You are not authorized to send mail to the CALNDR-L list from your [hidden email] account. You might be authorized to post to the list from another account, or perhaps when using another mail program configured to use a different email address. However, LISTSERV has no way to associate this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have any questions regarding the policy of the CALNDR-L list, please contact the list owners at [hidden email].
>The minimum displacement calendar would >have a 417-year cycle of 74 leap weeks, >rather than 834 years of 834/6 + 9 = 148 >leap weeks.
I am great full to the list in evaluating my 896-years and (896-62=834)-years cycles in addition to my demonstrated Tithi/Phase values using 19-years/6932.5 tithi with Tithi=No. of days in 896-years/No. of Tithi (in 11082x29.5) lunar moons or 1 +338/ 326919 day, possibly used during flourishing days of Indus civilisation, as discussed!
Mean Year (834-years)=7*(52+1/6+9/834)= 365.242206235012 days.
While I may not be competent to make the choice between "displacement and jitter" in the calendar TO BE, I feel the independent existence of my 417-years cycle may not pass the Mean Year test, although its mean Year for (2x417=834-years) passes this criteria, to follow divide SIX Leap Weeks.
A similar situation arose wrt my 896-years & placing Keplers' Leap Weeks in (3x896= 2688-years) BUT both having the same Mean Year =365.2421875 days, in working with 'divide six (6) Leap Weeks'!