What are people here in agreement on for reform?

[Scott Watkins]

Hello Kalendarists,

I'm generally more of a lurker here than a participant, barring my suggestions regarding using quarters and weeks as a basis for date marking. That being said, the current debate around the Hanke-Henry proposal seems to be a bit like "dithering in the margins" - concerned with minute details - or proclaiming why one's own proposal is inherently superior. Not that such debate isn't interesting in it's own right, but are there things here that we can agree should go into a broadly acceptable reform proposal?

So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion, most of which are either/or or multiple choice decisions, and ask the opinions of those here what they think of each idea s the basis for a broadly used new calendar.

Here's a start:

Should we keep the 7 day week?

What day should the week start on?

Should we keep the month?

Should the months be of equal length?

How many months should there be?

Should the year divide into equal quarters?

Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?

I'm wondering how much here we actually agree on. Any thoughts?

Scott Watkins

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2012 Jan 9, at 19:44 , Scott Watkins wrote:

I'm generally more of a lurker here than a participant, barring my suggestions regarding using quarters and weeks as a basis for date marking. That being said, the current debate around the Hanke-Henry proposal seems to be a bit like "dithering in the margins" - concerned with minute details - or proclaiming why one's own proposal is inherently superior. Not that such debate isn't interesting in it's own right, but are there things here that we can agree should go into a broadly acceptable reform proposal?

So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion, most of which are either/or or multiple choice decisions, and ask the opinions of those here what they think of each idea s the basis for a broadly used new calendar.

Here's a start:

Should we keep the 7 day week?

No alternative.  For the explanations please see "Credo:  What We Believe" at <http://www.sym454.org/symmetry/>.

What day should the week start on?

Monday.

Should we keep the month?

Which one?

Should the months be of equal length?

Possibly.

My Symmetry454 calendar has months of 4 weeks but every 3rd month is 5 weeks.  Advantages: every month starts on Monday, every day number in every month is always the same weekday as it is in any other month, retain 12 months per year with divisibility into 4 equal quarters.

My Symmetry010 calendar has months of 30 days but every 3rd month is 31 days.  Each quarter starts on Monday.  12 months per year, 4 equal quarters.

Do you want the month lengths to be exactly equal?

How many months should there be?

12

Should the year divide into equal quarters?

Yes

Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?

Leap weeks.

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?

293-years, with 52 leap years symmetrically distributed and spread as smoothly as possible.  The reasons for preferring a symmetrical smoothly spread cycle are explained here:  <http://www.sym454.org/leap/> then click on the topic heading 6. Symmetrical Leap Cycles.

The reasons for preferring the 293-year cycle is explained further down on that same web page, just use your web browser Find command to locate the phrase "The 52/293 leap cycle is preferred".

I'm wondering how much here we actually agree on. Any thoughts?

No consensus is possible here.

Each person has his or her own calendar to promote, and many of us offer multiple calendar reform ideas.  I only mentioned two of mine above.  If you were to ask me to choose one, I can't.

Well, Scott, you left out the most important question:  should the calendar be perpetual?  The answer is absolutely yes, if we're talking about a reform of the Gregorian calendar.  Without making the calendar perpetual, there is no point in reforming any other attribute of the calendar.  If we're going to propose a perpetual calendar reform (leap week calendar) then while we're at it we may as well make any additional adjustments that would be optimal or beneficial.

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Brillig]

Perhaps we need a bit more time to settle on whether the set of questions is even appropriate. For example, I think there should be a higher level question:

Do you think the current calendar needs to be reformed? These questions only make sense if the answer is yes.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:

I like Scott's questions and to handle them more easily, I will be sending out a survey.  Please answer the questions just once.   As soon as I get the results, I will make a presentation.

Sonny Pondrom
sonny@...
2012-M01-W2-D1
"Happy New Year"


On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Scott Watkins wrote:

Hello Kalendarists,

I'm generally more of a lurker here than a participant, barring my suggestions regarding using quarters and weeks as a basis for date marking. That being said, the current debate around the Hanke-Henry proposal seems to be a bit like "dithering in the margins" - concerned with minute details - or proclaiming why one's own proposal is inherently superior. Not that such debate isn't interesting in it's own right, but are there things here that we can agree should go into a broadly acceptable reform proposal?

So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion, most of which are either/or or multiple choice decisions, and ask the opinions of those here what they think of each idea s the basis for a broadly used new calendar.

Here's a start:

Should we keep the 7 day week?

What day should the week start on?

Should we keep the month?

Should the months be of equal length?

How many months should there be?

Should the year divide into equal quarters?

Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?

I'm wondering how much here we actually agree on. Any thoughts?

Scott Watkins

[Sepp Rothwangl]

Am 10.01.2012 um 04:40 schrieb Victor Engel:

Do you think the current calendar needs to be reformed?

NO! It cannot be reformed!

We need a completely new temporal reckoning!

Servus

Sepp

These questions only make sense if the answer is yes.

????

Sepp Rothwangl

www.calendersign.com

calendersign@...

[Amos Shapir-2]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...> wrote:
> On 2012 Jan 9, at 19:44 , Scott Watkins wrote:
>
>
> Should we keep the 7 day week?
>
>
> No alternative.  For the explanations please see "Credo:  What We Believe"
> at <http://www.sym454.org/symmetry/>.
>

Agree.

> What day should the week start on?
>
>
> Monday.

I vote for Sunday, that's when the work week starts here in Israel!
(OTOH most people here don't work Fridays)

>
> Should we keep the month?
>
>
> Which one?

Another question: Should we keep the month's names?  I'd vote a
definite NO on that, especially if the difference between the new and
old calendars is going to be small.

>
>
> -- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada
>
> <http://www.sym454.org/>



--
Amos Shapir

[Lewerenz]

Hallo Amos and friends of Calendar Reform!
In 1974 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) decided the
week to begin at Monday. This Organization and their adherents did not like
to realize, that Shabath since then was the sixth day of the week. Has then
been any objection? In Germany nearly all calendar-maker were at once
obedient to this recommendation, which I do not like.
It is a long common tradition to have Shabat as the seventh day of the week.
Christians followed this origin jewish tradition, and later Islamic arabs
too. In the Arabic language the day after Friday is nominated as "As Sabt"
what means: "the Seventh".
Greetings Carlo

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:CALNDR-L@...] Im Auftrag von Amos Shapir
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2012 17:03
An: CALNDR-L@...
Betreff: Re: What are people here in agreement on for reform?

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...>
wrote:
> On 2012 Jan 9, at 19:44 , Scott Watkins wrote:
>
>
> Should we keep the 7 day week?
>
>
> No alternative.  For the explanations please see "Credo:  What We Believe"
> at <http://www.sym454.org/symmetry/>.
>

Agree.

> What day should the week start on?
>
>
> Monday.

I vote for Sunday, that's when the work week starts here in Israel!
(OTOH most people here don't work Fridays)

>
> Should we keep the month?
>
>
> Which one?

Another question: Should we keep the month's names?  I'd vote a
definite NO on that, especially if the difference between the new and
old calendars is going to be small.

>
>
> -- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada
>
> <http://www.sym454.org/>



--
Amos Shapir

[RDoug]

"Scott Watkins" wrote:

> So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion...

Should we keep the 7 day week?   Yes (a near-universal across many diverse cultures)

What day should the week start on?  Sunday (as it always has)

Should we keep the month?  Yes (the Moon has always been intrinsic to time-keeping)

Should the months be of equal length?  No (the Moon doesn't work that way)

How many months should there be?  Twelve or Thirteen, depending (that is how the Moon really works)

Should the year divide into equal quarters?  No (again, the Moon doesn't work that way)
 
Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?  Leap Months (the only logical approach)

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?  19-year Cycle, as per Hebrew Calendar or Paschal Calendar

"Leap Months" is the only logical approach because a year is naturally defined as the interval from the beginning of "Month 1" until the beginning of the next "Month 1" a year later.  Leap days don't help because a particular year is always going to be some exact number of days anyway.  Leap weeks don't help either because a natural year (based on Lunations, of course) is only rarely any exact number of weeks.  The purpose of weeks is for counting days, and the purpose of years is for counting (named) Months... not weeks, or even days.

-- Robert H. Douglass

[Michael Deckers]

   On 2012-01-10 17:16, Carlo Lewerenz wrote:

> In 1974 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) decided the
> week to begin at Monday. This Organization and their adherents did not like
> to realize, that Shabath since then was the sixth day of the week. ........

   To be precise, ISO/R 2015 was issued already in 1971. ISO 8601
   defines the term, calendar week, as a
      time interval of seven calendar days starting with a Monday
   for
      the purposes of the standard.
   There is even a note that the term "week" applies to any time
   interval of length 7 d.

   ISO standards are (most often) the joint work of national
   standardisation committees and do not express any likes or
   dislikes of ISO. Everybody is free not to follow the
   provisions of ISO standards. Following them can make
   business easier, and big customers often insist on
   standard conformance.

> .................................................................. Has then
> been any objection? In Germany nearly all calendar-maker were at once
> obedient to this recommendation, which I do not like.

   ISO standards can only be approved when 75 % of the contributing
   national bodies vote affirmative. Since every standard goes
   through at least three votings, the last of which involves
   a public review period of several weeks or months (FDIS), the
   approval rate is in general much greater. Really contentious
   standards take a long time (years) for approval because all
   the comments in negative votes must be dealt with ("resolved")
   by the committee.

   And by the way, the Germans already followed their own
   standard DIN 1355 of 1943.

> It is a long common tradition to have Shabat as the seventh day of the week.
> Christians followed this origin jewish tradition, and later Islamic arabs
> too. In the Arabic language the day after Friday is nominated as "As Sabt"
> what means: "the Seventh".

   Several other languages use (partly) numerical names for the
   days of the week. In Latin, Portuguese, modern Greek, and Turkish,
   the numbers are such that Sunday would have the number one. But in
   Russian and other Slavonic languages, in Hungarian and in
   Chinese, Monday would be number one as in ISO 8601.

   Michael Deckers.

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2012 Jan 10, at 12:50 , RDoug wrote:

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?  19-year Cycle, as per Hebrew Calendar or Paschal Calendar

The problem with the 19-year cycle, with 235 months and 7 leap months, is its excessively long calendar mean year, almost 6+1/2 minutes too long relative to the mean northward equinoctial year (exact difference depends on the assumed mean month).  It doesn't make sense to introduce a modern calendar reform with such a huge drift rate. It would need a correction of 1/19 of a lunar cycle every 3+1/2 centuries. For more information please see my web page concerning the seasonal drift of the traditional Hebrew calendar at <http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/drift.htm>.

The full repeat interval of the traditional Hebrew calendar is 689472 years, see:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/Hebrew-Possible-Weekdays-view.htm

A 353-cycle, with 4366 months and 130 leap months yields an excellent approximation of the equinoctial year, especially if a contemporaneously accurate or intentionally slightly  short mean month is selected.  This cycle inherently applies the above-mentioned correction at intervals of 3+1/2 centuries (actually 353 years of course).

My favorite for a fixed arithmetic lunisolar calendar, however, is the 1803-year cycle, with 22300 months (100 saros periods) and 664 leap months, which also yields an excellent approximation to the equinoctial year provided that the calendar epoch is positioned about 2000 years into the future.  Hence I call this the "Future Hebrew calendar" (I prefer 2227 years into the future, which would position the epoch at Rosh HaShanah of Hebrew year 7999, because the traditional and future calendars will agree on that date.  Of course in calendrical calculations 7999 would be added to the otherwise negative year number so that the traditionally accepted Hebrew year numbering could continue uninterrupted.)  I don't mean by this that the calendar would only be implemented in the distant future.  It can be used today, it's just the internal calendrical calculations that work in terms of the distant future epoch instead of a remote past epoch.

The 1803-year cycle contains a whole number of weeks.  The optimal lunar cycle to use in this case is the 25-saros lunar cycle, which is exactly 1/4 of the solar cycle and has a mean month of exactly 29+2958/5575 days = 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes 2+82/223 seconds (intentionally slightly too short for the present era, but an excellent choice when used with the same future epoch that is optimal for the solar cycle).

With these solar and lunar cycles, the calendar full repeat interval would be equal to only a single solar cycle = 1803 years.

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2012 Jan 10, at 15:27 , Irv Bromberg wrote:

On 2012 Jan 10, at 12:50 , RDoug wrote:

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?  19-year Cycle, as per Hebrew Calendar or Paschal Calendar

The problem with the 19-year cycle, with 235 months and 7 leap months, is its excessively long calendar mean year, almost 6+1/2 minutes too long relative to the mean northward equinoctial year (exact difference depends on the assumed mean month).  It doesn't make sense to introduce a modern calendar reform with such a huge drift rate. It would need a correction of 1/19 of a lunar cycle every 3+1/2 centuries. For more information please see my web page concerning the seasonal drift of the traditional Hebrew calendar at <http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/drift.htm>.

Oops, my mistake.  The required correction is 1/19th of a mean month every 3+1/2 centuries.  Sorry about that.

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2012 Jan 10, at 15:27 , Irv Bromberg wrote:

My favorite for a fixed arithmetic lunisolar calendar, however, is the 1803-year cycle, with 22300 months (100 saros periods) and 664 leap months, which also yields an excellent approximation to the equinoctial year provided that the calendar epoch is positioned about 2000 years into the future.  Hence I call this the "Future Hebrew calendar" (I prefer 2227 years into the future, which would position the epoch at Rosh HaShanah of Hebrew year 7999, because the traditional and future calendars will agree on that date.  Of course in calendrical calculations 7999 would be added to the otherwise negative year number so that the traditionally accepted Hebrew year numbering could continue uninterrupted.)  I don't mean by this that the calendar would only be implemented in the distant future.  It can be used today, it's just the internal calendrical calculations that work in terms of the distant future epoch instead of a remote past epoch.

The 1803-year cycle contains a whole number of weeks.  The optimal lunar cycle to use in this case is the 25-saros lunar cycle, which is exactly 1/4 of the solar cycle and has a mean month of exactly 29+2958/5575 days = 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes 2+82/223 seconds (intentionally slightly too short for the present era, but an excellent choice when used with the same future epoch that is optimal for the solar cycle).

With these solar and lunar cycles, the calendar full repeat interval would be equal to only a single solar cycle = 1803 years.

I should add that it is easy to make an Easter computus for the 1803-year cycle, because the 1803-year cycle contains a whole number of lunar months (22300) and a whole number of lunar cycles (4) and a whole number of weeks (94075).

Of course it would share the same future epoch as the solar and lunar cycles.

If one is considering only calendar solar and lunar cycles having good approximations to the astronomical mean year and astronomical mean month, this is an exceptionally short Easter computus cycle.

With such a lunisolar cycle, it may not be unreasonable to establish fixed dates for Easter and related days counted before and after Easter, just as the Hebrew High Holy Days etc. follow a fixed dating pattern (same rules as the traditional Hebrew calendar).  I'll bet that this is the reason why Robert H. Douglass expressed his preference for a lunisolar calendar reform.

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/>

[Brillig]

In that case, I consider it a farce and have no interest in participating.

Victor

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:

Dear Victor

You are right and this question will not be included.  

Sonny Pondromsonny@...2012-M01-W2-D2"Happy New Year" 

On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Victor Engel wrote:

Perhaps we need a bit more time to settle on whether the set of questions is even appropriate. For example, I think there should be a higher level question:

Do you think the current calendar needs to be reformed? These questions only make sense if the answer is yes.

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:

I like Scott's questions and to handle them more easily, I will be sending out a survey.  Please answer the questions just once.   As soon as I get the results, I will make a presentation.

Sonny Pondrom
sonny@...
2012-M01-W2-D1
"Happy New Year"


On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Scott Watkins wrote:

Hello Kalendarists,

I'm generally more of a lurker here than a participant, barring my suggestions regarding using quarters and weeks as a basis for date marking. That being said, the current debate around the Hanke-Henry proposal seems to be a bit like "dithering in the margins" - concerned with minute details - or proclaiming why one's own proposal is inherently superior. Not that such debate isn't interesting in it's own right, but are there things here that we can agree should go into a broadly acceptable reform proposal?

So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion, most of which are either/or or multiple choice decisions, and ask the opinions of those here what they think of each idea s the basis for a broadly used new calendar.

Here's a start:

Should we keep the 7 day week?

What day should the week start on?

Should we keep the month?

Should the months be of equal length?

How many months should there be?

Should the year divide into equal quarters?

Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?

I'm wondering how much here we actually agree on. Any thoughts?

Scott Watkins

[Brillig]

You acknowledge that the question I segmented is needed for
completeness yet you state you will not include it. I therefore see no
point in the survey.

On 1/10/12, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:

> Dear Victor,
>
> I don't understand your wishes.
>
> Sonny Pondrom
> sonny@...
> 2012-M01-W2-D2
> "Happy New Year"
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Victor Engel wrote:
>
> In that case, I consider it a farce and have no interest in
> participating.
>
> Victor
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...>
> wrote:
> Dear Victor
>
> You are right and this question will not be included.
>
> Sonny Pondromsonny@...2012-M01-W2-D2"Happy New Year"
>
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Victor Engel wrote:
>
> Perhaps we need a bit more time to settle on whether the set of
> questions is even appropriate. For example, I think there should be a
> higher level question:
>
> Do you think the current calendar needs to be reformed? These
> questions only make sense if the answer is yes.
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:
> I like Scott's questions and to handle them more easily, I will be
> sending out a survey.  Please answer the questions just once.   As
> soon as I get the results, I will make a presentation.
>
> Sonny Pondrom
> sonny@...
> 2012-M01-W2-D1
> "Happy New Year"
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Scott Watkins wrote:
>
> Hello Kalendarists,
>
> I'm generally more of a lurker here than a participant, barring my
> suggestions regarding using quarters and weeks as a basis for date
> marking. That being said, the current debate around the Hanke-Henry
> proposal seems to be a bit like "dithering in the margins" - concerned
> with minute details - or proclaiming why one's own proposal is
> inherently superior. Not that such debate isn't interesting in it's
> own right, but are there things here that we can agree should go into
> a broadly acceptable reform proposal?
>
> So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion, most of
> which are either/or or multiple choice decisions, and ask the opinions
> of those here what they think of each idea s the basis for a broadly
> used new calendar.
>
> Here's a start:
>
> Should we keep the 7 day week?
>
> What day should the week start on?
>
> Should we keep the month?
>
> Should the months be of equal length?
>
> How many months should there be?
>
> Should the year divide into equal quarters?
>
> Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?
>
> (more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?
>
> I'm wondering how much here we actually agree on. Any thoughts?
>
> Scott Watkins
>
>
>
>
>

[Brillig]

Ah, that was an incorrect reading. Speaking just for myself, but I
think I am not alone, I am interested in the topic, but I don't
believe the calendar should, be changed. I would suggest adding the
question as:

Do you think the current calendar should be changed?

A) yes .. Do away with the gregorian calendar and replace it with something else
B) no .. Leave things as is since they work fine
C) no it is too much hassle to change
D) keep the existing calendar and add a new one

Maybe more options, but those are the ones that spring to mind.

On 1/10/12, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:

> Dear Victor,
>
> I read your remark as saying that since everyone on the list is
> interested in calendar reform, it will be a waste of time to ask if
> the current calendar needs to be reformed.   What am I missing?
>
>
> Sonny Pondrom
> sonny@...
> 2012-M01-W2-D2
> "Happy New Year"
>
>
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Victor Engel wrote:
>
> You acknowledge that the question I segmented is needed for
> completeness yet you state you will not include it. I therefore see no
> point in the survey.
>
> On 1/10/12, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:
>> Dear Victor,
>>
>> I don't understand your wishes.
>>
>> Sonny Pondrom
>> sonny@...
>> 2012-M01-W2-D2
>> "Happy New Year"
>>
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Victor Engel wrote:
>>
>> In that case, I consider it a farce and have no interest in
>> participating.
>>
>> Victor
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...>
>> wrote:
>> Dear Victor
>>
>> You are right and this question will not be included.
>>
>> Sonny Pondromsonny@...2012-M01-W2-D2"Happy New Year"
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Victor Engel wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps we need a bit more time to settle on whether the set of
>> questions is even appropriate. For example, I think there should be a
>> higher level question:
>>
>> Do you think the current calendar needs to be reformed? These
>> questions only make sense if the answer is yes.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...>
>> wrote:
>> I like Scott's questions and to handle them more easily, I will be
>> sending out a survey.  Please answer the questions just once.   As
>> soon as I get the results, I will make a presentation.
>>
>> Sonny Pondrom
>> sonny@...
>> 2012-M01-W2-D1
>> "Happy New Year"
>>
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Scott Watkins wrote:
>>
>> Hello Kalendarists,
>>
>> I'm generally more of a lurker here than a participant, barring my
>> suggestions regarding using quarters and weeks as a basis for date
>> marking. That being said, the current debate around the Hanke-Henry
>> proposal seems to be a bit like "dithering in the margins" - concerned
>> with minute details - or proclaiming why one's own proposal is
>> inherently superior. Not that such debate isn't interesting in it's
>> own right, but are there things here that we can agree should go into
>> a broadly acceptable reform proposal?
>>
>> So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion, most of
>> which are either/or or multiple choice decisions, and ask the opinions
>> of those here what they think of each idea s the basis for a broadly
>> used new calendar.
>>
>> Here's a start:
>>
>> Should we keep the 7 day week?
>>
>> What day should the week start on?
>>
>> Should we keep the month?
>>
>> Should the months be of equal length?
>>
>> How many months should there be?
>>
>> Should the year divide into equal quarters?
>>
>> Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?
>>
>> (more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?
>>
>> I'm wondering how much here we actually agree on. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Scott Watkins
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Scott Watkins]

It is nice to see that this is proceeding to a survey. Thanks, Sonny!

To clarify my unclear questions regarding months earlier, here's some alternate versions'

Do you think that the month should be kept as a timekeeping unit?

Should Months be approximately equal in length (30 or 31 days, for example)

(Alternately: What length should months be?)

I also think that there are valid questions to be asked about whether or not you think calendar reform is possible or advisable.

Nice to see everyone's opinions here.

Scott

[Jerome H. Fine]

>Victor Engel wrote:

Perhaps we need a bit more time to settle on whether the set of questions is even appropriate. For example, I think there should be a higher level question:

Do you think the current calendar needs to be reformed? These questions only make sense if the answer is yes.

The higher level question might be:  "Why should the calendar be reformed?

In that regard, the following might be some of the reasons:

(a)  To reduce the jitter
(b)  To have a perpetual calendar
(c)  To reduce the current long term drift
(d)  Please add other reasons which may be useful

My suggestion is that only when the reason for calendar reform is agreed upon,
i.e. the criteria for making the reform in the first place, is it possible to decide
on how to proceed on the reform.

My understanding is the the Common Era (aka Gregorian) Calendar was
introduced with as few changes as possible (relative to the Julian Calendar
Rules which the Gregorian Calendar replaced) to correct problem (c) and
that at present the long term drift is too small to require any changes for
between 1000 and 2000 years.

In regard to the jitter, I suggest that apart from a very few individuals on this
list, it has very few supporters and makes no sense at all.

In respect of a perpetual calendar, while a different schedule seems to be
required every year, that is probably true in the short run.  But in the long
run, I suggest that there can only be a maximum of 14 unique schedules
IN  TOTAL!!

With computers to take care of the details, I can't see why the upset
of calendar reform is so worth while that 14 different schedules can't
be accommodated when computers are so useful to keep track of all
of those things.

Irv, you have suggested that a perpetual calendar would be useful to
reduce the requirement for a new schedule every year.  Am I correct
when I note that only 14 unique schedules are actually required?  Do
you think that all the changes needed for calendar reform would be
less confusion than having 14 unique schedules with the current
calendar?

>Irv Bromberg wrote:
>My primary interest in reforming the Gregorian calendar is to make it perpetual,
>for all the scheduling advantages that that entails, savings which would be realized
>immediately and for all time.

By the way, have I answered why calendar reform which includes the
implementation of a perpetual calendar (of whatever kind whether or
not the new calendar carries on with the current 7 day week) does not
seem (at least from my point of view) to have that great a benefit?
I note that although many different schedules are required, in practice
there are actually only 14 unique schedules.

What I believe actually complicates the issue even more is that in
many cases, more than one calendar often conflicts with the other -
each with its own separate and distinct cycles.  As Amos Shapir
has often pointed out, Israel has this special case of always fitting
the official Hebrew Calendar into the secular Common Era
Calendar.  That problem will continue to happen even if the
Common Era Calendar becomes a perpetual calendar since
there will still be a different cycles each year which conflict.

Probably many other countries have similar problems when
other and similar issues issues need to be resolved.  Only when
humans finally realize how futile all of the arguments actually
are will there be any progress.  Since it took about 400 years
for one religion to admit that Galileo was correct, I do not
have much hope that humans will agree any time soon.

Jerome Fine

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Sonny Pondrom <sonny@...> wrote:

I like Scott's questions and to handle them more easily, I will be sending out a survey.  Please answer the questions just once.   As soon as I get the results, I will make a presentation.

Sonny Pondrom
sonny@...
2012-M01-W2-D1
"Happy New Year"


On Jan 9, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Scott Watkins wrote:

Hello Kalendarists,

I'm generally more of a lurker here than a participant, barring my suggestions regarding using quarters and weeks as a basis for date marking. That being said, the current debate around the Hanke-Henry proposal seems to be a bit like "dithering in the margins" - concerned with minute details - or proclaiming why one's own proposal is inherently superior. Not that such debate isn't interesting in it's own right, but are there things here that we can agree should go into a broadly acceptable reform proposal?

So I'd like to propose a list of alternatives for discussion, most of which are either/or or multiple choice decisions, and ask the opinions of those here what they think of each idea s the basis for a broadly used new calendar.

Here's a start:

Should we keep the 7 day week?

What day should the week start on?

Should we keep the month?

Should the months be of equal length?

How many months should there be?

Should the year divide into equal quarters?

Should we use leap days, leap weeks, or leap months?

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?

I'm wondering how much here we actually agree on. Any thoughts?

Scott Watkins

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2012 Jan 10, at 21:40 , Victor Engel wrote:

Ah, that was an incorrect reading. Speaking just for myself, but I
think I am not alone, I am interested in the topic, but I don't
believe the calendar should, be changed. I would suggest adding the
question as:

Do you think the current calendar should be changed?

A) yes .. Do away with the gregorian calendar and replace it with something else
B) no .. Leave things as is since they work fine
C) no it is too much hassle to change
D) keep the existing calendar and add a new one

Whoa, wait, hold on there buddy!  Who says that reform of the Gregorian calendar is the goal?  (Or the only goal?)

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Irv Bromberg]

On 2012 Jan 10, at 22:34 , Jerome H. Fine wrote:

The higher level question might be:  "Why should the calendar be reformed?

In that regard, the following might be some of the reasons:

(a)  To reduce the jitter
(b)  To have a perpetual calendar
(c)  To reduce the current long term drift
(d)  Please add other reasons which may be useful

Move perpetual to be the first in the list.  Without it, we don't need the rest of the list.

Please see "Credo:  What We Believe" at <http://www.sym454.org/symmetry>.

My understanding is the the Common Era (aka Gregorian) Calendar was
introduced with as few changes as possible (relative to the Julian Calendar
Rules which the Gregorian Calendar replaced) to correct problem (c) and
that at present the long term drift is too small to require any changes for
between 1000 and 2000 years.

Actually it was a huge change.  Although the layout of the calendar months didn't change, the epoch shifted two days later, the leap cycle changed from 4-year cycle to a 400-year cycle, leap years were no longer at intervals as smoothly spread as possible, the leap rule changed from single step to triple step, apparently a year zero came into existence (opinions vary on this), and the Easter computus was entirely redesigned with a shorter mean year (equal to the Gregorian mean year) and a dramatically shorter mean month.  Also, if I recall correctly, the leap day changed from a bisextile 25th of February to become the 29th of February.  March 1st remained the New Year Day, later moved to January 1st (for reasons that make no sense to me).

There is no reason to focus on minimizing change.  Changing anything will have a level of disruption, changing anything in addition will have only small incremental effect.  Our goal should be the optimization of the calendar reform, not minimal change, as I explained in my credo.

In regard to the jitter, I suggest that apart from a very few individuals on this list, it has very few supporters and makes no sense at all.

It is a minor problem, as is the slightly too long mean year of the Gregorian calendar.

But while we're at it, we may as well...

In respect of a perpetual calendar, while a different schedule seems to be
required every year, that is probably true in the short run.  But in the long
run, I suggest that there can only be a maximum of 14 unique schedules
IN  TOTAL!!

Do you really think that it is practical to maintain 14 different schedules?

Also, as nice as it will be to have a perpetual calendar, there will still be instances where an event needs to be rescheduled for any number of reasons unrelated to the calendar.

Also, it is a lot more than just 14 schedules, because Easter and related days wander around and affect scheduling.

That is why I also propose a fixed date for Easter, but acceptance of that is up to the churches of course.

With computers to take care of the details, I can't see why the upset
of calendar reform is so worth while that 14 different schedules can't
be accommodated when computers are so useful to keep track of all
of those things.

I have yet to see a sufficiently well implemented scheduling package that can do a good job at that for any organization.

This reminds me of Yosef Shteinberg's proposed leap week calendar reform "with split weeks", developed in the 1970s, in Russia.

Instead of inserting a leap week, in leap years he spread the 7 leap days throughout the calendar year, converting 30-day months to 31 days.

This made the leap week quite inconspicuous, but it meant that the schedule for leap years would be appreciably different from common years.

In this case only two schedule versions would be required, which I consider unacceptable -- so much more so 14 different versions!

Also the calendrical calculations to cope with 7 days inserted in different positions were frustratingly complex, although he never considered that aspect.

Strangely, his non-uniformly spread leap rule (every year number divisible by 5 is a leap year unless it is divisible by 50) had 72 leap years per 400 years (instead of the required 71), yet the Vatican officially responded to him that they had no objection to his calendar being adopted!

Probably many other countries have similar problems when
other and similar issues issues need to be resolved.  Only when
humans finally realize how futile all of the arguments actually
are will there be any progress.  Since it took about 400 years
for one religion to admit that Galileo was correct, I do not
have much hope that humans will agree any time soon.

Are you suggesting that the calendar reform will be arrived at through the decision of our internet "hive mind"?

... Like the way that Wikipedia pages steadily converge their edits toward the optimal collection of information?  (NOT!  It's not steadily progressive, especially on hot topics, whose contents can oscillate wildly, with sudden large changes and restorations.)

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

<http://www.sym454.org/>

[Karl Palmen]

Dear Amos, Irv and Calendar People

If ISO had chosen Sunday as the first day of the week. Then the 53-week years would be distributed symmetrically in the same manner as the leap years and every 53-week year would occur 5 or 6 years after the previous (never 7 years).

Note that this symmetry is not the same as the symmetry that Irv and I have sometimes written about.

Karl

12(07(17 till noon

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Lewerenz
Sent: 10 January 2012 17:16
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: AW: What are people here in agreement on for reform?

Hallo Amos and friends of Calendar Reform!
In 1974 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) decided the
week to begin at Monday. This Organization and their adherents did not like
to realize, that Shabath since then was the sixth day of the week. Has then
been any objection? In Germany nearly all calendar-maker were at once
obedient to this recommendation, which I do not like.
It is a long common tradition to have Shabat as the seventh day of the week.
Christians followed this origin jewish tradition, and later Islamic arabs
too. In the Arabic language the day after Friday is nominated as "As Sabt"
what means: "the Seventh".
Greetings Carlo

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List
[mailto:CALNDR-L@...] Im Auftrag von Amos Shapir
Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. Januar 2012 17:03
An: CALNDR-L@...
Betreff: Re: What are people here in agreement on for reform?

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Irv Bromberg <irv.bromberg@...>
wrote:
> On 2012 Jan 9, at 19:44 , Scott Watkins wrote:
>
>
> Should we keep the 7 day week?
>
>
> No alternative.  For the explanations please see "Credo:  What We Believe"
> at <http://www.sym454.org/symmetry/>.
>

Agree.

> What day should the week start on?
>
>
> Monday.

I vote for Sunday, that's when the work week starts here in Israel!
(OTOH most people here don't work Fridays)

>
> Should we keep the month?
>
>
> Which one?

Another question: Should we keep the month's names?  I'd vote a
definite NO on that, especially if the difference between the new and
old calendars is going to be small.

>
>
> -- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada
>
> <http://www.sym454.org/>



--
Amos Shapir
--
Scanned by iCritical.

[Karl Palmen]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Dear Sonny and Calendar People

 

I suggest have a question like

 

Should the calendar use a 7-day week without any interruption such as blank days?

 

Karl

 

12(07(17 till noon

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Sonny Pondrom
Sent: 11 January 2012 01:16
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: What are people here in agreement on for reform?

 

Dear Irv and Calendar Reformers,

 

If you have a question that you want to add to the survey, let me know.   I should have it ready by Wednesday.  Thanks.  

 

 

Sonny Pondrom

sonny@...

2012-M01-W2-D2

"Happy New Year"

 

 

On Jan 10, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Irv Bromberg wrote:

 

On 2012 Jan 10, at 15:27 , Irv Bromberg wrote:

On 2012 Jan 10, at 12:50 , RDoug wrote:

(more open ended) What leap cycle should be used?  19-year Cycle, as per Hebrew Calendar or Paschal Calendar

 

The problem with the 19-year cycle, with 235 months and 7 leap months, is its excessively long calendar mean year, almost 6+1/2 minutes too long relative to the mean northward equinoctial year (exact difference depends on the assumed mean month).  It doesn't make sense to introduce a modern calendar reform with such a huge drift rate. It would need a correction of 1/19 of a lunar cycle every 3+1/2 centuries. For more information please see my web page concerning the seasonal drift of the traditional Hebrew calendar at <http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/drift.htm>.

 

 

Oops, my mistake.  The required correction is 1/19th of a mean month every 3+1/2 centuries.  Sorry about that.

 

-- Dr. Irv Bromberg, University of Toronto, Canada

 

<http://www.sym454.org/hebrew/>

 

--
Scanned by iCritical.