Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

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

Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

Michael Ossipoff

Year-divisions other than the week can’t be justified other than by their marking of the seasons.

.

Months as payment-periods?  With WeekDate, make payments every 4th week, every week-number divisible by 4.

.

So I proposed South-Solstice WeekDate, and two calendars with nominal seasons

.

And I’ve referred to two previously-proposed seasonal calendars, one of which was actually adopted and used by a country, and I’ve cited their shortcomings, and showed how those shortcomings can be avoided.

.

The nominal seasons of 6-Seasons  -3 wk Offset coincide closely with the seasons of experience, perception and wide consensus.    …as I described in my previous post.

.

The Roman-Gregorian months can be called seasonal, because, with about 2000 years’ experience, everyone everywhere is familiar with what season, weather and temperature tend to arrive with each Roman month.

.

But I wanted an astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendar, and a calendar for a hypothetical time when people want a complete departure from the past, and therefore don’t want to keep using the Roman months.

.

The proponents, at this list, of 28,35,28 quarters have utterly failed to explain what their funny “months” are good for, or are supposed to mean, or why there’s any reason to name them after the Roman months, or why it’s desirable to start their “January” near that of Roman-Gregorian (…when the month-start times bear little resemblance to those of Roman-Gregorian).

.

By the way, as a possible justification for why some would want to say that Winter begins at the Winter-Solstice, I suggested that maybe some want to emphasize that the worst cold of Winter typically arrives after that time. 

.

But, with 6-Season  -3 wk Offset, the names for the parts of South before and after New-Year’s Day, “Early-South” and “Late-South”,  also mark that distinction between Winter’s somewhat more modest early part, and its more severe later part.

.

By the way, I suggested that the nominal seasons be divided only by weeks, with no months. Though I prefer that, it remains true that, in the 6-Seasons versions with months, those months (contrary to what I said before) do express a measure of progress through the seasons.

.

So the two 6-Seasons calendars that I proposed would be fine, with and without months. I like the simplicity without months, but some, not liking the number 13,  might object to the fact that there’d be 13 numbered-weeks in the North Season.

.

As I said, the two 6-Seasons calendars would be fine either with or without months.

.

2019-W1-5  (South-Solstice WeekDate)

2019  Late-South  Week 1  Friday  (6-Season  -3 wk Offset)

2019  South  Week 1  Friday (6-Season  0 Offset) 

.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

Victor Engel
Dear Michael and Calendar People,

On 12/28/18, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Year-divisions other than the week can’t be justified other than by their
> marking of the seasons.

Is this a troll? I'm sure there are countless reasons.

> Months as payment-periods?  With WeekDate, make payments every 4th week,
> every week-number divisible by 4.

But weeks don't divide the year evenly. Months normally do. Same with
quarters. That's why months and quarters are so often used. You can't
simply substitute an integer number of weeks because you'd have a
problem at a year boundary. Or you'd have to manage a partial period
at the end of the year, which is what is often done with payroll
systems that don't use monthly periods. A yearly period is required
for tax purposes, so a period spanning the end of the year has to be
split up.

Victor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

Peter Meyer
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Dear List,

In his message of December 26, entitled "Final-List-Quit Topic-Summary
and Comments", Michael Ossipoff said:

> First, let me assure you that this will by the last e-mail with which
> I “ruin this list”
> ...
> That concludes this summary and comments
> and concludes the things that I’ve intended to say at this list.
> This is my concluding post here.

Sadly, it appears that our hopes and expectations have been dashed.

Regards,
Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Victor Engel

Victor says:

.

[quote]

On 12/28/18, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
.

> Year-divisions other than the week can’t be justified other than by their
> marking of the seasons.
.
Is this a troll? I'm sure there are countless reasons.

[/quote]

.

…countless reasons, of which Victor can only come up with one, the supposed reason that I’d already addressed (..and address again immediately-below.).

.
[quote]
> Months as payment-periods?  With WeekDate, make payments every 4th week,
> every week-number divisible by 4.
.
But weeks don't divide the year evenly. Months normally do.

[/quote]

.

Every year of a leap-week calendar has an integer number of weeks. Every 52-week common year of a leap-week calendar has equal quarters, each of which has an integer number of weeks.

.

Four week periods equally-divide a common year in a leap-week calendar.

.

A common-year, in a leapweek calendar, has 52 weeks.  52 is divisible by 4. There are an integer number of 4-week pay-periods in a leapweek calendar’s 52-week common-year.   …and unlike 454’s months, those 4-week pay-periods are exactly equal. 

.

The months of the 28,35,28 quarter system are drastically unequal.

.

Leapyears?  The nonuniformity that they bring is present with all calendars, including those with months.

.

[quote]

Same with quarters. That's why months and quarters are so often used.

[/quote]

.

Months aren’t needed in order to have quarters.  WeekDate calendars have equal quarters in common-years.  No proposed calendar that I’ve heard of has equal quarters in both common and leap years.

.

Admittedly quarters are very important to CEOs, financiers, stockbrokers, and major investors.  If victor is among one of those groups, then I apologize to him that my 6-Season proposals don’t neatly divide into quarters.  But, as astronomical-terrestrial seasonal calendars, they portray nature’s seasons in keeping with some widespread consensuses.*  No accounting for tastes, right?

.

*(…described at Wikipedia’s “Seasons” article.)

.

[quote]

You can't
simply substitute an integer number of weeks because you'd have a
problem at a year boundary.

[/quote]

.

454 doesn’t bring equal quarters that WeekDate doesn’t have.  

.

454 has drastically-unequal months.  Payments on week-numbers divisible by four would give an integer number of equal pay-periods in a common year in a South-Solstice WeekDate or ISO WeekDate.

.

2019-W01-6  (South-Solstice WeekDate)

2019  Late-South   Week 1   Saturday    (6-Season  -3 wk Offset)

2019  South   Week 1   Saturday  (6-Season  0 Offset)

.

Michael Ossipoff

 


On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 3:39 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael and Calendar People,

On 12/28/18, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Year-divisions other than the week can’t be justified other than by their
> marking of the seasons.

Is this a troll? I'm sure there are countless reasons.

> Months as payment-periods?  With WeekDate, make payments every 4th week,
> every week-number divisible by 4.

But weeks don't divide the year evenly. Months normally do. Same with
quarters. That's why months and quarters are so often used. You can't
simply substitute an integer number of weeks because you'd have a
problem at a year boundary. Or you'd have to manage a partial period
at the end of the year, which is what is often done with payroll
systems that don't use monthly periods. A yearly period is required
for tax purposes, so a period spanning the end of the year has to be
split up.

Victor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Victor Engel

Actually, 6-Seasons  -3 wk Offset does divide neatly into 4 quarters, each of which contains 1 or 2 whole undivided nominal seasons.

Those quarters are bounded by the beginning and end of the North and South seasons. (A system of quarters needn't start on New-Year's Day.)

2019-W01-7  (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019  Early-South  Week 1  Saturday  (6-Season  -3 wk Offset)
2019  South  Week 1   Saturday  (6-Season 0 Offset)

Michael Ossipoff 

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 3:39 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael and Calendar People,

On 12/28/18, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Year-divisions other than the week can’t be justified other than by their
> marking of the seasons.

Is this a troll? I'm sure there are countless reasons.

> Months as payment-periods?  With WeekDate, make payments every 4th week,
> every week-number divisible by 4.

But weeks don't divide the year evenly. Months normally do. Same with
quarters. That's why months and quarters are so often used. You can't
simply substitute an integer number of weeks because you'd have a
problem at a year boundary. Or you'd have to manage a partial period
at the end of the year, which is what is often done with payroll
systems that don't use monthly periods. A yearly period is required
for tax purposes, so a period spanning the end of the year has to be
split up.

Victor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

Michael Ossipoff
Typo:

I said:

2019  Early-South  Week 1  Saturday  (6-Season  -3 wk Offset)

I meant:

2019  Late-South  Week 1  Saturday (6-Seasons  -3 wk Offset)

Michael Ossipoff

On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 5:43 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Actually, 6-Seasons  -3 wk Offset does divide neatly into 4 quarters, each of which contains 1 or 2 whole undivided nominal seasons.

Those quarters are bounded by the beginning and end of the North and South seasons. (A system of quarters needn't start on New-Year's Day.)

2019-W01-7  (South-Solstice WeekDate)
2019  Early-South  Week 1  Saturday  (6-Season  -3 wk Offset)
2019  South  Week 1   Saturday  (6-Season 0 Offset)

Michael Ossipoff 

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 3:39 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael and Calendar People,

On 12/28/18, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Year-divisions other than the week can’t be justified other than by their
> marking of the seasons.

Is this a troll? I'm sure there are countless reasons.

> Months as payment-periods?  With WeekDate, make payments every 4th week,
> every week-number divisible by 4.

But weeks don't divide the year evenly. Months normally do. Same with
quarters. That's why months and quarters are so often used. You can't
simply substitute an integer number of weeks because you'd have a
problem at a year boundary. Or you'd have to manage a partial period
at the end of the year, which is what is often done with payroll
systems that don't use monthly periods. A yearly period is required
for tax purposes, so a period spanning the end of the year has to be
split up.

Victor
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Justifications of year-divisions larger than a week

Peter Meyer
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Dear List,

In his message of December 26, entitled "Final-List-Quit Topic-Summary
and Comments", Michael Ossipoff said:

> First, let me assure you that this will by the last e-mail with which
> I “ruin this list”
> ...
> That concludes this summary and comments
> and concludes the things that I’ve intended to say at this list.
> This is my concluding post here.

Sadly, it appears that our hopes and expectations have been cruelly dashed.

Regards,
Peter