Dear Karl and Calendar People,
On 1/9/09, Palmen, KEV (Karl) <
karl.palmen@...> wrote:
> My suggested calendar where most of the months have three days and some have
> two days, could be realised by having a year of 366 dates, where every 483rd
> date is omitted. The months would then have 3 dates. This causes every 161st
> month to be short. This does not work with Victor's months of 1 or 2 days.
I'm not sure what Karl means here. It's my recollection that Karl's
first formulation of this scheme was to simply merge each two
consecutive month of my 1 and 2 day alternating months to form his 2
and 3 day months. The result would be 80 months of 3 days for the
first cycle of 161 days, leaving 1 day left over. This remainder is
combined with the first day of the next 161 day cycle to form a 2 day
month. The remainder of the second 161 day cycle forms another string
of 80 3-day months. The pattern is thus 80 3-day months, 1 2-day
month, 80 3-day months. Rearranging the months, it's simply 160 3-day
months followed by a single 2-day month. In other words, a single
cycle of the 2/3-day month scheme corresponds to two cycles of the
1/2-day month scheme.
Reviewing the archives for January, 2007, I need to also clarify that
dividing the 1/2-day months into groups of twenty months to
approximate lunations appears to ahve been Karl's idea.
Victor
