Franciade compromise RE:

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Franciade compromise RE:

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC

Dear Jamison and Calendar People

 

I thought of a compromise between the Equinox rule and the Franciade. Make the equinox rule apply only to the first year of a Franciade and put the leap year, if necessary, at the end of the Franciade. I explored this in detail on this list from 20 July 2016. I reckoned that if the original Franciades (ending with years 3, 7, 11 etc.) were used, then the Franciades ending in years 19 & 143 would not have a leap year.

 

Karl

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jamison Painter
Sent: 13 April 2018 22:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject:

 

Leap years in the calendar are a point of great dispute, due to the contradicting statements in the establishing decree[23] stating:

Each year begins at midnight, with the day on which the true autumnal equinox falls for the Paris Observatory.

and:

The four-year period, after which the addition of a day is usually necessary, is called the Franciade in memory of the revolution which, after four years of effort, led France to republican government. The fourth year of the Franciade is called Sextile.

These two specifications are incompatible, as leap years defined by the autumnal equinox in Paris do not recur on a regular four-year schedule. Thus, the years III, VII, and XI were observed as leap years, and the years XV and XX were also planned as such, even though they were five years apart. (From Wikipedia).

 

As we can see, in spite of the disagreement above, the FIRST method was the only one actually used.

 

Jamison

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Franciade compromise RE:

Jamison Painter
This is also true, but rather unnecessary. 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 10:33 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Jamison and Calendar People

 

I thought of a compromise between the Equinox rule and the Franciade. Make the equinox rule apply only to the first year of a Franciade and put the leap year, if necessary, at the end of the Franciade. I explored this in detail on this list from 20 July 2016. I reckoned that if the original Franciades (ending with years 3, 7, 11 etc.) were used, then the Franciades ending in years 19 & 143 would not have a leap year.

 

Karl

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jamison Painter
Sent: 13 April 2018 22:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject:

 

Leap years in the calendar are a point of great dispute, due to the contradicting statements in the establishing decree[23] stating:

Each year begins at midnight, with the day on which the true autumnal equinox falls for the Paris Observatory.

and:

The four-year period, after which the addition of a day is usually necessary, is called the Franciade in memory of the revolution which, after four years of effort, led France to republican government. The fourth year of the Franciade is called Sextile.

These two specifications are incompatible, as leap years defined by the autumnal equinox in Paris do not recur on a regular four-year schedule. Thus, the years III, VII, and XI were observed as leap years, and the years XV and XX were also planned as such, even though they were five years apart. (From Wikipedia).

 

As we can see, in spite of the disagreement above, the FIRST method was the only one actually used.

 

Jamison

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Franciade compromise RE:

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC

Dear Jamison and Calendar People

 

It or something like it is necessary if you want a 4-year Franciade based on the northern autumnal equinox, but not if you allow some Franciades to have 5 years.

 

Karl

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jamison Painter
Sent: 16 April 2018 17:29
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Franciade compromise RE:

 

This is also true, but rather unnecessary. 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 10:33 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Jamison and Calendar People

 

I thought of a compromise between the Equinox rule and the Franciade. Make the equinox rule apply only to the first year of a Franciade and put the leap year, if necessary, at the end of the Franciade. I explored this in detail on this list from 20 July 2016. I reckoned that if the original Franciades (ending with years 3, 7, 11 etc.) were used, then the Franciades ending in years 19 & 143 would not have a leap year.

 

Karl

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jamison Painter
Sent: 13 April 2018 22:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject:

 

Leap years in the calendar are a point of great dispute, due to the contradicting statements in the establishing decree[23] stating:

Each year begins at midnight, with the day on which the true autumnal equinox falls for the Paris Observatory.

and:

The four-year period, after which the addition of a day is usually necessary, is called the Franciade in memory of the revolution which, after four years of effort, led France to republican government. The fourth year of the Franciade is called Sextile.

These two specifications are incompatible, as leap years defined by the autumnal equinox in Paris do not recur on a regular four-year schedule. Thus, the years III, VII, and XI were observed as leap years, and the years XV and XX were also planned as such, even though they were five years apart. (From Wikipedia).

 

As we can see, in spite of the disagreement above, the FIRST method was the only one actually used.

 

Jamison

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Franciade compromise RE:

Jamison Painter
I think allowing the cycle to be either four or five years is fine, myself. Astronomical observation is the best way to keep a calendar accurate.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018, 6:46 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Jamison and Calendar People

 

It or something like it is necessary if you want a 4-year Franciade based on the northern autumnal equinox, but not if you allow some Franciades to have 5 years.

 

Karl

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jamison Painter
Sent: 16 April 2018 17:29
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Franciade compromise RE:

 

This is also true, but rather unnecessary. 

 

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018, 10:33 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Jamison and Calendar People

 

I thought of a compromise between the Equinox rule and the Franciade. Make the equinox rule apply only to the first year of a Franciade and put the leap year, if necessary, at the end of the Franciade. I explored this in detail on this list from 20 July 2016. I reckoned that if the original Franciades (ending with years 3, 7, 11 etc.) were used, then the Franciades ending in years 19 & 143 would not have a leap year.

 

Karl

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jamison Painter
Sent: 13 April 2018 22:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject:

 

Leap years in the calendar are a point of great dispute, due to the contradicting statements in the establishing decree[23] stating:

Each year begins at midnight, with the day on which the true autumnal equinox falls for the Paris Observatory.

and:

The four-year period, after which the addition of a day is usually necessary, is called the Franciade in memory of the revolution which, after four years of effort, led France to republican government. The fourth year of the Franciade is called Sextile.

These two specifications are incompatible, as leap years defined by the autumnal equinox in Paris do not recur on a regular four-year schedule. Thus, the years III, VII, and XI were observed as leap years, and the years XV and XX were also planned as such, even though they were five years apart. (From Wikipedia).

 

As we can see, in spite of the disagreement above, the FIRST method was the only one actually used.

 

Jamison