Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

Karl Palmen

Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

In his web page

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

Irv wrote: ‘"Complexity", whether perceived or real, is not a valid reason to avoid a necessary calendar reform.’

I agree with him, provided the calendar reform is really necessary and there is no simpler solution that satisfies this need for the calendar reform.

This is so, in the case of changing the 19-year cycle of the Hebrew calendar to a 353-year cycle or similar as shown in link.

 

Karl

 

16(02(20

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

Sepp Rothwangl
Dear Karl,

I joined recently a conference in Bulgaria and my proceedings will promote the necessity of a new calendar:


Servus
Sepp


Am 21.10.2016 um 16:00 schrieb Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>:

Dear Irv and Calendar People
 
In his web page
Irv wrote: ‘"Complexity", whether perceived or real, is not a valid reason to avoid a necessary calendar reform.’
I agree with him, provided the calendar reform is really necessary and there is no simpler solution that satisfies this need for the calendar reform.
This is so, in the case of changing the 19-year cycle of the Hebrew calendar to a 353-year cycle or similar as shown in link.
 
Karl
 
16(02(20

Sepp Rothwangl, CEP -240.479
[hidden email]
www.calendersign.com
facebook.com/sepp.rothwangl



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

Karl Palmen

Dear Irv, Sepp & Calendar People

 

Thinking more about this for

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

 

I concern myself with molad reform. Irv suggested a progressive molad in which the molad intervals changes. This would be considerably more complicated than a molad with constant interval.

 

If the reform were to need (for example) that the longitude of the molad to be within one minute of arc of the temple of Jerusalem, then a progressive molad may be the best solution. The formula for the progressive molad would need changing occasionally, but much less often than constant interval molad.

 

If the reform were to only need (for another example) that the longitude of the molad to be somewhere between the Nile and the Euphrates, then a constant molad would suffice. It would need changing every few millennia and a 100-years notice could be given for each change, so the dates from the next 100 years would always be certain. One could use a molad interval that is a multiple of 1/3 second = 1/10 Helek (part) or alternatively an interval that would produce a one-era cycle in a yerm calendar.

 

I don’t think complexity or simplicity is an issue for Sepp.

 

Karl

 

16(02(23

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sepp
Sent: 21 October 2016 16:12
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

 

Dear Karl,

 

I joined recently a conference in Bulgaria and my proceedings will promote the necessity of a new calendar:

 

 

Servus

Sepp

 

 

Am 21.10.2016 um 16:00 schrieb Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>:



Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

In his web page

Irv wrote: ‘"Complexity", whether perceived or real, is not a valid reason to avoid a necessary calendar reform.’

I agree with him, provided the calendar reform is really necessary and there is no simpler solution that satisfies this need for the calendar reform.

This is so, in the case of changing the 19-year cycle of the Hebrew calendar to a 353-year cycle or similar as shown in link.

 

Karl

 

16(02(20

 



 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

Irv Bromberg
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Karl Palmen [[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 08:03

Thinking more about this for

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

 

I concern myself with molad reform. Irv suggested a progressive molad in which the molad intervals changes. This would be considerably more complicated than a molad with constant interval.


Irv replies: The progressive molad involves calculating the traditional molad moment and then subtracting one adjustment, based on a fixed quadratic equation. So it doesn't involve modifying the molad interval over the course of time.

 

If the reform were to need (for example) that the longitude of the molad to be within one minute of arc of the temple of Jerusalem, then a progressive molad may be the best solution. The formula for the progressive molad would need changing occasionally, but much less often than constant interval molad.

 

If the reform were to only need (for another example) that the longitude of the molad to be somewhere between the Nile and the Euphrates, then a constant molad would suffice. It would need changing every few millennia and a 100-years notice could be given for each change, so the dates from the next 100 years would always be certain. One could use a molad interval that is a multiple of 1/3 second = 1/10 Helek (part) or alternatively an interval that would produce a one-era cycle in a yerm calendar.


Irv replies: Indeed, I have written to this group several times previously that if one intentionally picks a lunar cycle that has a mean month that is slightly too short for the present era then it can serve well as a fixed molad for a few millennia, and I have favoured the 25-saros cycle for this purpose -- it works best with a future epoch, corresponding to around the start of the 8th Hebrew calendar millennium, and can be nicely coupled with the solar cycle by taking 4 x 25 saros = 100 saros, which contains 1803 solar years with 664 leap months = 22300 mean synodic months = mean year 365 + 437/1803 days ≡ 365d 5h 49m 1+59/601s, which is a quite satisfactory approximation of the mean northward equinoctial year. With the use of the same future epoch for the solar component, this will serve quite adequately as a simple fixed arithmetic reform of the Hebrew calendar having a repeat interval of only 1803 years (compare with the 689472-year repeat interval of the traditional Hebrew calendar). I call this the "Future Hebrew Calendar" because it has a future epoch and because I hope that it may be adopted in the future -- although I must admit that the chances of this happening are rather poor because I haven't documented this calendar reform proposal at my web site yet.


This 1803-year cycle has a whole number of weeks and so can be used as a leap week calendar (320 leap weeks per cycle) or a leap day calendar (437 leap days per cycle). The lunisolar version could serve as an Easter computus.


The 1803-year leap week cycle has a mean year that is intermediate between the Symmetry calendars and the Dee calendar, because each 1803-year cycle is identical to four 231-year leap week cycles each having 41 leap weeks, alternating with three 293-year leap week cycles each having 52 leap weeks. (231 years = 7 x Dee's 33-year cycle, necessary because Dee's cycle doesn't contain a whole number of weeks). For more information, please see the 320/1803 cycle described in this table:


http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/leap/#otherNE


--- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

Karl Palmen

Dear Irv and Calendar People

 

Thank you Irv for your reply.

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Irv Bromberg
Sent: 26 October 2016 03:16
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Complexity as a Reason to Reject a Calendar Reform

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Karl Palmen [[hidden email]]

Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 08:03

Thinking more about this for

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/drift.htm

 

I concern myself with molad reform. Irv suggested a progressive molad in which the molad intervals changes. This would be considerably more complicated than a molad with constant interval.

 

Irv replies: The progressive molad involves calculating the traditional molad moment and then subtracting one adjustment, based on a fixed quadratic equation. So it doesn't involve modifying the molad interval over the course of time.

 

KARL REPLIES: The adjustment effectively creates a molad interval the changes every month, just like one of the postponement rules effectively postpones the molad 6 hours.

 

 

If the reform were to need (for example) that the longitude of the molad to be within one minute of arc of the temple of Jerusalem, then a progressive molad may be the best solution. The formula for the progressive molad would need changing occasionally, but much less often than constant interval molad.

 

If the reform were to only need (for another example) that the longitude of the molad to be somewhere between the Nile and the Euphrates, then a constant molad would suffice. It would need changing every few millennia and a 100-years notice could be given for each change, so the dates from the next 100 years would always be certain. One could use a molad interval that is a multiple of 1/3 second = 1/10 Helek (part) or alternatively an interval that would produce a one-era cycle in a yerm calendar.

 

Irv replies: Indeed, I have written to this group several times previously that if one intentionally picks a lunar cycle that has a mean month that is slightly too short for the present era then it can serve well as a fixed molad for a few millennia, and I have favoured the 25-saros cycle for this purpose -- it works best with a future epoch, corresponding to around the start of the 8th Hebrew calendar millennium, and can be nicely coupled with the solar cycle by taking 4 x 25 saros = 100 saros, which contains 1803 solar years with 664 leap months = 22300 mean synodic months = mean year 365 + 437/1803 days ≡ 365d 5h 49m 1+59/601s, which is a quite satisfactory approximation of the mean northward equinoctial year. With the use of the same future epoch for the solar component, this will serve quite adequately as a simple fixed arithmetic reform of the Hebrew calendar having a repeat interval of only 1803 years (compare with the 689472-year repeat interval of the traditional Hebrew calendar). I call this the "Future Hebrew Calendar" because it has a future epoch and because I hope that it may be adopted in the future -- although I must admit that the chances of this happening are rather poor because I haven't documented this calendar reform proposal at my web site yet.

 

KARL REPLIES: I was considering molad intervals of 365d 5h 44m 2+2/3s, 365d 5h 44m 2+1/3s, 365d 5h 44m 1+2/3s etc.

 

Irv documented a 353-year cycle with independent molad

 

Leap Month is required if the remainder of ( 130 × hYear + 269 ) / 353 is less than 130

 

The 353-year leap month cycle has structural complexity of 4 (one more than the 19-year cycle). The 1803-year leap month cycle divides into 353+372+353+372+353, so has complexity 6. But the connected molad makes the whole calendar (not just the leap month rule) much more simple structurally.

 

The molad for the 1803-year cycle has a yerm-like calendar with a 25-Saros cycle of  8 eras, 1 with 40 yerms and 7 with 43 yerms, totalling 341 yerms. This cycle has complexity 5, compared with 6 for the traditional molad and is much shorter. This is because only one era in the cycle has a minority length.

 

 

This 1803-year cycle has a whole number of weeks and so can be used as a leap week calendar (320 leap weeks per cycle) or a leap day calendar (437 leap days per cycle). The lunisolar version could serve as an Easter computus.

 

The 1803-year leap week cycle has a mean year that is intermediate between the Symmetry calendars and the Dee calendar, because each 1803-year cycle is identical to four 231-year leap week cycles each having 41 leap weeks, alternating with three 293-year leap week cycles each having 52 leap weeks. (231 years = 7 x Dee's 33-year cycle, necessary because Dee's cycle doesn't contain a whole number of weeks). For more information, please see the 320/1803 cycle described in this table:

 

http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/leap/#otherNE

 

KARL REPLIES: It is one of many cycles I have listed in

http://the-light.com/cal/LunisolarA.htm of which the ones shown in blue have a whole number of weeks.

 

 

Karl

 

16(02(26

 

 


--- Irv Bromberg, Toronto, Canada

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

Loading...