New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
69 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Christoph Päper-2
Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen
Dear Christoph and Calendar People

Thank you Christoph for your reply.

I generally agree with what Christoph has said and prefer Irv's symmetry454 calendar, for reasons stated in earlier E-mails.

The web site does not explain why the calendar is better than other leap week proposal and indeed ignores their existence! The acknowledgement to Irv is only a thank for him pointing out that the leap years are those years than begin or end on a Thursday in the Gregorian calendar.

The only advantages I can see for the Hanke-Henry calendar over other proposed leap week calendars are that
it uses the ISO-week date year,
the months look familiar till one reaches a leap week and
no date is more than 5 days different than its Gregorian namesake.

Symmetry454 originally also used the ISO week date year, but I pointed out this was not true to its name and so Irv changed it to use a symmetrical 293-year cycle with 52 leap weeks. The cycle is ISO week date years is absolutely asymmetrical in that it cannot be made symmetrical through any choice of year as the first year. Most calendar cycles are not absolutely asymmetrical.

Karl

16(04(06

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christoph Päper
Sent: 05 December 2016 11:55
To: [hidden email]
Subject: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2
Dear Christoph and Calendar People

The new HH Calendar website says:

"The new calendar is never more than five days off from the seasons. After January 1, 2018:
◦ 15% of the time, the date is identical to the Gregorian date
◦ 29% of the time, it is one day off
◦ 27% of the time, two days off
◦ 19% of the time, three days off
◦ 9% of the time, four days off
Only 1.3% of the time are the dates different by five days, and never by more than that."

I think what is meant by this is that no date is more than 5 days different from the date of the same name in the Gregorian calendar. Each year has 30+29+31 + 30+30+30 + 30+30+30 + 30+30+31 = 361 dates that occur in both calendars. So 1.16% of the time in HHPC the date does not match any date in the Gregorian calendar. This may be why the percentages add up to 99%.

This may be regarded as an advantage compared to other leap week calendars such as Symmetry454.


It is very unlikely that the HH Calendar would be adopted worldwide at the same time and in this unlikely event, there'd be no advantage in using its particular leap week year rule. So the calendar could be used alongside the Gregorian calendar for some time and confusion between the two calendars could occur, if it is not clear, which calendar the date belongs to. Walter Ziobro has suggested fixing this by giving the months different names. If this were done in the HH Calendar, it's advantage shown above over other leap-week proposals would disappear.

I've stated than an alternative to changing the month names is to abandon the practice of numbering the days of month and instead number the week of the month. This requires all months to begin on the same day of week as in Symmetry454 or the Pax calendar. I think it would be easier to remember both what week of the month it is and what day of the week it is than to remember what the day of the month it is (provided all months begin on the same day of week).

Finally I thought more about the Pax calendar and why a leap week rule based one sixes rather than fives was chosen. I think it is to ensure that within the ..01 to ..98 years of each century, every period of six consecutive years has the same duration. A similar situation cannot be achieved with fives rather than sixes. The price for keeping all these six-year periods equal is the worse jitter of any serious leap week calendar proposal. This idea was inspired by one of Walter's proposals, which was not quite a leap week calendar.

Karl

16(04(07

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christoph Päper
Sent: 05 December 2016 11:55
To: [hidden email]
Subject: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen
Dear Calendar People

The statement
"The new calendar is never more than five days off from the seasons." Led me to think about the extreme year with respect to the seasons. For the 400-year cycle 1801 to 2200, I make the extreme years to be 1920 and 2077.

Using
https://stellafane.org/misc/equinox.html
and
http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/isowdcal.html 
I reckon the extreme equinoxes and solstices as follows:

March equinox
2077-W11-5 23:30 15 March 2077 HH
1920-W12-6 21:59 23 March 1920 HH

June solstice
2077-W24-7 16:22 17 June 2077 HH
1920-W26-1 17:40 25 June 1920 HH

September equinox
2077-W38-3 09:35 20 September 2077 HH
1920-W39-4 08:29 28 September 1920 HH

December solstice
2077-W51-2 06:00 19 December 2077 HH
1920-W52-3 03:17 27 December 1920 HH

This shows a jitter of just under 8 days as calculated a few years ago by Irv.

The average HH dates for the equinoxes and solstices are 19 March, 21 June, 24 September & 23 December and every equinox or solstice occurs within 4 days of its respective average date.

Karl

16(04(08

-----Original Message-----
From: Palmen, Karl (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
Sent: 06 December 2016 13:05
To: 'East Carolina University Calendar discussion List'
Subject: RE: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Dear Christoph and Calendar People

The new HH Calendar website says:

"The new calendar is never more than five days off from the seasons. After January 1, 2018:
◦ 15% of the time, the date is identical to the Gregorian date
◦ 29% of the time, it is one day off
◦ 27% of the time, two days off
◦ 19% of the time, three days off
◦ 9% of the time, four days off
Only 1.3% of the time are the dates different by five days, and never by more than that."

I think what is meant by this is that no date is more than 5 days different from the date of the same name in the Gregorian calendar. Each year has 30+29+31 + 30+30+30 + 30+30+30 + 30+30+31 = 361 dates that occur in both calendars. So 1.16% of the time in HHPC the date does not match any date in the Gregorian calendar. This may be why the percentages add up to 99%.

This may be regarded as an advantage compared to other leap week calendars such as Symmetry454.


It is very unlikely that the HH Calendar would be adopted worldwide at the same time and in this unlikely event, there'd be no advantage in using its particular leap week year rule. So the calendar could be used alongside the Gregorian calendar for some time and confusion between the two calendars could occur, if it is not clear, which calendar the date belongs to. Walter Ziobro has suggested fixing this by giving the months different names. If this were done in the HH Calendar, it's advantage shown above over other leap-week proposals would disappear.

I've stated than an alternative to changing the month names is to abandon the practice of numbering the days of month and instead number the week of the month. This requires all months to begin on the same day of week as in Symmetry454 or the Pax calendar. I think it would be easier to remember both what week of the month it is and what day of the week it is than to remember what the day of the month it is (provided all months begin on the same day of week).

Finally I thought more about the Pax calendar and why a leap week rule based one sixes rather than fives was chosen. I think it is to ensure that within the ..01 to ..98 years of each century, every period of six consecutive years has the same duration. A similar situation cannot be achieved with fives rather than sixes. The price for keeping all these six-year periods equal is the worse jitter of any serious leap week calendar proposal. This idea was inspired by one of Walter's proposals, which was not quite a leap week calendar.

Karl

16(04(07

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christoph Päper
Sent: 05 December 2016 11:55
To: [hidden email]
Subject: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2

"Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one."

The 30,30,31 quarters are a good thing about Hanke-Henry. For a calendar with months of 30 & 31 days, with identical quarters, the 30,30,31 arrangement minimizes the calendar's month-starts' departure from those of the current Roman months.

That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

So, if you want to regularize the months, & make them uniform, while keeping 30 & 31 day months, then Hanke-Henry's solution is an ok one.

But, that being said, it seems to me that, if you're going to propose replacing the current Roman months with regularized months, that's a big change, a very noticible one. In contrast, the leapyear-rule (or year-start rule) is more in the background, and less likely to elicit objections.

So, if it were my proposal, i'd rather propose my minimal, simple, natural Minimum-Displacement leapyear rule.

Yes, it's been said that equivalent systems have been proposed, ever since the time when England was considering adopting the Gregorian leapyear system. But those systems don't have Minimum-Displacement's obvious, natural simplicity.

But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

So there's nothing wrong with the Hanke-Henry calendar proposal. Of course the no-timezones provision should be left out, or else have a "separabiity" clause.

But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

It has the incomparably big advantage of already being in wide use. Additionally, it beats, at their own game, the proposals for months that start on the same day of the year, like the 28,35,28 quarters.

ISO WeekDate's convenience beats that of 28,35,28.  ...& its simplicity is unmatched. And it's already in wide use.

ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen

Dear Michael, Irv, Christoph, Walter and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 15 December 2016 23:59
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

 


"Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one."

The 30,30,31 quarters are a good thing about Hanke-Henry. For a calendar with months of 30 & 31 days, with identical quarters, the 30,30,31 arrangement minimizes the calendar's month-starts' departure from those of the current Roman months.

KARL REPLIES: For Monday starting weeks, each month has 26 non-Sundays like the World Calendar, which has 31-30-30 with a Sunday starting week.

The other issue is Michael’s assertion that 30,30,31 minimises the departure of the month starts from those of the Roman months given the same new year day. I reckon the average number of days each new month begins after its Roman counterpart as follows

31,30,30: Jan 0.0, Feb 0.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 1.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug 0.7575, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -0.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,31 30: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,30,31: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 0.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun -0.2425, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -1.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -1.2425

So indeed 30,30,31 is best for this. The only months that begins 2 days different from Roman months are September, November & December in a Gregorian leap year. In a leap week calendar, with ISO weeks this makes September, November and December be the month that begins 5 days different than Gregorian and this occurs only in a Gregorian leap year.

This explains why

http://hankehenryontime.com/html/qanda.html states:

  • After January 1, 2018:

o    15% of the time, the date is identical to the Gregorian date

o    29% of the time, it is one day off

o    27% of the time, two days off

o    19% of the time, three days off

o    9% of the time, four days off

Only 1.3% of the time are the dates different by five days, and never by more than that. The bottom line: 90% of the time, HH is off from Gregorian by 3 days or fewer!

 

Given that approximately 1/7 of years begin 3 days early, about 97/(400*4*7) = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is somewhat better than the 1.3% stated. However the statistics above do not mention that about 1.37% of the time the date does not occur in the Gregorian calendar of the same year.

 

This  I think is the main advantage over other leap week calendar proposals.

 

 

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

So, if you want to regularize the months, & make them uniform, while keeping 30 & 31 day months, then Hanke-Henry's solution is an ok one.

But, that being said, it seems to me that, if you're going to propose replacing the current Roman months with regularized months, that's a big change, a very noticible one. In contrast, the leapyear-rule (or year-start rule) is more in the background, and less likely to elicit objections.

So, if it were my proposal, i'd rather propose my minimal, simple, natural Minimum-Displacement leapyear rule.

KARL REPLIES: Irv’s 293 year cycle is a simple Minimum-Displacement leap year rule with Y = 365 & 71/293 days = 52 & 52/293 weeks and the displacement of year 1 equal to 0.

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

Yes, it's been said that equivalent systems have been proposed, ever since the time when England was considering adopting the Gregorian leapyear system. But those systems don't have Minimum-Displacement's obvious, natural simplicity.

But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

So there's nothing wrong with the Hanke-Henry calendar proposal. Of course the no-timezones provision should be left out, or else have a "separabiity" clause.

But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

It has the incomparably big advantage of already being in wide use. Additionally, it beats, at their own game, the proposals for months that start on the same day of the year, like the 28,35,28 quarters.

ISO WeekDate's convenience beats that of 28,35,28.  ...& its simplicity is unmatched. And it's already in wide use.

ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

KARL REPLIES: A long time ago (almost 19 years) I suggested using playing cards for the ISO weeks, with a suit for each quarter. See

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/playcard.htm For example, the date of Week 50 Friday, would become Friday Jack of Spades.

 

I also like the idea of grouping the weeks into months like in Symmetry454 with week 53 included in the 12th month December, but also keeping the week as part of the date, so for example Week 50 Friday becomes December Week 2 Friday or simply December 2nd Friday. The differing date format permits re-use of the same month name without confusion with Gregorian calendar, when quoting a date. For that reason, I’d not recommend  2nd Friday December. 2016-W50-5 would become 2016-12-W2-5. The two can be distinguished even with the ‘-‘ removed. We have 4-5-4  rather than 28-35-28.

 

I would not call such a calendar symmetrical, because the ISO leap week cycle is absolutely asymmetrical.

 

Karl

 

16(04(17

 

 

Michael Ossipoff

 

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Walter J Ziobro

Dear Karl and calendar list:

IMO if a 33 year leap day rule were adopted for the Gregorian Calendar then the application of the ISO week numbering scheme would produce a fairly smooth distribution of leap weeks

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, December 16, 2016 Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael, Irv, Christoph, Walter and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:CALNDR-L@...] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 15 December 2016 23:59
To: CALNDR-L@...
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

 


"Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one."

The 30,30,31 quarters are a good thing about Hanke-Henry. For a calendar with months of 30 & 31 days, with identical quarters, the 30,30,31 arrangement minimizes the calendar's month-starts' departure from those of the current Roman months.

KARL REPLIES: For Monday starting weeks, each month has 26 non-Sundays like the World Calendar, which has 31-30-30 with a Sunday starting week.

The other issue is Michael’s assertion that 30,30,31 minimises the departure of the month starts from those of the Roman months given the same new year day. I reckon the average number of days each new month begins after its Roman counterpart as follows

31,30,30: Jan 0.0, Feb 0.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 1.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug 0.7575, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -0.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,31 30: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,30,31: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 0.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun -0.2425, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -1.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -1.2425

So indeed 30,30,31 is best for this. The only months that begins 2 days different from Roman months are September, November & December in a Gregorian leap year. In a leap week calendar, with ISO weeks this makes September, November and December be the month that begins 5 days different than Gregorian and this occurs only in a Gregorian leap year.

This explains why

http://hankehenryontime.com/html/qanda.html states:

  • After January 1, 2018:

o    15% of the time, the date is identical to the Gregorian date

o    29% of the time, it is one day off

o    27% of the time, two days off

o    19% of the time, three days off

o    9% of the time, four days off

Only 1.3% of the time are the dates different by five days, and never by more than that. The bottom line: 90% of the time, HH is off from Gregorian by 3 days or fewer!

 

Given that approximately 1/7 of years begin 3 days early, about 97/(400*4*7) = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is somewhat better than the 1.3% stated. However the statistics above do not mention that about 1.37% of the time the date does not occur in the Gregorian calendar of the same year.

 

This  I think is the main advantage over other leap week calendar proposals.

 

 

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

So, if you want to regularize the months, & make them uniform, while keeping 30 & 31 day months, then Hanke-Henry's solution is an ok one.

But, that being said, it seems to me that, if you're going to propose replacing the current Roman months with regularized months, that's a big change, a very noticible one. In contrast, the leapyear-rule (or year-start rule) is more in the background, and less likely to elicit objections.

So, if it were my proposal, i'd rather propose my minimal, simple, natural Minimum-Displacement leapyear rule.

KARL REPLIES: Irv’s 293 year cycle is a simple Minimum-Displacement leap year rule with Y = 365 & 71/293 days = 52 & 52/293 weeks and the displacement of year 1 equal to 0.

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

Yes, it's been said that equivalent systems have been proposed, ever since the time when England was considering adopting the Gregorian leapyear system. But those systems don't have Minimum-Displacement's obvious, natural simplicity.

But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

So there's nothing wrong with the Hanke-Henry calendar proposal. Of course the no-timezones provision should be left out, or else have a "separabiity" clause.

But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

It has the incomparably big advantage of already being in wide use. Additionally, it beats, at their own game, the proposals for months that start on the same day of the year, like the 28,35,28 quarters.

ISO WeekDate's convenience beats that of 28,35,28.  ...& its simplicity is unmatched. And it's already in wide use.

ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

KARL REPLIES: A long time ago (almost 19 years) I suggested using playing cards for the ISO weeks, with a suit for each quarter. See

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/playcard.htm For example, the date of Week 50 Friday, would become Friday Jack of Spades.

 

I also like the idea of grouping the weeks into months like in Symmetry454 with week 53 included in the 12th month December, but also keeping the week as part of the date, so for example Week 50 Friday becomes December Week 2 Friday or simply December 2nd Friday. The differing date format permits re-use of the same month name without confusion with Gregorian calendar, when quoting a date. For that reason, I’d not recommend  2nd Friday December. 2016-W50-5 would become 2016-12-W2-5. The two can be distinguished even with the ‘-‘ removed. We have 4-5-4  rather than 28-35-28.

 

I would not call such a calendar symmetrical, because the ISO leap week cycle is absolutely asymmetrical.

 

Karl

 

16(04(17

 

 

Michael Ossipoff

 

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen

Dear Walter, Michael and Calendar People

 

Walter has suggested taking the 33-year cycle calendar and extending every 12th 33-year cycle by 4 years with one leap year in the expected place and then applying an ISO-like week numbering to it where week 1 is the week starting nearest to (and within 3 days of) the new year day. This calendar has the same mean year as the Gregorian calendar.

 

This leap week calendar would have its leap years spread as smoothly as possible and so would be a minimum displacement calendar with Y = 365.2425 days = 52.1775 weeks. However the displacement of year 1 or some other given year would need to be worked out.

 

Also this could be done with an unmodified 33-year cycle calendar in which case, Y = 365 & 8/33 days = 52 & 41/231 weeks and the year with displacement zero would occur at a year of the 33-year cycle that is the 3rd year of four consecutive common years (1st year of symmetrical 33-year cycle) and starts on a Monday.

 

Karl

 

16(04(17

 

From: Walter J Ziobro [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 16 December 2016 15:15
To: [hidden email]; Palmen, Karl (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

 

Dear Karl and calendar list:

IMO if a 33 year leap day rule were adopted for the Gregorian Calendar then the application of the ISO week numbering scheme would produce a fairly smooth distribution of leap weeks

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

 


On Friday, December 16, 2016 Karl Palmen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael, Irv, Christoph, Walter and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 15 December 2016 23:59
To: CALNDR-[hidden email]
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

 


"Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one."

The 30,30,31 quarters are a good thing about Hanke-Henry. For a calendar with months of 30 & 31 days, with identical quarters, the 30,30,31 arrangement minimizes the calendar's month-starts' departure from those of the current Roman months.

KARL REPLIES: For Monday starting weeks, each month has 26 non-Sundays like the World Calendar, which has 31-30-30 with a Sunday starting week.

The other issue is Michael’s assertion that 30,30,31 minimises the departure of the month starts from those of the Roman months given the same new year day. I reckon the average number of days each new month begins after its Roman counterpart as follows

31,30,30: Jan 0.0, Feb 0.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 1.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug 0.7575, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -0.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,31 30: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,30,31: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 0.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun -0.2425, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -1.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -1.2425

So indeed 30,30,31 is best for this. The only months that begins 2 days different from Roman months are September, November & December in a Gregorian leap year. In a leap week calendar, with ISO weeks this makes September, November and December be the month that begins 5 days different than Gregorian and this occurs only in a Gregorian leap year.

This explains why

http://hankehenryontime.com/html/qanda.html states:

  • After January 1, 2018:

o    15% of the time, the date is identical to the Gregorian date

o    29% of the time, it is one day off

o    27% of the time, two days off

o    19% of the time, three days off

o    9% of the time, four days off

Only 1.3% of the time are the dates different by five days, and never by more than that. The bottom line: 90% of the time, HH is off from Gregorian by 3 days or fewer!

 

Given that approximately 1/7 of years begin 3 days early, about 97/(400*4*7) = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is somewhat better than the 1.3% stated. However the statistics above do not mention that about 1.37% of the time the date does not occur in the Gregorian calendar of the same year.

 

This  I think is the main advantage over other leap week calendar proposals.

 

 

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

So, if you want to regularize the months, & make them uniform, while keeping 30 & 31 day months, then Hanke-Henry's solution is an ok one.

But, that being said, it seems to me that, if you're going to propose replacing the current Roman months with regularized months, that's a big change, a very noticible one. In contrast, the leapyear-rule (or year-start rule) is more in the background, and less likely to elicit objections.

So, if it were my proposal, i'd rather propose my minimal, simple, natural Minimum-Displacement leapyear rule.

KARL REPLIES: Irv’s 293 year cycle is a simple Minimum-Displacement leap year rule with Y = 365 & 71/293 days = 52 & 52/293 weeks and the displacement of year 1 equal to 0.

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

Yes, it's been said that equivalent systems have been proposed, ever since the time when England was considering adopting the Gregorian leapyear system. But those systems don't have Minimum-Displacement's obvious, natural simplicity.

But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

So there's nothing wrong with the Hanke-Henry calendar proposal. Of course the no-timezones provision should be left out, or else have a "separabiity" clause.

But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

It has the incomparably big advantage of already being in wide use. Additionally, it beats, at their own game, the proposals for months that start on the same day of the year, like the 28,35,28 quarters.

ISO WeekDate's convenience beats that of 28,35,28.  ...& its simplicity is unmatched. And it's already in wide use.

ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

KARL REPLIES: A long time ago (almost 19 years) I suggested using playing cards for the ISO weeks, with a suit for each quarter. See

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/playcard.htm For example, the date of Week 50 Friday, would become Friday Jack of Spades.

 

I also like the idea of grouping the weeks into months like in Symmetry454 with week 53 included in the 12th month December, but also keeping the week as part of the date, so for example Week 50 Friday becomes December Week 2 Friday or simply December 2nd Friday. The differing date format permits re-use of the same month name without confusion with Gregorian calendar, when quoting a date. For that reason, I’d not recommend  2nd Friday December. 2016-W50-5 would become 2016-12-W2-5. The two can be distinguished even with the ‘-‘ removed. We have 4-5-4  rather than 28-35-28.

 

I would not call such a calendar symmetrical, because the ISO leap week cycle is absolutely asymmetrical.

 

Karl

 

16(04(17

 

 

Michael Ossipoff

 

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael and Calendar List

One nice feature of the 30-30-31 day quarter format is that the first 90 days can be conveniently divided a large number of ways outside the 7 day week with just one day outside the 90 day period placed at the end of each quarter

BTW. I have devised alternate .month names for the Hanke Henry Calendar and posted them on the Calendar Wikia That way anyone can use the Hanke Henry Calendar in parallel to the Gregorian Calendar

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Thursday, December 15, 2016 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


"Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one."

The 30,30,31 quarters are a good thing about Hanke-Henry. For a calendar with months of 30 & 31 days, with identical quarters, the 30,30,31 arrangement minimizes the calendar's month-starts' departure from those of the current Roman months.

That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

So, if you want to regularize the months, & make them uniform, while keeping 30 & 31 day months, then Hanke-Henry's solution is an ok one.

But, that being said, it seems to me that, if you're going to propose replacing the current Roman months with regularized months, that's a big change, a very noticible one. In contrast, the leapyear-rule (or year-start rule) is more in the background, and less likely to elicit objections.

So, if it were my proposal, i'd rather propose my minimal, simple, natural Minimum-Displacement leapyear rule.

Yes, it's been said that equivalent systems have been proposed, ever since the time when England was considering adopting the Gregorian leapyear system. But those systems don't have Minimum-Displacement's obvious, natural simplicity.

But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

So there's nothing wrong with the Hanke-Henry calendar proposal. Of course the no-timezones provision should be left out, or else have a "separabiity" clause.

But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

It has the incomparably big advantage of already being in wide use. Additionally, it beats, at their own game, the proposals for months that start on the same day of the year, like the 28,35,28 quarters.

ISO WeekDate's convenience beats that of 28,35,28.  ...& its simplicity is unmatched. And it's already in wide use.

ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Christoph Päper-2
Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:
>
> One nice feature of the 30-30-31 day quarter format is that the first 90 days can be conveniently divided a large number of ways outside the 7 day week with just one day outside the 90 day period placed at the end of each quarter

I’ve tried to document that at <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn’t have very interesting divisors – just 9 and 18 – beyond that of 30, so the off-day could be placed between any two 30-day “months”.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Christoph Päper-2
In reply to this post by Karl Palmen
Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>:
>  
> MICHAEL CONTINUED:
>> That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

My major point in favor of “middle long”, which I’ve mentioned here before, is that if you apply ISO’s Thursday rule to any of the systematic layouts, i.e. 31:30:30, 30:31:30 or 30:30:31 days, you’ll always get 4:5:4 weeks.

>> Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

I agree, for what it’s worth.

> MICHAEL CONTINUED:
>> But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

Unfortunately, the “Thursday” or “Nearest Monday” rule doesn’t result in a regular pattern for our current “roman” months.

<http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/International_Calendar#Week_of_month_or_of_triad>
<http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Weeks_per_month>

In common years with Friday 1 January, the first quarter would even have just 12 weeks.

>> But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

I have argued before that a number that can run up to fifty-something is too unwieldy to deal with for humans. People frequently forget which of the 30ish days per month it is today.

>> ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

It should be the base to start from.
I wish Christian churches could agree on this base for their ongoing talks to fix the date of Easter.

> KARL REPLIES:
> I also like the idea of grouping the weeks into months like in Symmetry454 with week 53 included in the 12th month December, but also keeping the week as part of the date, so for example Week 50 Friday becomes December Week 2 Friday or simply December 2nd Friday. The differing date format permits re-use of the same month name without confusion with Gregorian calendar, when quoting a date. For that reason, I’d not recommend  2nd Friday December.

I agree with Karl here.

A specially numbered leap week added every 294 weeks (or 1 less when passing a centennial year not divisible by 4), where ever that is in a year (or moved to the closest month boundary), could be an interesting alternative.

> 2016-W50-5 would become 2016-12-W2-5. The two can be distinguished even with the ‘-‘ removed.

If he weeks of the months (or days of the week or months) had conventional letters or other symbols, date notation could be even more concise (but perhaps not ASCII compatible).

 - 201612B5
 - 201612🌛5

 - 201612⅖

 - 2016Ⅻ25
 - 2016L25
 - 2016♐︎25

 - 2016122E – truncation clashes with 2016-122, though
 - 2016122♀
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Irv Bromberg
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Christoph Päper [[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 20:19

Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:
One nice feature of the 30-30-31 day quarter format is that the first 90 days can be conveniently divided a large number of ways outside the 7 day week with just one day outside the 90 day period placed at the end of each quarter

Chirstoph replied: I’ve tried to document that at <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn’t have very interesting divisors – just 9 and 18 – beyond that of 30, so the off-day could be placed between any two 30-day “months”.

Irv replies: The divisors of 90 are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90. I wonder why Christoph considered only 9 and 18 to be "interesting".
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Karl Palmen

Dear Calendar People

 

For 31,30,30 etc. I look to see how many dates have a Gregorian namesake:

 

31,30,30:  Jan 31, Feb 28+, Mar 30, Apr 30, May 30, Jun 30, Jul 31, Aug 30, Sep 30, Oct 31, Nov 30, Dec 30  total 361+

30,31,30:  Jan 30, Feb 28+, Mar 30, Apr 30, May 31, Jun 30, Jul 30, Aug 31, Sep 30, Oct 30, Nov 30, Dec 30  total 360+

30,30,31:  Jan 30, Feb 28+, Mar 31, Apr 30, May 30, Jun 30, Jul 30, Aug 30, Sep 30, Oct 30, Nov 30, Dec 31  total 360+

 

‘+’ means 1 more for a Gregorian leap year and so +0.2425 on average.

 

Therefore 31,30,30 has 4 dates per year average that do not have a Gregorian namesake in the same year 1.095% and the other two have 5 dates per year average that do not have a Gregorian namesake in the same year 1.370%.

If the leap week is added to the end of December, both 31,30,30 and 30,31,30 gain December 31 in a leap week year, so then we subtract 0.1775 from the 4 or 5 non-Gregorian dates to get:

 

31,30,30  1.047% Lwk in Dec, 1.095% otherwise

30,31,30  1.320% Lwk in Dec, 1.370% otherwise

30,30,31  1.370% either way

 

I compare with the approximate proportion of dates 5 days off from its Gregorian namesake as calculated below.

31,30,30  1.80%

30,31,30  1.19%

30,30,31  0.87%

 

Karl

 

16(04(20

 

From: Palmen, Karl (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
Sent: 16 December 2016 13:10
To: 'East Carolina University Calendar discussion List'
Subject: RE: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

 

Dear Michael, Irv, Christoph, Walter and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 15 December 2016 23:59
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

 


"Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one."

The 30,30,31 quarters are a good thing about Hanke-Henry. For a calendar with months of 30 & 31 days, with identical quarters, the 30,30,31 arrangement minimizes the calendar's month-starts' departure from those of the current Roman months.

KARL REPLIES: For Monday starting weeks, each month has 26 non-Sundays like the World Calendar, which has 31-30-30 with a Sunday starting week.

The other issue is Michael’s assertion that 30,30,31 minimises the departure of the month starts from those of the Roman months given the same new year day. I reckon the average number of days each new month begins after its Roman counterpart as follows

31,30,30: Jan 0.0, Feb 0.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 1.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug 0.7575, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -0.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,31 30: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 1.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun 0.7575, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -0.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -0.2425

30,30,31: Jan 0.0, Feb -1.0, Mar 0.7575, Apr 0.7575, May 0.7575, Jun -0.2425, Jul 0.7575, Aug -0.2425, Sep -1.2425, Oct -0.2425, Nov -1.2425, Dec -1.2425

So indeed 30,30,31 is best for this. The only months that begins 2 days different from Roman months are September, November & December in a Gregorian leap year. In a leap week calendar, with ISO weeks this makes September, November and December be the month that begins 5 days different than Gregorian and this occurs only in a Gregorian leap year.

This explains why

http://hankehenryontime.com/html/qanda.html states:

  • After January 1, 2018:

o    15% of the time, the date is identical to the Gregorian date

o    29% of the time, it is one day off

o    27% of the time, two days off

o    19% of the time, three days off

o    9% of the time, four days off

Only 1.3% of the time are the dates different by five days, and never by more than that. The bottom line: 90% of the time, HH is off from Gregorian by 3 days or fewer!

 

Given that approximately 1/7 of years begin 3 days early, about 97/(400*4*7) = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is somewhat better than the 1.3% stated. However the statistics above do not mention that about 1.37% of the time the date does not occur in the Gregorian calendar of the same year.

 

This  I think is the main advantage over other leap week calendar proposals.

 

 

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

So, if you want to regularize the months, & make them uniform, while keeping 30 & 31 day months, then Hanke-Henry's solution is an ok one.

But, that being said, it seems to me that, if you're going to propose replacing the current Roman months with regularized months, that's a big change, a very noticible one. In contrast, the leapyear-rule (or year-start rule) is more in the background, and less likely to elicit objections.

So, if it were my proposal, i'd rather propose my minimal, simple, natural Minimum-Displacement leapyear rule.

KARL REPLIES: Irv’s 293 year cycle is a simple Minimum-Displacement leap year rule with Y = 365 & 71/293 days = 52 & 52/293 weeks and the displacement of year 1 equal to 0.

MICHAEL CONTINUED:

Yes, it's been said that equivalent systems have been proposed, ever since the time when England was considering adopting the Gregorian leapyear system. But those systems don't have Minimum-Displacement's obvious, natural simplicity.

But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

So there's nothing wrong with the Hanke-Henry calendar proposal. Of course the no-timezones provision should be left out, or else have a "separabiity" clause.

But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

It has the incomparably big advantage of already being in wide use. Additionally, it beats, at their own game, the proposals for months that start on the same day of the year, like the 28,35,28 quarters.

ISO WeekDate's convenience beats that of 28,35,28.  ...& its simplicity is unmatched. And it's already in wide use.

ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

KARL REPLIES: A long time ago (almost 19 years) I suggested using playing cards for the ISO weeks, with a suit for each quarter. See

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/playcard.htm For example, the date of Week 50 Friday, would become Friday Jack of Spades.

 

I also like the idea of grouping the weeks into months like in Symmetry454 with week 53 included in the 12th month December, but also keeping the week as part of the date, so for example Week 50 Friday becomes December Week 2 Friday or simply December 2nd Friday. The differing date format permits re-use of the same month name without confusion with Gregorian calendar, when quoting a date. For that reason, I’d not recommend  2nd Friday December. 2016-W50-5 would become 2016-12-W2-5. The two can be distinguished even with the ‘-‘ removed. We have 4-5-4  rather than 28-35-28.

 

I would not call such a calendar symmetrical, because the ISO leap week cycle is absolutely asymmetrical.

 

Karl

 

16(04(17

 

 

Michael Ossipoff

 

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendarists

Someone added <http://hankehenryontime.com/html/calendar.html> as the new homepage for the Hanke-Henry calendar to its Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanke–Henry_Permanent_Calendar>. The text found there now explicitly mentions that this 30:30:31 leap-week calendar proposal was changed – while keeping the name – to begin weeks and years (and the first month of each quarter) on Mondays. Most people on this list, including me, probably agree that it was a change for the better. It basically makes it the leap-week version of Armelin’s calendar proposal from the late 19th century. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Armelin_calendar>

> Why was the start date moved from Sunday to Monday?
> Everywhere in the world except USA and Canada, the week begins on Monday and ends on Sunday. This makes January 1, 2018 a perfect transition.

This broad claim may be helpful, but is of course utterly wrong, and, ironically, while attributing global standards, it doesn’t say “1 January 2018” or “2018-01-01”.

Irv Bromberg also receives an honorable mention. Who knows, one day Henry and Hanke may even change their minds to agree with him (and me) that the middle month of a quarter should be the longer one.

The HHPC FAQ still falsely assumes that (all) farmers currently adhere more to the Gregorian calendar – which is also often off from “true” astronomic / astrologic / meteorological dates – than to the current and predicted local weather. It also doesn’t point out the possibility to apply the calendar proleptically to find out ones “new” birthday, which has a fixed day of the week either way.

I don’t think it’s smart to throw time-zone abolition into the mix, especially if it’s not to be done the Swatch way. <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time>

Chiseling your names into something that is intended to affect almost everyone on Earth, is also either narcissistic or dumb. I think it used to be called “C&T”/“CCC&T” <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time>.


Overviews of related proposals
------------------------------

- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:30:30:31>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Leap_Week_Calendars>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Week_starts_Monday>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:End-of-year_leap>
- <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reformed_Gregorian_calendars>

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Phil De Rosa
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2
I think Christopher was thinking more in terms of the calendar quarters than
the months.

If we think of 'long' term possibilities for the number of days in a week
we could think of the 30 day divisors of prime numbers 5, 6 or 10.
But it is not for us to fix and impose upon the World any major Calendar
divisions that must apply until 2582 or in other words for another 434 years
or
beyond.

We have been shouldered by nature, and tricked by astrology and religion to
accept these odd numbers: the roughly 365 and a 'quarter' day year, and the
29 and 'one half' day month, plus the 7 day week which we imposed on
ourselves
and which is the bigger of the problems for those who want simplicity in
change.
We cannot change the former two and have to do our best to live with them.
We can change the number of days in a week, if the decision is made to keep
the week, but this will not occur in our 'near' future.
But we can change the number of days in a 'month', if we decide to keep the
months, so that they are more equal.

Stable and constant 30-30-31 day equal quarters certainly beats the current
chaotic calendars' scattered 28, 29, 30 or 31 day months, especially if we
call
the 365th day; Day 0, or New Year's Day, or World Day plus have Leap Year
Day every four years.

We are advanced enough to simplify our lives as much as we wish wherever we
can.
Witness the wider use now of the Metric System and the wider decimal coinage
usage since the British Commonwealth began switching roughly only 50 years
ago.

Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Happy Diwali, Happy Bodhi, Happy Winter
Solstice, Happy Whatever,
and a Happy New Year to all.
Let's work on Calendar change so that it comes about soon so that we can get
on with our lives.

Phil De Rosa,  White Rock, BC





-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Päper
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2016 5:19 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]>:
>
> One nice feature of the 30-30-31 day quarter format is that the first 90
> days can be conveniently divided a large number of ways outside the 7 day
> week with just one day outside the 90 day period placed at the end of each
> quarter

I’ve tried to document that at
<http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn’t have
very interesting divisors – just 9 and 18 – beyond that of 30, so the
off-day could be placed between any two 30-day “months”.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2
Dear Christoph, Irv and Calendar People

CHRISTOPH SAID:
A specially numbered leap week added every 294 weeks (or 1 less when passing a centennial year not divisible by 4), where ever that is in a year (or moved to the closest month boundary), could be an interesting alternative.

KARL REPLIES: If a leap week were added every 294 weeks without exception one would get the 293-year cycle of 52 leap weeks.

One must also decide whether the first or last week of a year can be a leap week, else ambiguity would result whenever the leap week occurs 52 weeks after the first week of a year. Suppose one forbids the first week of a year from being a leap week, then in the above example the leap week would be the 53rd week of the year rather than the first week of the following year.

One drawback of such a calendar is the need to maintain two week counts, a count of the week of year or month and a count in the 294-week cycle. My suggestion avoided the need to maintain two day counts, days of week & day of month. Another is the disruption the leap week could give to the month structure.

If you forbid the first week of the year from being a leap week and start year 1 with the 147th week of the 294-week cycle, the leap week years will be identical to those of Irv's Symmetry454 calendar, where year Y is a leap year if

(52*Y + 146) mod 293 < 52

Furthermore, the left hand side (referred to as the accumulator of year Y) indicates the number of weeks the last week of year Y occurs after a leap week. So one could then postpone each leap week to the end of the year and the accumulator of that year indicates how many weeks the leap week was postponed.


The number of weeks in 400 years is 20871 = 71*294 - 3 and hence Christoph's suggestion of counting 293 instead of 294 after passing a centennial year not divisible by 4, would give a Gregorian mean year. One curiosity about this is whether it is possible to set such a scheme up so that the leap week years are spread as smoothly as possible. I.e. year Y is has a leap week if and only

(71*Y + K) mod 400 < 71 for some constant K.

If so, then the accumulator multiplied by 293/400 = 0.7325 would give an approximate number of weeks a leap week occurs before the last week of year Y.

Karl

16(04(21

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christoph Päper
Sent: 19 December 2016 10:02
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen <[hidden email]>:
>  
> MICHAEL CONTINUED:
>> That's more important than the maybe aestheticslly-pleasing symmetry of 39,31,30.

My major point in favor of “middle long”, which I’ve mentioned here before, is that if you apply ISO’s Thursday rule to any of the systematic layouts, i.e. 31:30:30, 30:31:30 or 30:30:31 days, you’ll always get 4:5:4 weeks.

>> Hanke-Henry's use of the ISO Weekdate year's Nearest-Monday year-start is another justifiable feature, because it's briefly-stated, doen't require explaining or proposing a whole new system, and needn't even mention leapyars or leapweeks.

I agree, for what it’s worth.

> MICHAEL CONTINUED:
>> But I also acknowledge that the ISO WeekDate's Nearest-Monday year-start is, in its own way, the minimal solution for a (implicitly) leap-week calendar, because it doesn't really amount to a new system, so there's nothing to explain, and nothing really new to advocate, no big departure like a from-scratch new system.

Unfortunately, the “Thursday” or “Nearest Monday” rule doesn’t result in a regular pattern for our current “roman” months.

<http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/International_Calendar#Week_of_month_or_of_triad>
<http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Weeks_per_month>

In common years with Friday 1 January, the first quarter would even have just 12 weeks.

>> But I suggest that the real best calendar-reform proposal is just to suggest civil adoption of the ISO WeekDate calendar, as-is.

I have argued before that a number that can run up to fifty-something is too unwieldy to deal with for humans. People frequently forget which of the 30ish days per month it is today.

>> ISO WeekDate, as-is, should be the calendar-reform proposal.

It should be the base to start from.
I wish Christian churches could agree on this base for their ongoing talks to fix the date of Easter.

> KARL REPLIES:
> I also like the idea of grouping the weeks into months like in Symmetry454 with week 53 included in the 12th month December, but also keeping the week as part of the date, so for example Week 50 Friday becomes December Week 2 Friday or simply December 2nd Friday. The differing date format permits re-use of the same month name without confusion with Gregorian calendar, when quoting a date. For that reason, I’d not recommend  2nd Friday December.

I agree with Karl here.

A specially numbered leap week added every 294 weeks (or 1 less when passing a centennial year not divisible by 4), where ever that is in a year (or moved to the closest month boundary), could be an interesting alternative.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Christoph Päper-2
In reply to this post by Irv Bromberg
Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> Chirstoph replied:
>> I’ve tried to document that at <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn’t have very interesting divisors – just 9 and 18 – beyond that of 30, so the off-day could be placed between any two 30-day “months”.
>
> Irv replies:
> The divisors of 90 are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90. I wonder why Christoph considered only 9 and 18 to be "interesting".

9 and 18 are the divisors of 90 that 30 doesn’t also have (excluding ones larger than 30 of course). Both are *not* very interesting in comparison.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Michael Ossipoff
What is the Gregorian leap-year system's greatest overall displacement (in the relation between date & ecliptic longitude) between the Gregorian calendar's periodic cyclical "jitter"  extremes?

Wikipedia's graph shows it to be about 2.2 days.

But, over the date-range shown as having that displacement (Feb 28, 1904 to March 1. 2096), I get about 2.5 if the mean tropical year is the reference tropical year, about 2.4 days if the March equinox year is the RTY, and about 2.6 days if the June solstice year is the RTY.

(I got the June solstice year-length from IRV's website, and estimated the March equinox year-length from that website's graph.)

Did I get the wrong answers?

I'm asking about the overall displacement between the _extremes_ of the Gregorian calendar's "jitter".

Michael Ossipoff

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> Chirstoph replied:
>> I’ve tried to document that at <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn’t have very interesting divisors – just 9 and 18 – beyond that of 30, so the off-day could be placed between any two 30-day “months”.
>
> Irv replies:
> The divisors of 90 are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90. I wonder why Christoph considered only 9 and 18 to be "interesting".

9 and 18 are the divisors of 90 that 30 doesn’t also have (excluding ones larger than 30 of course). Both are *not* very interesting in comparison.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Michael Ossipoff
I meant 2.49 for the March equinox year as RTY.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
What is the Gregorian leap-year system's greatest overall displacement (in the relation between date & ecliptic longitude) between the Gregorian calendar's periodic cyclical "jitter"  extremes?

Wikipedia's graph shows it to be about 2.2 days.

But, over the date-range shown as having that displacement (Feb 28, 1904 to March 1. 2096), I get about 2.5 if the mean tropical year is the reference tropical year, about 2.4 days if the March equinox year is the RTY, and about 2.6 days if the June solstice year is the RTY.

(I got the June solstice year-length from IRV's website, and estimated the March equinox year-length from that website's graph.)

Did I get the wrong answers?

I'm asking about the overall displacement between the _extremes_ of the Gregorian calendar's "jitter".

Michael Ossipoff

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> Chirstoph replied:
>> I’ve tried to document that at <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn’t have very interesting divisors – just 9 and 18 – beyond that of 30, so the off-day could be placed between any two 30-day “months”.
>
> Irv replies:
> The divisors of 90 are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90. I wonder why Christoph considered only 9 and 18 to be "interesting".

9 and 18 are the divisors of 90 that 30 doesn’t also have (excluding ones larger than 30 of course). Both are *not* very interesting in comparison.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Irv Bromberg
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Irv replies:

As indicated on my chart, the 2.2 day Gregorian calendar jitter is calculated relative to the Gregorian calendar mean year of 365+97/400 days. Any additional amount that arises from comparison with a different mean year isn't jitter, that's long-term relative drift, which is a separate issue.

Likewise, all of my jitter charts are relative to each calendar's own mean year (or, for lunar calendars, mean month).

--- Irv


From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [[hidden email]] on behalf of Michael Ossipoff [[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 17:24
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

What is the Gregorian leap-year system's greatest overall displacement (in the relation between date & ecliptic longitude) between the Gregorian calendar's periodic cyclical "jitter"  extremes?

Wikipedia's graph shows it to be about 2.2 days.

But, over the date-range shown as having that displacement (Feb 28, 1904 to March 1. 2096), I get about 2.5 if the mean tropical year is the reference tropical year, about 2.4 days if the March equinox year is the RTY, and about 2.6 days if the June solstice year is the RTY.

(I got the June solstice year-length from IRV's website, and estimated the March equinox year-length from that website's graph.)

Did I get the wrong answers?

I'm asking about the overall displacement between the _extremes_ of the Gregorian calendar's "jitter".

Michael Ossipoff

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Christoph Päper <[hidden email]> wrote:
Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> Chirstoph replied:
>> I’ve tried to document that at <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn’t have very interesting divisors – just 9 and 18 – beyond that of 30, so the off-day could be placed between any two 30-day “months”.
>
> Irv replies:
> The divisors of 90 are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90. I wonder why Christoph considered only 9 and 18 to be "interesting".

9 and 18 are the divisors of 90 that 30 doesn’t also have (excluding ones larger than 30 of course). Both are *not* very interesting in comparison.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Karl Palmen
In reply to this post by Christoph Päper-2
Dear Christoph, Irv and Calendar People

This reminds me of the 103-year cycle of 25 leap days, which has 37,620 = 90x2x11x19 days and can accommodate weeks of many durations without interruption. The mean year of 365.242718... days is a little high.

Also with many divisors is the 293-year cycle used by Irv's Symmetry454 calendar, which has 107,016 = 2x2x2x3x7x7x7x13 days and so accommodates without interruption weeks of 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 days and months of 21, 24, 26, 28, 42, 49, 56 days. Also a vague year of 364 days, which drifts through the seasons once every 293-year cycle. It's mean year is 365.242320... days.

Karl

16(04(22

-----Original Message-----
From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christoph Päper
Sent: 20 December 2016 21:26
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: New Henry-Hanke calendar/website, old shortcomings

Irv Bromberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> Chirstoph replied:
>> I've tried to document that at <http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Shift_Calendar>. However, 90 doesn't have very interesting divisors - just 9 and 18 - beyond that of 30, so the off-day could be placed between any two 30-day "months".
>
> Irv replies:
> The divisors of 90 are 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90. I wonder why Christoph considered only 9 and 18 to be "interesting".

9 and 18 are the divisors of 90 that 30 doesn't also have (excluding ones larger than 30 of course). Both are *not* very interesting in comparison.
1234