
Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
|
|
Re: June-September season
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
But there's one point that Irv made that Mike hasn't addressed (I don't
believe) and, until it's explicitely addressed, I suggest that Mike's
proposals fail on face. That is, a pair of algorithms (for each of
Mike's proposed calendars?) that follow the general pattern laid down
by Lance Latham of recent memory that a) given a Julian day number,
produce a date in Mike's calendar and b) given a date in Mike's
calendars, produces a Julian day number.
The algorithms should be written in some common programming language (I
will admit to an anachronistic preference for VB6), so that there's no
question of what the assumptions and enthymemes are: either the
programs demonstrably work as advertised, or they don't. Clearly such
algorithms will need to embed, in some suitable manner, leap rules.
There must, also, be a definition of a "week" and an algorithm for
associating the day of the week with a date in Mike's calendar; this is
particularly important if there are any days that are not considered to
be in a week (cf the French Republican calendars), although this could
well be incorporated into the two previous algorithms..
I'd consider any calendar proposal from Mike that has these two
functions associated with it to be a complete proposal and herewith
formally request his permission to incorporate (with attribution, of
course) such calendars into my calendar program. Contrarywise, any
proposal that does not have these two functions associated I shall
consider to be purely speculative fiction.
Pzed
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Dear Karl, Irv and Calendar People,
Karl, you wrote:
> Mike posted a lot of things. He can not expect calendar people to
look
> through his numerous posts to find the one with the calendar
rules. I
> suggest he tells us which specific post this is. If the calendar
> definitions are in several posts. It'll be worth putting them all
> together concisely in one appropriately titled post.
> I also take the attitude that if the calendar is not simple enough
to
> post again and again, it's not simple enough for a calendar reform.
Ok, fair enough--it would be better, for any acceptance that I'd like
my proposals to have, for them to all be included in one
appropriately-titled posting. I can't deny that.
The reason why the proposals are in a number of postings is because
I've proposed a number of different nonfixed proposals for an
unequal-seasons terrestrial seasonal calendar.
So: Yes I should post one concise posting containing the complete
details of all my proposals, the proposals that I've previously
described in separate postings. But the fact that, largely due to
wanting to keep the length of my postings down, I've posted the
proposals separately, isn't enough to justify Irv's claim that my
proposals aren't complete, unless he can say what it is that I've
failed to specify.
Short answer: Yes, I'll definitly post all the proposals, complete, in
one posting, appropriately-titled.
> Mike has completely specified one calendar in this note. It is the
> Gregorian Calendar with seasons beginning on April 1, June 1,
October 1
> and December 1.
> Mike has also specified a calendar with seasons of 17 weeks and 9
weeks
> with a 17-week season beginning about 1 June. I don't know the
other
> rules of this suggestion.
I reply:
They'll all be posted together along with the specifications for my
other proposals too.
But let me say a few words here: My rule for when I'd apply a leapweek
was rather wordy, which is sometimes needed for clarity and precision.
It goes without saying (from what I've said above) that I'll re-post it
in that one posting that includes all my proposals. In my posting
before this one, I specified that, instead of the 2004-2006 Gregorian
leapyear cycle being the one referred to, in my leapweek rule, it would
be better to instead refer to the Gregorian leapyear cycle that
contains the new calendar's first year of use.
In the fixed calendar's first year of use, I specify that the first day
of Summer coincide with "Gregorian" June 1.
The leapweek rule, which determines the calendar's positioning in the
year measured by solar-ecliptic-longitude is as I described it (and
will describe it again in the larger posting). That rule is about the
relation of the first day of Summer to "Gregorian" June 1.
So, the fixed calendar's month system, its leapyear system, and the
initial date-match (in the calendar's 1st year of use) have been
specified and will be posted in my upcoming longer comprehensive
posting.
You continued:
However, you can get such a calendar by taking
> Irv's Symmetry454 Calendar
I reply:
Yes, if the 5-week and 4-week months can be arranged so that they
nearly alternate, or more-or-less alternate, than that's something to
be considered. The other way I like would be, for simplicity, to just
start each seasonal year-division with a 5-week month. That,
additionally, would give 5 weeks to the month containing the Christmas
holiday and the winter solstice.
You continued:
and having seasons begin on April 1, June 1,
> October 1 and December 1.
I reply:
My nonfixed proposals have Summer beginning on June 1, and Winter
beginning on December 1. I have to admit that I haven't checked on
whether Spring and Autumn can also being on April 1 and October 1, but
of course I would certainly like for that to be possible. It's
something that I'll check as soon as I send this posting.
But, for the fixed calendar, with its leapweeks, the cyclical drift
will be different from, and greater than, that of the Gregorian
leapyear system. So it won't be possible to always maintain any
particular exact correspondence of fixed calendar dates and "Gregorian"
dates. How I deal with the relation of SummerI/1 to "Gregorian" June 1
is, of course the unavoidably complicated part of any calendar that
doesn't keep the Gregorian leapyear system. And yes, as you said,
simplicity is desirable. That is an argument for a non-fixed calendar,
with its _always_ match between SummerI/1 and "Gregorian" June 1; and
between WinterI/1 and "Gregorian" December 1. And with the simplicity
of not having to describe to people a new leapyear system, which, of
necessity, will have some long and compliated-sounding wording.
You wrote:
>
> I don't think Mike cares much about which leap year rule is used.
It
> only needs to be simple and accurate.
I reply:
Yes, that's true. I want to keep the Gregorian leapyear system for the
nonfixed versions, for simplicity, and to preserve the date-matches
that I've described. For the nonfixed version, I like the leapyear
system I've described, but I'm always willing to compromise on details
like that, if others who otherwise agree on the proposal want a
different leapyear system.
That brings me to another things that Irv might have meant when he said
I wasn't specific enough. One reason I"ve offered several nonfixed
versions is because I'm telling of all the proposals I like, and people
could take their pick. As I said, a proposal should initially be broad,
and as flexible as it can be, without compromising away what is
important. But please note that, though I've said I could compromise on
various details, I've also defined specific and completely-specified
proposals. Even if I won't refuse to budge on some particular detail,
that doesn't mean that I should be vague or fail to specify complete
details.
Mike
Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.
Try it now.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.90/2199 - Release Date: 06/24/09 06:23:00
|
|
Re: June-September season
On 2009 Jun 24, at 11:20 , MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: You want date conversions? How about for today? Today is "Gregorian" June 24th. In all of my nonfixed proposals for an unequal-seasons terrestrial-seasonal calendar, today is SummerI/24. The 24th day of the month called SummerI. As I've said, for any applications involving both the north and south hemispheres, I'd call this month NorthI instead of SummerI.
So all that you are after, Mike, is a re-labeling of Gregorian dates that perhaps coincides better with seasons than the Gregorian calendar does. I see no point in doing so, because such a reform would not make the calendar perpetual, and would not improve upon the excessively long mean year and high equinox wobble of the Gregorian calendar. It would replace the seemingly arbitrarily variable Gregorian month lengths with your own version of arbitrary month lengths.
Such a re-labeled seasonal calendar already exists in the form of the Western Bahai calendar, which always starts its New Year Day on Gregorian March 21, and has the advantage that all month lengths are equal (plus one short sequence of intercalated days). See <http://www.bahai.us/system/files/BahaiCalendarOptimized.pdf>. This allows the Bahai to observe their own holidays on dates that are fixed in both their calendar as well as the Gregorian calendar.
The seasonal year division "Summer" (or "North") is divided into four months, in both the fixed and nonfixed versions.
I don't understand how a quarter of a year can contain 4 months, and I have never understood what you mean by the terms "fixed" and "nonfixed".
One thing that I'd like to change in my fixed calendar proposal: My specificication of when I'd use a leapweek made reference to the 2004-2008 Gregorian leapyear cycle. But the trouble with that is that the adoption of a new calendar could be a long way off. So it would be better to specify that, for the purpose of the leapweek rule that I described in that earlier posting, the Gregorian leapyear cycle referred to should be the one containing the calendar's first year of use.
The calendar can start at any time, there is no need to wait for a particular coincidence between it and the Gregorian calendar. Why not pick a starting date that is in the past, such as June 2001? (Since I don't understand the rules of your calendar proposal, I have no idea if this particular epoch makes sense, sorry.)
What has a leapweek got to do with 2004-2008? The leap week will have to be inserted at intervals of 6 or 5 years, with 6 years being approximately twice as common as 5, and there will be one interval of 7 years if you calendar mean year matches the Gregorian mean year so as to have 71 leap weeks per 400-year cycle. The rule for inserting the leap week will have to be something similar to the ISO calendar, unless you want a smoothly spread or a symmetrically smoothly spread distribution of leap years. If you are using a leap week then the first of June, which you so flippantly converted to the first of SummerI above, will only coincide with Gregorian June 1st roughly once per 7 years, so it is not a simple straight parallel re-labeling of dates.
I admit that maybe you genuinely don't understand, or forgot, my proposals.
No, the problem is that you keep changing them (as above "One thing that I'd like to change in my fixed calendar proposal" keeps appearing in your postings), so I have no idea what rules you have settled on. In fact, you keep presenting more and more alternatives so I believe that you haven't actually settled on the rules of your calendar. They are all in your head, swirling around. That's why I and others have been asking you to list the rules of the calendar concisely and unambiguously in a form that would allow anybody to carry out calendrical calculations and date conversions.
-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
|
|
Re: June-September season
Irv--
You said:
So all that you are after, Mike, is a re-labeling of Gregorian dates
I reply:
The fact that the dates June 24 and SummerI/24 are numerically the same doesn't mean that I'm just re-labeling the months. Where have you been lately?? The reason for starting Summer on June 1 is that it is widely perceived that summer arrives with June. And yes, that means that the dates in SummerI will be numerically the same as those in the first part of June. All of June, of course, if SummerI is a 5-week month.
You continue:
that perhaps coincides better with seasons than the Gregorian calendar does.
I reply:
You catch on fast!
You continue:
I see no point in doing so, because such a reform would not make the calendar perpetual
I reply:
Nor would it keep it un-perpetual. Perhaps you were out to lunch when I spoke of a version using leap-weeks and having all of its year-divisions as whole numbers of weeks.
You continue:
You continue:
, and would not improve upon the excessively long mean year and high equinox wobble of the Gregorian calendar.
I reply:
Wobble is the same as what I've been calling "cyclical drift". The Gregorian leapyear's wobble isn't excessive. Yes it would be nice to be perfectionists and reduce it, as could be done.
But the wobble caused by the Gregorian leapyear system, or even by a leapweek, isn't important, when you consider how much the actual temperature fluctuates, from day to day and from year to year for a particular date.
Therefore, there would be little point in bringing in the wordy and relatively complicated language of a change in the leapyear system in order to reduce the wobble.
Of course, where it is necessary to replace the Gregorian system where we want to change to a fixed calendar, by use of a leapweek.
YOu continue:
It would replace the seemingly arbitrarily variable Gregorian month lengths with your own version of arbitrary month lengths.
I reply:
No, not arbitrary. If there's one kind of year-division and year-division-naming that isn't arbitrary, it's one that explicitly relates to the natural year.
You continue:
Such a re-labeled seasonal calendar already exists in the form of the Western Bahai calendar, which always starts its New Year Day on Gregorian March 21
I reply:
Then you must think that the Romans' calendar was a seasonal calendar too, when it started on the vernal equinox :-)
You continue:
, and has the advantage that all month lengths are equal (plus one short sequence of intercalated days).
I reply:
Intercalated days can work wonders for allowing the months to be equal :-)
I'd said:
The seasonal year division "Summer" (or "North") is divided into four months, in both the fixed and nonfixed versions.
You reply:
I don't understand how a quarter of a year can contain 4 months
I reply:
Irv, are you aware that I've been talking about seasonal year-divisions that are not a quarter of a year?
You continue:
, and I have never understood what you mean by the terms "fixed" and "nonfixed".
I reply:
Genuinely and truly out to lunch? The term "fixed calendar" has long been in common use to refer to a calendar that is the same every year, whose relation between dates and days of weeks doesn't change (is fixed).
That's been an extremely common usage. Perhaps you've never heard of the "International Fixed Calendar". Or maybe you've heard of it, but just never knew what it means. Likewise, in all of her writings, the very well-known and prominent calendar reformer Elizabeth Achellis uses the term "fixed calendar", and referred to her proposal as a fixed calendar. She didn't invent the term.
Get ready, because now I'm going to explain to you what "nonfixed" means: It means not fixed.
You continue:
One thing that I'd like to change in my fixed calendar proposal: My specificication of when I'd use a leapweek made reference to the 2004-2008 Gregorian leapyear cycle. But the trouble with that is that the adoption of a new calendar could be a long way off. So it would be better to specify that, for the purpose of the leapweek rule that I described in that earlier posting, the Gregorian leapyear cycle referred to should be the one containing the calendar's first year of use.
You replied:
The calendar can start at any time, there is no need to wait for a particular coincidence between it and the Gregorian calendar.
I reply:
I have no idea what you mean by that.
You continue:
Why not pick a starting date that is in the past, such as June 2001?
I reply:
Ok, I'll tell you why: It's kinda tough to begin using a new calendar in the past. Generally such changes are agreed-upon for the near future instead. In fact, it's difficult to do anything in the past. The past generally isn't available as a time for doing things that you haven't done yet.
Maybe what you're trying to say is that, when a new calendar is adopted and put into use, you want it to retroactively replace the old calendar, so that the new calendar would be used for expressing the dates of Civil War events, etc. I don't know about that suggestion of yours.
You continue:
(Since I don't understand the rules of your calendar proposal, I have no idea if this particular epoch makes sense, sorry.)
I reply:
What particular epoch would that be? Maybe you're referring to the fact that I'd suggested designating dates in the new calendar as of the day on which it comes into use as the new civil calendar. Sorry if that doesn't make sense to you.
You continue:
What has a leapweek got to do with 2004-2008?
I reply:
I suggest that it might be better if you would read things before you reply to them. You'd save a lot of wasted writing. Actually your question is answered in the passage that you're replying to. My suggestion for when to use a leapweek made reference to a leapyear cycle. I was referring to the midpoint of the wobble during a particular leapyear cycle, as the center about which to minimize the magnitude of the new calendar's wobble. You're asking what sort of a reference that was? Regrettable that you didn't read the posting, and so now you're asking me to repeat it for you. It was fairly wordy. But it will be in the long posting that covers all of my unequal seasons proposals.
The solar ecliptic longitude on June 1 cyclically drifts, due to leapyear or leapweek cycles. I was suggesting that the ecliptic longitude that is the midpoint of that drift, during the 2004-2008 leapyear cycle of the Gregorian calendar be the center about which the new calendar's cyclical drift of SummerI/1 is minimized.
Forgive the brief explanation, but that's all there's time for right now.
You continued:
The leap week will have to be inserted at intervals of 6 or 5 years
I reply:
Sure, and that doesn't contradict anything I said.
You continue:
If you are using a leap week then the first of June, which you so flippantly converted to the first of SummerI above, will only coincide with Gregorian June 1st roughly once per 7 years, so it is not a simple straight parallel re-labeling of dates.
I reply:
Irv, you're sloppy, careless, and write in a way that has given me occasion to repeat the phrase "out to lunch".
The always matching of June 1 to SummerI/1 has only been spoken of for the nonfixed calendar, for which I propose keeping the Gregorian leapyear system. Then the match will always be, provided that leapday is kept before summer. I'd have it in the Winter season, the first season of the year.
I've made it abundantly clear that the fixed calendar, with its leapweek would have drift. I've written much about that drift. Again, where have you been.
I admit that maybe you genuinely don't understand, or forgot, my proposals.
No, the problem is that you keep changing them (as above "One thing that I'd like to change in my fixed calendar proposal" keeps appearing in your postings), so I have no idea what rules you have settled on. In fact, you keep presenting more and more alternatives so I believe that you haven't actually settled on the rules of your calendar. They are all in your head, swirling around. That's why I and others have been asking you to list the rules of the calendar concisely and unambiguously in a form that would allow anybody to carry out calendrical calculations and date conversions.
-- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada
_________________________________________________________________
Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1
|
|
Re: June-September season
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Continuing my reply to the same message I was replying to before:
I'd said:
I admit that maybe you genuinely don't understand, or forgot, my proposals.
No, the problem is that you keep changing them (as above "One thing that I'd like to change in my fixed calendar proposal" keeps appearing in your postings),
I reply:
You're just looking for something curmudgeonly to say, making angry noises. I haven't made so many changes, but I have made a number of proposals. One big change was when I dropped all of my equal seasons proposals. I now propose about 7 unequal season calendar versions.
Because it could be a long time before calendar reform happens, it's best to use the leapyear cycle that's current at the time that the new calendar comes into use. If you ask how I use a leapyear cycle, I answered that in my previous posting (as well as others before that).
You continue:
so I have no idea what rules you have settled on.
I reply:
The ones that I said, except for those that I've replaced. But I'm going to post my current proposals, in their current form, all in one long posting. Yes it's a bit unreasonable to ask people to look up things that are scattered through many postings.
You continue:
In fact, you keep presenting more and more alternatives so I believe that you haven't actually settled on the rules of your calendar.
I reply:
I have no idea where you get that belief. Yes I've posted a number of proposals, and I currently propose a number of versions. That doesn't mean that they don't have definite rules. If by definite rules, you mean one inflexible proposal, then sorry, that isn't for me. I prefer to offer various alternatives, because I don't know which one people will like best.
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
|
|
Re: June-September season
You've described your ideas for the basis of a new calendar. What you
haven't done is give enough detail to actually implement those ideas.
If all you do is say "instead of the three months June, July, and
August, we'll have one calendar division called Summer(l)", then
that's a relabeling of the Gregorian calendar, and the relabeling is
the only rule needed. But if the mapping to Gregorian dates is only
approximate, as it must be if the leap day is moving or if you use
leap weeks and/or months that are a whole number of weeks, then we
need details. Show us the math.
Nobody's being curmudgeonly here. I think Irv and Karl have been
quite patient. I do think there's been a lot of talking past each
other, though.
On 6/24/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF < nkklrp@...> wrote:
>
>
> Continuing my reply to the same message I was replying to before:
>
>
>
> I'd said:
>
>
>
>
>
> I admit that maybe you genuinely don't understand, or forgot, my proposals.
>
>
>
>
> No, the problem is that you keep changing them (as above "One thing that I'd
> like to change in my fixed calendar proposal" keeps appearing in your
> postings),
>
> I reply:
>
> You're just looking for something curmudgeonly to say, making angry noises.
> I haven't made so many changes, but I have made a number of proposals. One
> big change was when I dropped all of my equal seasons proposals. I now
> propose about 7 unequal season calendar versions.
>
> Because it could be a long time before calendar reform happens, it's best to
> use the leapyear cycle that's current at the time that the new calendar
> comes into use. If you ask how I use a leapyear cycle, I answered that in my
> previous posting (as well as others before that).
>
> You continue:
>
> so I have no idea what rules you have settled on.
>
> I reply:
>
> The ones that I said, except for those that I've replaced. But I'm going to
> post my current proposals, in their current form, all in one long posting.
> Yes it's a bit unreasonable to ask people to look up things that are
> scattered through many postings.
>
> You continue:
>
> In fact, you keep presenting more and more alternatives so I believe that
> you haven't actually settled on the rules of your calendar.
>
> I reply:
>
> I have no idea where you get that belief. Yes I've posted a number of
> proposals, and I currently propose a number of versions. That doesn't mean
> that they don't have definite rules. If by definite rules, you mean one
> inflexible proposal, then sorry, that isn't for me. I prefer to offer
> various alternatives, because I don't know which one people will like best.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290--
Sent from my mobile device
Mark J. Reed < markjreed@...>
|
|
Re: June-September season
Dear Mike and Calendar People
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto: CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF
Sent: 24 June 2009 17:02
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: June-September season
Dear Karl, Irv and Calendar People,
MIKE SAID: So: Yes I should post one concise posting containing the complete details of all my proposals, the proposals that I've previously described in separate postings. But the fact that, largely due to wanting to keep the length of my postings down, I've posted the proposals separately, isn't enough to justify Irv's claim that my proposals aren't complete, unless he can say what it is that I've failed to specify.
Short answer: Yes, I'll definitely post all the proposals, complete, in one posting, appropriately-titled.
KARL SAYS: Please go ahead. Spend time on it rather than replying to notes for Irv and others (actions speak louder than words). Give each calendar defined a name or a number by which it can be referred to in each subsequent post. The rules must contain all one needs to know to work out what date occurs on a particular day or what day a particular date occurs. An explicit conversion algorithm is not needed.
It would be helpful to group the rules as follows:
Structure of Year: The seasons and how many days there are in each for a common year and a leap year.
Leap Year Rule: Which years are leap years
Correlation: Specify which day a particular date in the Calendar occurs in terms of some other well defined calendar (e.g. Summer 1 of year 2001 is June 1, 2001 in the Gregorian Calendar).
Some of the calendars may share some of these rules so for example you may for example say that the leap year rules of calendar C are the same as calendar A (already defined).
Also you may refer to exiting calendars in your rules (e.g. Leap years are those years that have 53 Thursdays in the Gregorian Calendar).
Karl
10(10(02 till noon
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: June-September season
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Mike, Irv and Calendar People
If Mike continues to take this attitude, then I suggest that we
not waste time attempting to discuss his alleged proposals at all.
The onus is on the proposer to ensure that calendar people has
easy access to his proposals. Saying that they are in (unspecified) previous
posts is not good enough.
Irv and other calendar people want rules that provide sufficient
information to specify what date the calendar gives to any given day and which
day any given calendar date occurs. I suggest the rules of each proposal
be given as Year Structure, Leap Year Rules and Correlation as explained in my
previous note today (I am referring to a specific note here).
No calendar reform is going to succeed, if the reformer makes it
hard to find out exactly what the proposed reform is. No reform is going
to succeed if the reformer is not prepared to repeat stating the details of the
calendar changing the wording to suit the particular audience each time.
I can imagine a TV show where Mike is interviewed about his
proposals and when asked about the details, he just says they are in some posts
sent to CALNDR-L.
Karl
10(10(03
From: East Carolina University Calendar
discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of MIKE
OSSIPOFF
Sent: 24 June 2009 16:20
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: June-September season
Irv--
You wrote:
I have not seen clear rules posted by you
Of course it's easy to say that, and it's
easy for you to keep repeating it. My answer hasn't changed. It's a two-part
answer:
1. I'm not going to repeat everything for
you. I refer you to my previous postings.
2. Tell me what you think I failed to specify.
What question do you think that I left unanswered? Tell me, and I'll answer it.
....I can't answer you if you don't have a
question. I can't help you if you can't say what you mean.
You know, it's too easy to just keep
repeating that I haven't fully specified my proposals. The fact that (though I
asked you to) you have failed to say what I didn't specify, what I left out,
what question I left unanswered suggests that you can't support your claim. It
really goes without saying that any claim that I've left something out should
be supported by a statement from you about what I've left out.
Yes, you could have forgotten. Then re-read
the postings; you'll find the answers to your questions. Otherwise, as I said,
you're welcome to tell me what you think I left out, what you think I didn't
specify about my proposals. I didn't post clear rules? Rules about what in
particular? I'd say that it is you who are being vague and failing to tell us
what you mean.
I thoroughly described a month system for
my fixed proposal, and several alternative month systems for nonfixed versions.
I specified that I'd keep the Gregorian leapyear system for the unfixed
versions. I described when I'd apply a leapweek for the fixed version. I
described that in lengthy detail. If you didn't understand some part of my
wording, then you're welcome to tell me what, in particular, you didn't
understand.
Maybe you're confused because I posted
about a number of alternative nonfixed versions, closely-related and similar,
but not the same as eachother. But I made clear the distinctions between them,
describing each one separately.
Look, Irv, you certainly have a right not
to read what I posted, but that isn't my fault. Your not reading the proposals
is one thing, and their being incomplete is another thing. The fact that you
seem unable to say what remains to be specified suggests that it's the former.
It isn't enough to say that you
"suspect" that my specifications are too vague. If they're vague,
then you'd be able to point to something that remains unspecified.
You want date conversions? How about for
today? Today is "Gregorian" June 24th. In all of my nonfixed
proposals for an unequal-seasons terrestrial-seasonal calendar, today is
SummerI/24. The 24th day of the month called SummerI. As I've said, for any
applications involving both the north and south hemispheres, I'd call this
month NorthI instead of SummerI.
The seasonal year division
"Summer" (or "North") is divided into four months, in
both the fixed and nonfixed versions. I've discussed at length all of the month
systems that I propose for those versions.
As for my fixed proposal, though I
described when I'd use a leapweek, it's true that I haven't yet said how
Summer1/1 would be initially positioned, in the new calendar's first year
of use, with respect to "Gregorian" June 1. So let me say it
now: I suggest that the simplest rule would be that, in the new calendar's
first year of use, Summer1/1 should coincide with "Gregorian" June 1.
That initial date-match would be plausible and would make sense to people, to
whom the calendar is new.
One thing that I'd like to change in my
fixed calendar proposal: My specificication of when I'd use a leapweek made
reference to the 2004-2008 Gregorian leapyear cycle. But the trouble with that
is that the adoption of a new calendar could be a long way off. So it would be
better to specify that, for the purpose of the leapweek rule that I
described in that earlier posting, the Gregorian leapyear cycle referred to
should be the one containing the calendar's first year of use.
I admit that maybe you genuinely don't
understand, or forgot, my proposals. That that is entirely possible is
suggested by your (continuing?) belief that the time-displacement between
two seasonal periods should be measured by the duration between the
middle of one and the beginning of the other, and by your apparent failure to
ounderstand that that is an assumption.
Alternatively, saying "I don't
understand your proposal", or "You haven't specified your
proposal" can be just a cheap trick, a rhetorical strategy to argue
against something when you don't have a specific argument. That, of course would
be thoroughly dishonest. And so I want to emphasize that I'm not accusing you
of thorough dishonesty--maybe you really don't understand, or forgot, or didn't
bother to read, my postings about my proposals, and my answers to your
questions.
In a way it doesn't matter which of those
two explanations is the correct one. Either way, my answer is the same: I refer
you to my previous postings. And, because it would be unreasonable to make
a blanket request for me to repeat everything, you're invited to tell me what
you think that I didn't specify, what "rule" I left out.
Hotmail®
has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: June-September season
Replying to the last paragraph of this posting:
Irv--
You said:
No, the problem is that you keep changing them (as above "One thing that I'd like to change in my fixed calendar proposal" keeps appearing in your postings)
I reply:
No, you're exaggerating the number of changes. Yes I changed my suggestion about 2004-2008, because I don't know when calendar reform will happen. Yes I dropped all my equal-seasons proposals. But I haven't made a lot of changes.
You continue:
In fact, you keep presenting more and more alternatives so I believe that you haven't actually settled on the rules of your calendar.
I reply:
Yes, I've made a number of proposals and suggrested a number of alternative ways of doing things. That's the only way of proceeding that makes any sense. At this point in the process, a proposal should be broad, and open to changes and variations. As I said, I've carefully specified details. On some matters, I've suggested several alternative ways of doing things. I emphasize the difference between suggestions, such as I make, and stipulations. It's a little too early in the process to finalize anything. (That understatement is intended as a joke.)
The important thing, for my proposals, is that the calendar explicitly refer to the seasons of the natural year, in a way that accordsd well with people's perception of the seasons. That's it. That's the core of my proposal. All the other things, all the details, are negotiable. YOu don't like my particular leapweek system for the fixed version? No problem. Substitute your own, for example.
You're right: I haven't settled on one single stipulated set of rules. To do so would be asinine at this point. Now is the time for broad, open proposals, not narrow stipulations. However, I've offered, in the form of suggestions, some quite specific rules and details, in the form of suggestions as opposed to stipulations.
You continued:
That's why I and others have been asking you to list the rules of the calendar concisely and unambiguously in a form that would allow anybody to carry out calendrical calculations and date conversions.
I reply:
A very long Magnum Opus posting containing all of my proposals, with alternative suggestions for handling various details, will be posted soon.
But I also point out that these are things that I've already posted here--just not all in one posting. You, Irv, just havesn't read those postings. Anyway, it will all be in one posting.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009
|
|
Re: June-September season
Mark--
You said:
> If all you do is say "instead of the three months June, July, and
> August
I reply:
I hope you don't think I'm actually saying that. But one version, due to Karl, does propose seasons starting on June 1, Oct.1, Dec.1 & April 1. Literally, always, on those "Gregorian" dates. Call it a relabeling if you want to. That's one of many proposals that I've posted about.
Though I claim that I've specified the things that you ask for, I agree that they should be together in one posting, as they soon will
Mike Ossipoff
, we'll have one calendar division called Summer(l)", then
> that's a relabeling of the Gregorian calendar, and the relabeling is
> the only rule needed. But if the mapping to Gregorian dates is only
> approximate, as it must be if the leap day is moving or if you use
> leap weeks and/or months that are a whole number of weeks, then we
> need details. Show us the math.
>
> Nobody's being curmudgeonly here. I think Irv and Karl have been
> quite patient. I do think there's been a lot of talking past each
> other, though.
>
> On 6/24/09, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>>
>>
>> Continuing my reply to the same message I was replying to before:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I admit that maybe you genuinely don't understand, or forgot, my proposals.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No, the problem is that you keep changing them (as above "One thing that I'd
>> like to change in my fixed calendar proposal" keeps appearing in your
>> postings),
>>
>> I reply:
>>
>> You're just looking for something curmudgeonly to say, making angry noises.
>> I haven't made so many changes, but I have made a number of proposals. One
>> big change was when I dropped all of my equal seasons proposals. I now
>> propose about 7 unequal season calendar versions.
>>
>> Because it could be a long time before calendar reform happens, it's best to
>> use the leapyear cycle that's current at the time that the new calendar
>> comes into use. If you ask how I use a leapyear cycle, I answered that in my
>> previous posting (as well as others before that).
>>
>> You continue:
>>
>> so I have no idea what rules you have settled on.
>>
>> I reply:
>>
>> The ones that I said, except for those that I've replaced. But I'm going to
>> post my current proposals, in their current form, all in one long posting.
>> Yes it's a bit unreasonable to ask people to look up things that are
>> scattered through many postings.
>>
>> You continue:
>>
>> In fact, you keep presenting more and more alternatives so I believe that
>> you haven't actually settled on the rules of your calendar.
>>
>> I reply:
>>
>> I have no idea where you get that belief. Yes I've posted a number of
>> proposals, and I currently propose a number of versions. That doesn't mean
>> that they don't have definite rules. If by definite rules, you mean one
>> inflexible proposal, then sorry, that isn't for me. I prefer to offer
>> various alternatives, because I don't know which one people will like best.
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> Mark J. Reed
>
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
|
|
Mike Ossipoff's Calendar Proposals (An intelligent guess)
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Dear Irv, Mike and Calendar People
Here is an intelligent guess at Mike’s calendar proposals:
Calendar A (non-fixed):
Year Structure: Seasons North 117 days, Southward 66 days, South
117 days , Northward 65 days with extra day in leap years.
Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar
Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian calendar
Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, September 26,
December 1 and March 28 in each Gregorian common year.
Calendar B (non-fixed):
Year Structure: Seasons North 122 days, Southward 61 days, South
121 days with extra day in leap years, Northward 61 days.
Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar.
Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian
Calendar
Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, October 1,
December 1 and April 1 in each Gregorian year.
Calendar C (fixed):
Year Structure: Seasons North 119 days (17 weeks), Southward 63
days (9 weeks), South 119 days (17 weeks) with extra 7 days (1 week) in leap
years, Northward 63 days (9 weeks).
Leap Year rule: As ISO week based year (i.e. years with 53
Thursdays in Gregorian Calendar)
Correlation: North 2001 begins on Friday 1 June 2001 (and
so every season begins on Friday)
Note: This results in seasons beginning 3 days before June
1, October 1, December 1 and April 1 in Symmetry454 calendar for every year
from 1977 to 2019 and many more besides.
The Year Structure rule may also specify subdivisions of the
seasons, such as months. I leave to Mike to add such.
The year structure rule also implicitly starts the year with
the North Season. The correlation rule states how these years are numbered.
There may be more proposals in addition to the three listed.
Mike may correct my guess.
Karl
10(10(03
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|
|
Re: Mike Ossipoff's Calendar Proposals (An intelligent guess)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Palmen, KEV
(Karl)< karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> Here is an intelligent guess at Mike’s calendar proposals:
> Calendar A (non-fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 117 days, Southward 66 days, South 117 days ,
> Northward 65 days with extra day in leap years.
>
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian calendar
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, September 26, December 1
> and March 28 in each Gregorian common year.
Likewise in a leap year except that Northward starts on March 27th.
> Calendar B (non-fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 122 days, Southward 61 days, South 121 days
> with extra day in leap years, Northward 61 days.
>
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar.
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian Calendar
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, October 1, December 1 and
> April 1 in each Gregorian year.
In both of the above, today is obviously the 25th day of North in the year 2010.
> Calendar C (fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 119 days (17 weeks), Southward 63 days (9
> weeks), South 119 days (17 weeks) with extra 7 days (1 week) in leap years,
> Northward 63 days (9 weeks).
>
> Leap Year rule: As ISO week based year (i.e. years with 53 Thursdays in
> Gregorian Calendar)
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on Friday 1 June 2001 (and so every season
> begins on Friday)
Hm. Why does North 2001 begin in Gregorian 2001 for this proposal,
but Gregorian 2000 for the other two?
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning 3 days before June 1, October 1,
> December 1 and April 1 in Symmetry454 calendar for every year from 1977 to
> 2019 and many more besides.
>
>
>
> The Year Structure rule may also specify subdivisions of the seasons, such
> as months. I leave to Mike to add such.
>
> The year structure rule also implicitly starts the year with the North
> Season. The correlation rule states how these years are numbered.
>
>
>
> There may be more proposals in addition to the three listed.
>
> Mike may correct my guess.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(10(03
>
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
--
Mark J. Reed < markjreed@...>
|
|
Re: Mike Ossipoff's Calendar Proposals (An intelligent guess)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Mark J. Reed< markjreed@...> wrote:
>> Calendar C (fixed):
>>
>> Year Structure: Seasons North 119 days (17 weeks), Southward 63 days (9
>> weeks), South 119 days (17 weeks) with extra 7 days (1 week) in leap years,
>> Northward 63 days (9 weeks).
>>
>> Leap Year rule: As ISO week based year (i.e. years with 53 Thursdays in
>> Gregorian Calendar)
>>
>> Correlation: North 2001 begins on Friday 1 June 2001 (and so every season
>> begins on Friday)
>
> Hm. Why does North 2001 begin in Gregorian 2001 for this proposal,
> but Gregorian 2000 for the other two?
The above implies that North runs from day 5 of ISO week 22 through
day 4 of week 38. Which would make today the 28th day of North in the
year 2009.
--
Mark J. Reed < markjreed@...>
|
|
Re: Mike Ossipoff's Calendar Proposals (An intelligent guess)
Dear Mark and Calendar People
MARK ASKED: Hm. Why does North 2001 begin in Gregorian 2001 for this proposal (C), but Gregorian 2000 for the other two?
KARL ANSWERS: It is because of the timing of the intercalation. The Gregorian calendar intercalates before June, but the ISO week based year intercalates after June.
Karl
10(10(03
-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto: CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: 25 June 2009 16:38
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: Mike Ossipoff's Calendar Proposals (An intelligent guess)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Palmen, KEV
(Karl)< karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> Here is an intelligent guess at Mike’s calendar proposals:
> Calendar A (non-fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 117 days, Southward 66 days, South 117 days ,
> Northward 65 days with extra day in leap years.
>
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian calendar
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, September 26, December 1
> and March 28 in each Gregorian common year.
Likewise in a leap year except that Northward starts on March 27th.
> Calendar B (non-fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 122 days, Southward 61 days, South 121 days
> with extra day in leap years, Northward 61 days.
>
> Leap Year Rule: As Gregorian Calendar.
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on June 1, 2000 in Gregorian Calendar
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning on June 1, October 1, December 1 and
> April 1 in each Gregorian year.
In both of the above, today is obviously the 25th day of North in the year 2010.
> Calendar C (fixed):
>
> Year Structure: Seasons North 119 days (17 weeks), Southward 63 days (9
> weeks), South 119 days (17 weeks) with extra 7 days (1 week) in leap years,
> Northward 63 days (9 weeks).
>
> Leap Year rule: As ISO week based year (i.e. years with 53 Thursdays in
> Gregorian Calendar)
>
> Correlation: North 2001 begins on Friday 1 June 2001 (and so every season
> begins on Friday)
Hm. Why does North 2001 begin in Gregorian 2001 for this proposal,
but Gregorian 2000 for the other two?
>
> Note: This results in seasons beginning 3 days before June 1, October 1,
> December 1 and April 1 in Symmetry454 calendar for every year from 1977 to
> 2019 and many more besides.
>
>
>
> The Year Structure rule may also specify subdivisions of the seasons, such
> as months. I leave to Mike to add such.
>
> The year structure rule also implicitly starts the year with the North
> Season. The correlation rule states how these years are numbered.
>
>
>
> There may be more proposals in addition to the three listed.
>
> Mike may correct my guess.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> 10(10(03
>
>
>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>
--
Mark J. Reed < markjreed@...>
|
|
Re: Mike Ossipoff's Calendar Proposals (An intelligent guess)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Mark J. Reed< markjreed@...> wrote:
>>> Year Structure: Seasons North 119 days (17 weeks), Southward 63 days (9
>>> weeks), South 119 days (17 weeks) with extra 7 days (1 week) in leap years,
>>> Northward 63 days (9 weeks).
>>>
>>> Leap Year rule: As ISO week based year (i.e. years with 53 Thursdays in
>>> Gregorian Calendar)
>>>
>>> Correlation: North 2001 begins on Friday 1 June 2001 (and so every season
>>> begins on Friday)
> The above implies that North runs from day 5 of ISO week 22 through
> day 4 of week 38. Which would make today the 28th day of North in the
> year 2009.
Correction: today's date is correct, but the last day of North is
actually Thursday of week 39, not week 38. Darn off-by-one errors.
North: W22-5 through W39-4
Southward: W39-5 through W48-4
South: W48-5 through W13-4 of the next year
Northward: W13-5 through W22-4
So year 2009 in this scheme (a leap year):
North: 29 May through 24 Sep, 2009
Southward: 25 Sep through 26 Nov, 2009
South: 27 Nov 2009 through 1 Apr 2010
Northward: 2 Apr through 3 Jun 2010
--
Mark J. Reed < markjreed@...>
|
