Regularity of weeks

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

Regularity of weeks

Peter Meyer
Michael said,

> I've
> read that the 7-day week originated with the Babylonians. The Hebrews
> didn't even like them, so why adopt their week?

The Hebrews were carted off to Babylon as slaves, the first time being
(according to some historians) following the destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 BCE, so their attitude toward their captors is
understandable.

> I've read that the 7-day
> week was chosen because there are 7 familiar easily visible "planets"
> (celestial bodies that move with respect to the stars)--after which the
> days of the week are named, directly or by dieties related to those planets.

Perhaps Michael has read my "Why Seven Days in a Week?" at
https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm

> My objection to blank-days is that they dislocate the weekly
> schedule -- whatever the length of the week.  That's so, whether the
> added day is a blank day that isn't a day of the week, or whether
> it's an additional day appended to a week.

I agree with this comment.  Normal humans very much like regularity,
and blank days in a calendar are disruptive of regularity.  Regularity,
however, does not imply weeks of a common length.  For example, the
lengths of the weeks of the Kazakh Nomad Calendar have a fixed pattern:
7, 7, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 6, ...  (and there are no blank days).
See https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/knc/Kazakh_Nomad_Calendar.htm#weeks

Regards,
Peter

P.S.  Must Michael and Walter continue to use "Re: UCC: Questions,
agreement, and a few objections" as the subject lines of their messages
which don't obviously relate to the UCC?  That subject line is getting
very old.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regularity of weeks

k.palmen@btinternet.com
Dear Peter, Michael, Walter and Calendar People

I've pointed out in a recent note that a blank day can be counted as an extra day of a week, without disrupting the calendar. It is just a superficial feature of the calendar. What is deep in the calendar is that the weeks are not of equal length.

Such weeks cannot be used without the calendar. This also applies to weeks that are shortened as in the Kazakh Nomad Calendar.

Imagine the following scenario: The World Calendar is adopted worldwide, but the Eastern countries decide to use the Revised Julian Leap Year rule (year start rule), while the rest of the world sticks to the Gregorian Leap Year Rule (year start rule). Till the middle of 2800 there is no problem from that date the two calendar disagree not only on the date but also on the day of week.

Perhaps Michael's objection to the blank days (and omitted days?) is that a difference in year start rule also produces a difference in day of week, like in the previously mentioned scenario.

Karl

Wednesday Delta November 2018

----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 21/11/2018 - 02:44 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Regularity of weeks

Michael said,

> I've
> read that the 7-day week originated with the Babylonians. The Hebrews
> didn't even like them, so why adopt their week?

The Hebrews were carted off to Babylon as slaves, the first time being
(according to some historians) following the destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 BCE, so their attitude toward their captors is
understandable.

> I've read that the 7-day
> week was chosen because there are 7 familiar easily visible "planets"
> (celestial bodies that move with respect to the stars)--after which the
> days of the week are named, directly or by dieties related to those planets.

Perhaps Michael has read my "Why Seven Days in a Week?" at
https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm

> My objection to blank-days is that they dislocate the weekly
> schedule -- whatever the length of the week.  That's so, whether the
> added day is a blank day that isn't a day of the week, or whether
> it's an additional day appended to a week.

I agree with this comment.  Normal humans very much like regularity,
and blank days in a calendar are disruptive of regularity.  Regularity,
however, does not imply weeks of a common length.  For example, the
lengths of the weeks of the Kazakh Nomad Calendar have a fixed pattern:
7, 7, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 6, ...  (and there are no blank days).
See https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/knc/Kazakh_Nomad_Calendar.htm#weeks

Regards,
Peter

P.S.  Must Michael and Walter continue to use "Re: UCC: Questions,
agreement, and a few objections" as the subject lines of their messages
which don't obviously relate to the UCC?  That subject line is getting
very old.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regularity of weeks

Peter Meyer
In reply to this post by Peter Meyer
Silly me!

I said:

> Normal humans very much like regularity, and blank days in a calendar
> are disruptive of regularity.  Regularity, however, does not imply
> weeks of a common length.  For example, the lengths of the weeks of
> the Kazakh Nomad Calendar have a fixed pattern: 7, 7, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7,
> 6, ...  (and there are no blank days).

Really!  I don't know what came over me!  If the weeks in the KNC had
this regularity then each month would have 27 days, when in fact the
months have either 27 or 28 days in an irregular pattern.

So to know how many days are in the current week you do need to have
the KNC calendar at hand, as Karl said.  Of course, something similar
can be said of the Gregorian Calendar with regard to months.  To know
how many days are in the current month you either need the calendar at
hand or you need to remember the rhyme "Thirty days hath September,
..."  But if you asked the average person in the street in the U.S. to
recite this rhyme (which formerly every 10-year-old child knew by
heart) I expect that most would not be able to do it -- judging from
the fact that most of them cannot name a country on a map of the world
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRh1zXFKC_o ).

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

Re: Regularity of weeks

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Peter Meyer

Dear Karl et al

One clear advantage of the unbroken 7 day week is that it's the same week whether you use the Julian, Gregorian, Dee, Dee-Cecil, Revised Julian, ISO-8601, Henry-Hanke, Symmetry010,Symmetry454, Hebrew, Islamic, Javanese or Balinese Calendar Its the most universal feature

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 K PALMEN <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Peter, Michael, Walter and Calendar People

I've pointed out in a recent note that a blank day can be counted as an extra day of a week, without disrupting the calendar. It is just a superficial feature of the calendar. What is deep in the calendar is that the weeks are not of equal length.

Such weeks cannot be used without the calendar. This also applies to weeks that are shortened as in the Kazakh Nomad Calendar.

Imagine the following scenario: The World Calendar is adopted worldwide, but the Eastern countries decide to use the Revised Julian Leap Year rule (year start rule), while the rest of the world sticks to the Gregorian Leap Year Rule (year start rule). Till the middle of 2800 there is no problem from that date the two calendar disagree not only on the date but also on the day of week.

Perhaps Michael's objection to the blank days (and omitted days?) is that a difference in year start rule also produces a difference in day of week, like in the previously mentioned scenario.

Karl

Wednesday Delta November 2018

----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 21/11/2018 - 02:44 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Regularity of weeks

Michael said,

> I've
> read that the 7-day week originated with the Babylonians. The Hebrews
> didn't even like them, so why adopt their week?

The Hebrews were carted off to Babylon as slaves, the first time being
(according to some historians) following the destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 BCE, so their attitude toward their captors is
understandable.

> I've read that the 7-day
> week was chosen because there are 7 familiar easily visible "planets"
> (celestial bodies that move with respect to the stars)--after which the
> days of the week are named, directly or by dieties related to those planets.

Perhaps Michael has read my "Why Seven Days in a Week?" at
https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm

> My objection to blank-days is that they dislocate the weekly
> schedule -- whatever the length of the week.  That's so, whether the
> added day is a blank day that isn't a day of the week, or whether
> it's an additional day appended to a week.

I agree with this comment.  Normal humans very much like regularity,
and blank days in a calendar are disruptive of regularity.  Regularity,
however, does not imply weeks of a common length.  For example, the
lengths of the weeks of the Kazakh Nomad Calendar have a fixed pattern:
7, 7, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 6, ...  (and there are no blank days).
See https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/knc/Kazakh_Nomad_Calendar.htm#weeks

Regards,
Peter

P.S.  Must Michael and Walter continue to use "Re: UCC: Questions,
agreement, and a few objections" as the subject lines of their messages
which don't obviously relate to the UCC?  That subject line is getting
very old.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regularity of weeks

Peter Meyer
In reply to this post by Peter Meyer
Walter said:

> One clear advantage of the unbroken 7 day week is that it's the same
> week whether you use the Julian, Gregorian, Dee, Dee-Cecil, Revised
> Julian, ISO-8601, Henry-Hanke, Symmetry010,Symmetry454, Hebrew,
> Islamic, Javanese or Balinese Calendar. Its the most universal
> feature.

The 7-day week of familiar use is not an integral part (or even a
'feature') of the Gregorian Calendar or the Julian Calendar.  It is
merely attached to them, and runs alongside them.  A 6-day week or a
10-day week could also be used with the Gregorian Calendar (since its
months have no intrinsic connection with a 7-day cycle), but it's
simply a matter of history that a 7-day cycle was in existence at the
time of the adoption of the Julian and Gregorian Calendars, and for
convenience has continued in use, often alongside non-European
calendars.

I suspect this is true of most of the calendars mentioned above, that
is, the definition of the calendar does not depend on the existence of
a 7-day cycle, though such a cycle may customarily be used alongside it.

Of course this is not true of those calendars which take a 7-day cycle
as their basic unit of time (after the day), but I suspect most of
those mentioned are not so defined, but rather are defined in terms of
months and years (or some other period of time which is not 7-days).

So which of the calendars mentioned above have a 7-day week as a
fundamental unit and an integral part of their definition, and cannot
be defined without use of this concept?

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

Re: Regularity of weeks

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com

Karl asks:

 

.

[quote]

Perhaps Michael's objection to the blank days (and omitted days?) is that a difference in year start rule also produces a difference in day of week, like in the previously mentioned scenario.

[/quote]

 

.

My objection to blank days and omitted days is that, as I said, they dislocate the schedule of days-off.  They dislocate it from what it was before the dislocation.   …every year, in a calendar that uses blank days or omitted or skipped days of the week.

 

.

Peter said:

 

.

[quote]

The Hebrews were carted off to Babylon as slaves, the first time being
(according to some historians) following the destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 BCE, so their attitude toward their captors is
understandable.

[/quote]

 

.

I neither said not implied that the Hebrews’ dislike for the Babylonians wasn’t justified.

 

.

I merely said that, if they didn’t like them, then they needn’t have adopted their week.

 

.

[quote]

Perhaps Michael has read my "Why Seven Days in a Week?"

[/quote]

 

.

The reasons for the 7-day week are well-known:  That’s how many “planets” were known that time, and it’s also about a quarter of a month.

 

.

[quote]

P.S.  Must Michael and Walter continue to use "Re: UCC: Questions,
agreement, and a few objections" as the subject lines of their messages
which don't obviously relate to the UCC?

[/quote]

 

.

Well, we’re talking about blank-days, and why we use a 7-day week.  UCC uses blank-days and changes the length of the week.

 

.

[quote]

To know
how many days are in the current month you either need the calendar at
hand or you need to remember the rhyme "Thirty days hath September,…

[/quote]

 

.

No, you don’t.

 

.

In the Roman month-system, long months and short months alternate perfectly, with the sole exception of the two adjacent long months July and August.

 

.

July and August are typically the two hottest months in Europe and the U.S. Maybe that’s why the Romans named those two hot adjacent months for Emperors Julius and Augustus Caesar.

 

.

So, the adjacency of those two long and hottest months has an explanation. 

 

.

Yes, the short month February is shorter than the other short months. But February (at least in many places) is unique in another way, as the first month that shows signs of spring. So then, why shouldn’t that unique month have a unique length?

 

.

So, adjacent long months July and August, and shorter short month February are exceptions (to a simple alternation of long and short) that plausibly make aesthetic sense in our picturesquely idiosyncratic Roman months.

 

.

There’d be nothing wrong with a fixed calendar with regularized months or quarters, or no months, and I wouldn’t oppose a change to one. But the current standard civil calendar, the Roman-Gregorian Calendar, is alright.  Practically no one ever objects to or complains about it, and proposals to change it are typically rejected by nearly everyone I’ve spoken to. 

 

.

30,30,31 lwnm gets a bit more acceptance than other calendar-reform proposals, because of its minimal change from Roman-Gregorian for a regularized-quarters fixed-calendar.

 

.

And no, “30 days hath September…”  isn’t needed for the Roman months.

 

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 



On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 5:30 AM K PALMEN <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Peter, Michael, Walter and Calendar People

I've pointed out in a recent note that a blank day can be counted as an extra day of a week, without disrupting the calendar. It is just a superficial feature of the calendar. What is deep in the calendar is that the weeks are not of equal length.

Such weeks cannot be used without the calendar. This also applies to weeks that are shortened as in the Kazakh Nomad Calendar.

Imagine the following scenario: The World Calendar is adopted worldwide, but the Eastern countries decide to use the Revised Julian Leap Year rule (year start rule), while the rest of the world sticks to the Gregorian Leap Year Rule (year start rule). Till the middle of 2800 there is no problem from that date the two calendar disagree not only on the date but also on the day of week.

Perhaps Michael's objection to the blank days (and omitted days?) is that a difference in year start rule also produces a difference in day of week, like in the previously mentioned scenario.

Karl

Wednesday Delta November 2018

----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 21/11/2018 - 02:44 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Regularity of weeks

Michael said,

> I've
> read that the 7-day week originated with the Babylonians. The Hebrews
> didn't even like them, so why adopt their week?

The Hebrews were carted off to Babylon as slaves, the first time being
(according to some historians) following the destruction of Jerusalem
by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 BCE, so their attitude toward their captors is
understandable.

> I've read that the 7-day
> week was chosen because there are 7 familiar easily visible "planets"
> (celestial bodies that move with respect to the stars)--after which the
> days of the week are named, directly or by dieties related to those planets.

Perhaps Michael has read my "Why Seven Days in a Week?" at
https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm

> My objection to blank-days is that they dislocate the weekly
> schedule -- whatever the length of the week.  That's so, whether the
> added day is a blank day that isn't a day of the week, or whether
> it's an additional day appended to a week.

I agree with this comment.  Normal humans very much like regularity,
and blank days in a calendar are disruptive of regularity.  Regularity,
however, does not imply weeks of a common length.  For example, the
lengths of the weeks of the Kazakh Nomad Calendar have a fixed pattern:
7, 7, 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 6, ...  (and there are no blank days).
See https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/knc/Kazakh_Nomad_Calendar.htm#weeks

Regards,
Peter

P.S.  Must Michael and Walter continue to use "Re: UCC: Questions,
agreement, and a few objections" as the subject lines of their messages
which don't obviously relate to the UCC?  That subject line is getting
very old.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regularity of weeks

Victor Engel
In reply to this post by Peter Meyer


On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:42 AM Peter Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter said:

> One clear advantage of the unbroken 7 day week is that it's the same
> week whether you use the Julian, Gregorian, Dee, Dee-Cecil, Revised
> Julian, ISO-8601, Henry-Hanke, Symmetry010,Symmetry454, Hebrew,
> Islamic, Javanese or Balinese Calendar. Its the most universal
> feature.

The 7-day week of familiar use is not an integral part (or even a
'feature') of the Gregorian Calendar or the Julian Calendar. 

Hmmm. I wonder. Certainly it's not codified in the rules, but does that mean it's not a part of the calendars? Perhaps it's not part of the calendars simply because since the pattern is so regular, there is no need to codify it.

Victor

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regularity of weeks

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Peter Meyer

Dear Victor, Peter et al

While it might be fair to say that the 7 day week is not an integral part of the Julian calendar, it's difficult to image the Gregorian Calendar without it, given that the Pope's prime motivation was to specify the date of Easter, which must always fall on Sunday

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:



On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:42 AM Peter Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter said:

> One clear advantage of the unbroken 7 day week is that it's the same
> week whether you use the Julian, Gregorian, Dee, Dee-Cecil, Revised
> Julian, ISO-8601, Henry-Hanke, Symmetry010,Symmetry454, Hebrew,
> Islamic, Javanese or Balinese Calendar. Its the most universal
> feature.

The 7-day week of familiar use is not an integral part (or even a
'feature') of the Gregorian Calendar or the Julian Calendar. 

Hmmm. I wonder. Certainly it's not codified in the rules, but does that mean it's not a part of the calendars? Perhaps it's not part of the calendars simply because since the pattern is so regular, there is no need to codify it.

Victor

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regularity of weeks

Victor Engel
Exactly. I was going to add that and submitted my email before adding that comment.

Victor

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:30 AM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Victor, Peter et al

While it might be fair to say that the 7 day week is not an integral part of the Julian calendar, it's difficult to image the Gregorian Calendar without it, given that the Pope's prime motivation was to specify the date of Easter, which must always fall on Sunday

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 9:42 AM Peter Meyer <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter said:

> One clear advantage of the unbroken 7 day week is that it's the same
> week whether you use the Julian, Gregorian, Dee, Dee-Cecil, Revised
> Julian, ISO-8601, Henry-Hanke, Symmetry010,Symmetry454, Hebrew,
> Islamic, Javanese or Balinese Calendar. Its the most universal
> feature.

The 7-day week of familiar use is not an integral part (or even a
'feature') of the Gregorian Calendar or the Julian Calendar. 

Hmmm. I wonder. Certainly it's not codified in the rules, but does that mean it's not a part of the calendars? Perhaps it's not part of the calendars simply because since the pattern is so regular, there is no need to codify it.

Victor