Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

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

Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael Ossipoff

Karl suggested that I haven’t defined 28&14 clearly enough. So let me say it more systematically.

.

Though it’s inevitable that we won’t all like the same proposals, I don’t want what I say to be unclear, or to appear complicated. It isn’t complicated, and, if it seems so, then I haven’t worded it well.

.

So, to that end, let me word 28&14 more systematically.  First let me discuss year-start-rules in a general way, as a description of Nearest-Monday as a completely general class of year-start rules.  

.

…followed by a (hopefully better-worded) definition of 28&4, in the context of the general class of 7-day-week month-systems in which every month has a whole number of weeks.

.

Nearest-Monday Year-Start  Rules:

.

Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to some (below-specified) intended-time.

.

Choices for Intended-Time:

.

1. January 1 of the current civil calendar. (as with ISO-WeekDate’s Nearest-Monday year-start rule.)

.

2. A solstice or equinox of your choice. (My proposals use the South-Solstice, but people might prefer the North-Solstice  (The Egyptians used it as year-start), and I won’t deny that it, too, has appeal.)

3. Every 365.2422 days, start a year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to the end of that interval.

.

…..3a)  The first 365.2422 day interval starts on an equinox or a solstice of your choice.

.

…..3b)  The first 365.2422 day interval starts at some time when the Sun passed some ecliptic-longitude that is typical for the start of a Roman-Gregorian year.  Of course there’s a range of solar ecliptic-longitudes that could be chosen, because our Roman-Gregorian year starts at various solar ecliptic longitudes within a small range.  

.

That choice of a solar ecliptic-longitude for that purpose could be made on the basis of what past year(s) you want the calendar’s correspondence of date and solar-ecliptic-longitude to resemble.

.

Of course the South-Solstice Year (duration between two successive South-Solstices) or the North-Solstice Year (duration between two successive North-Solstices) could be substituted for the 365.2422 day Mean-Tropical-Year.

.

(I refer to that chosen year as the Reference-Tropical-Year (RTY), and I use “Y” to designate its length.)

.

I don’t recommend the equinox-years as RTYs, because of fairness-considerations between the populations north and south of the equator.   …because both the Winter-Solstice and the Summer-Solstice (for either population) can have a good case made for it as basis for RTY, or as the year-start date. 

.

Familiarity with (northern) mid-winter year-start calls for starting the calendar on the South-Solstice.  But it has been pointed out that the North-Solstice Year is entering the beginning of a long period of relative length-constancy.

.

Of course the year-start date and the RTY are separate independent choices, but there’s a case for the year-start date being important enough to recommend it as the basis for the RTY.

.

The advantage of the Mean-Tropical-Year (MTY) as the RTY is practicality, as it doesn’t favor any time of year, as regards the length-constancy of the tropical-year measured from that time of year.

.

But I must say that the North-Solstice-Year has much appeal for me, because it would recognize the arrival of the long Age of the North-Solstice (with regard to RTY length-constancy)…as I found out at Irv’s website.

.

7-Day-Week Month-Systems With Whole-Number Of Years:

.

Of course 364 is divisible by 7, and has as its prime-factors:  7 X13 X 2 X 2.

.

That only leaves a few possibilities for a month with whole-number of weeks, and with length at least somewhat resembling what we’d consider a month.

.

If all the months must be identical, then there could be 14 26-day months, but they wouldn’t consist of a whole number of weeks.

.

For equal months, each with a whole number of weeks, and with a length at all qualifying as a “month”, that leaves only 28X13.

.

It’s objected to because people don’t like the number 13, and because it doesn’t have equal quarter each with a whole number of weeks. It doesn’t even have half-years like that.

.

I’d say that quarters are of interest mostly to CEOs, investors and financiers. But the 13 months seem to give 28lX13 a lot of unpopularity.

.

But, as I’ve said, some people like 28X13, and so it can’t be ruled out as a proposal.

.

But what about changes to 28X13 that would address its criticisms (at the expense of losing identical division-periods)?

.

Of course, to keep each division-period to a whole number of weeks, only whole weeks can be moved among the division-periods. 

.

If it’s desired to achieve 12 months (so as to be able to give them the Roman names), thereby making quarters, then, for maximum month-length-uniformity,  the 4 weeks from one of the 28-day months would each be added to one of the other 12 months…resulting in 4 months with 35-day length.    …resulting in the 28,35,28 quarters.

.

But I suggest, and many others (discussed later) agree, that there more meaningfully are 6 seasons, rather than 4. 

.

Naming seasons for the solar declination,  it’s meaningful to speak of a shorter Pre-Northward season after South and before Northward, and of a Pre-Southward season after North and before Southward.

.

Therefore, the natural thing do with 28X13’s extra month is to divide it into two 2-week seasons, and place them as Pre-Northward and Pre-Southward.

.

--------------------------

So, 28,35,28  and 28&14 are two different ways for achieving two different goals from modifying 28X13.

.

I’ve described the seasonal advantages of 28&14.

.

28,35,28 doesn’t claim any seasonal relevance.  With its start that coincides closely with Roman-Gregorian’s start, and with is Roman month-names,  28,35,28 seems to be intended to resemble Roman-Gregorian as much as possible.   What? With 28 and 35 day months?

.

When 30,30,31 starts at a solar ecliptic longitude close to that on which Roman-Gregorian starts, _and with its month-lengths close to those of the Roman months_,  30,30,31 achieves seasonal continuity with Roman-Gregorian. People everywhere know what it seasonally means for a certain month to arrive, because the months are nearly identical to the Roman months.     That can’t be said of 28,35,28. 

.

(I didn't give this a subject-line, and it should have one, so I'm re-posting it.)


So, what do 28,35,28’s months mean?  I must confess that I have no idea.


5 Frimaire (Frost-Month)  CCXXVII


.

Michael Ossipoff

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael H Deckers
    On 2018-11-26 00:05, Michael Ossipoff wrote:


> Nearest-Monday Year-Start  Rules:
>
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>


    I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

    I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

    Michael Deckers.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael Ossipoff
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael Ossipoff
Typo:

When I said:

30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st.

For "day", substitute "Monday".

Michael Ossipoff



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael et al

Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Monday, November 26, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Typo:

When I said:

30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st.

For "day", substitute "Monday".

Michael Ossipoff



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

START YEAR/WEEK AT ZERO=00 Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Sirs: 
>Why not just say that the year starts on ISO >weekday W01-1 ?
I think there had been ample discussion, on the list that such representation ‘becomes confusing UNLESS distinction between 8th day and 1st day gets cleared. This ‘above ISO’ representation may mean (W01x7+1)= 8th day of the year. This need distinction be clarified between W00 & W01? Accordingly, ‘first day’ be represented as W00-01 AND not as W01-1.
The confusion shall remain till ‘concept of  count start is done at (ZERO)=00’ is properly homed in the minds of “children at school/pre-school”. I wounder if 7-day month ‘concept/confusion’ need to continue! Start/End of day/Week/Year should be resorted/maintained at mid-night “hour 00:00”.
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Monday, 2018 Nov.26H17:88 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 26, 2018, at 17:02, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Monday, November 26, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Typo:

When I said:

30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st.

For "day", substitute "Monday".

Michael Ossipoff



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: START YEAR/WEEK AT ZERO=00 Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Walter J Ziobro
Dear Brij:

I am not aware of any ambiguity in ISO 8601 as to which date is W01-1.  Am I missing something?

Walter Ziobro

-----Original Message-----
From: Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]>
To: CALNDR-L <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Nov 26, 2018 7:58 pm
Subject: START YEAR/WEEK AT ZERO=00 Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Sirs: 
>Why not just say that the year starts on ISO >weekday W01-1 ?
I think there had been ample discussion, on the list that such representation ‘becomes confusing UNLESS distinction between 8th day and 1st day gets cleared. This ‘above ISO’ representation may mean (W01x7+1)= 8th day of the year. This need distinction be clarified between W00 & W01? Accordingly, ‘first day’ be represented as W00-01 AND not as W01-1.
The confusion shall remain till ‘concept of  count start is done at (ZERO)=00’ is properly homed in the minds of “children at school/pre-school”. I wounder if 7-day month ‘concept/confusion’ need to continue! Start/End of day/Week/Year should be resorted/maintained at mid-night “hour 00:00”.
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Monday, 2018 Nov.26H17:88 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 26, 2018, at 17:02, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al
Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?
Walter Ziobro
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail



On Monday, November 26, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Typo:

When I said:

30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st.

For "day", substitute "Monday".

Michael Ossipoff



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Dear Michael et al:

If, as you suggest, you can accept a 30-30-31 quarter format in a leap year calendar, using the ISO 8601 week numbering system, then you are virtually using the Hanke-Henry Calendar in its current proposed form.  

If anyone would like to start using the HH as described, I have thoughtfully provided alternative month names so that the HH calendar can be used unambiguously along side the Gregorian Calendar:

http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Alternate_Month_Names_for_Use_with_Other_Leap_Week_Calendars

So, that would make today, which is 26 November in the Gregorian, 27 Novum in the HH Calendar.

Now, if you would like your leap weeks spread more symmetrically to approximate your minimum displacement rules, I believe that if you use my Truncated Dee-Cecil Calendar, which distributes the leap days according to Dee and Cecil's 33 year leap day cycle, truncated at the 400th year, which is described here:

http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Truncated_Dee-Cecil_Calendar

and applied the ISO 8601 week numbering scheme to that calendar, you would find the 53rd (leap) week would be fairly evenly distributed over the 400 year cycle.

-Walter Ziobro


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>
To: CALNDR-L <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Nov 26, 2018 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: START YEAR/WEEK AT ZERO=00 Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Walter Ziobro, sir:
>...
the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

>Yes, now that you mention it, that's a >drawback for that nearness-measure.
There may not be any ‘ambigousness’ in YOUR method of counting; 
BUT I FEEL THE LANGUAGE MAKES IT AMBIGOUS, to comprehend, and I feel this should read: ......
 the ‘END of The previous Monday’ as it is to the start of of the next), Monday i.e. after 7-day interval, if you agree!
2018 January 02 was a Tuesday, and I prefer it to become un-ambigous ‘comprehension’ if UNDERSTOOD as “TUESDAY, NO WEEK - Day 02 - written as [W00-D02]”. Need to comprehend is *what is Week ZERO*? Be kind to recall the ‘FORMAT’ of my forwarded calendar. 
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Monday, 2018 November 26H22:86( decimal) 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 26, 2018, at 19:37, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Brij:

I am not aware of any ambiguity in ISO 8601 as to which date is W01-1.  Am I missing something?

Walter Ziobro

-----Original Message-----
From: Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]>
To: CALNDR-L <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Nov 26, 2018 7:58 pm
Subject: START YEAR/WEEK AT ZERO=00 Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Sirs: 
>Why not just say that the year starts on ISO >weekday W01-1 ?
I think there had been ample discussion, on the list that such representation ‘becomes confusing UNLESS distinction between 8th day and 1st day gets cleared. This ‘above ISO’ representation may mean (W01x7+1)= 8th day of the year. This need distinction be clarified between W00 & W01? Accordingly, ‘first day’ be represented as W00-01 AND not as W01-1.
The confusion shall remain till ‘concept of  count start is done at (ZERO)=00’ is properly homed in the minds of “children at school/pre-school”. I wounder if 7-day month ‘concept/confusion’ need to continue! Start/End of day/Week/Year should be resorted/maintained at mid-night “hour 00:00”.
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Monday, 2018 Nov.26H17:88 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 26, 2018, at 17:02, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al
Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?
Walter Ziobro
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail



On Monday, November 26, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Typo:

When I said:

30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st.

For "day", substitute "Monday".

Michael Ossipoff



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: START YEAR/WEEK AT ZERO=00 Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Brij Bhushan metric VIJ

Dear Brij et al

If I am not mistaken, ISO 8601 defines the first week of the year as that week which starts on a Monday, and includes the first Thursday of January

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Walter Ziobro, sir:
>...
the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

>Yes, now that you mention it, that's a >drawback for that nearness-measure.
There may not be any ‘ambigousness’ in YOUR method of counting; 
BUT I FEEL THE LANGUAGE MAKES IT AMBIGOUS, to comprehend, and I feel this should read: ......
 the ‘END of The previous Monday’ as it is to the start of of the next), Monday i.e. after 7-day interval, if you agree!
2018 January 02 was a Tuesday, and I prefer it to become un-ambigous ‘comprehension’ if UNDERSTOOD as “TUESDAY, NO WEEK - Day 02 - written as [W00-D02]”. Need to comprehend is *what is Week ZERO*? Be kind to recall the ‘FORMAT’ of my forwarded calendar. 
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Monday, 2018 November 26H22:86( decimal) 

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 26, 2018, at 19:37, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Brij:

I am not aware of any ambiguity in ISO 8601 as to which date is W01-1.  Am I missing something?

Walter Ziobro

-----Original Message-----
From: Brij Bhushan metric VIJ <[hidden email]>
To: CALNDR-L <[hidden email]>
Sent: Mon, Nov 26, 2018 7:58 pm
Subject: START YEAR/WEEK AT ZERO=00 Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Sirs: 
>Why not just say that the year starts on ISO >weekday W01-1 ?
I think there had been ample discussion, on the list that such representation ‘becomes confusing UNLESS distinction between 8th day and 1st day gets cleared. This ‘above ISO’ representation may mean (W01x7+1)= 8th day of the year. This need distinction be clarified between W00 & W01? Accordingly, ‘first day’ be represented as W00-01 AND not as W01-1.
The confusion shall remain till ‘concept of  count start is done at (ZERO)=00’ is properly homed in the minds of “children at school/pre-school”. I wounder if 7-day month ‘concept/confusion’ need to continue! Start/End of day/Week/Year should be resorted/maintained at mid-night “hour 00:00”.
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.), IAF
Monday, 2018 Nov.26H17:88 (decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 26, 2018, at 17:02, Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al
Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?
Walter Ziobro
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail



On Monday, November 26, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Typo:

When I said:

30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st.

For "day", substitute "Monday".

Michael Ossipoff



On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Start each calendar-year at the Monday-starting midnight that is closest to
> some (below-specified) intended-time.
>

I do not want to join the technical talk within this thread -- I just
    want to remark that "Monday closest to XXX" is not an unambiguous
    description of a date (since noon on a Thursday is equally close to
    the start of the previous Monday as it is to the start of of the next).

Yes, now that you mention it, that's a drawback for that nearness-measure.

An easier-to-use rule would consist of saying:

Start the year on the Monday that is closest to the day that contains the intended-time.

Easier to use, but still not without ambiguity, if the intended-time occurs at (or ambiguously near) midnight.

Since neither rule avoids ambiguity, but the original one is a bit more consistently accurate, I'll keep the original one.   It would be good, until such time as there's objection to its slightly more laborious implementation.

Maybe that ambiguity is the reason why the designers of the French Republican Calendar had decided that it would be better to switch to an arithmetic rule that avoids ambiguity (...though that calendar went out of use before they made the change).

How to avoid that ambiguity?  Use one of the arithmetical rules that I described in paragraph #3, instead of an actual equinox or solstice.  Then, if it happens (as it only rarely would) that such an ambiguity still occurred, have a simple rule, for such an instance (where the arithmetical result is ambiguous), start the year on the later of the two disputed dates.

It would be rare for the result to be ambiguous when the calculated numerical results are considered in their full magnitudes as rational numbers with terminating or repeating decimal fractions.

Anyway, even in that event, the ambiguity is very easily resolved, as described above.

I wonder how you can expect anybody to appreciate your calendar
proposals
    if you are not describing them clearly.

As I said in my post, I don't want my proposals to be unclearly-described, and that's why I described them more clearly in that post that you're replying to.

Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity.  But if there's anything that still isn't clearly-described, I'd be glad to hear about it and word it better.

As for whether my proposals are appreciated, of course that isn't up to me, and I don't claim that everyone will appreciate them.

I emphasize that my calendar-reform proposals for the near-term are ISO WeekDate (which is already in wide use, and whose acceptance might be helped by the wide use of weekly desk calendars), and 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday rule that starts the year on the day that's closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st. (...which is the fixed-calendar proposal that I've heard the most acceptance of.)

I emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is for a hypothetical (and surely fictitious) Utopian Epoch. And so public acceptance of it in the actual world is irrelevant.

Likewise when I speak of the beautiful rural-seasonal French Republican Calendar as a proposal.

5 Frimaire CCXXVII

Michael Ossipoff


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro

Walter—

.

You asked:

.

[quote]

Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?

[/quote]

.

A lot of people haven’t heard of that, and it’s clearer to most people to just say:

.

“The year starts on the Monday that’s closest to January 1st of our familiar civil calendar.”

.

[quote]

If, as you suggest, you can accept a 30-30-31 quarter format in a leap year calendar, using the ISO 8601 week numbering system, then you are virtually using the Hanke-Henry Calendar in its current proposed form. 

[/quote]

.

Yes, and maybe it would be good to call it Hanke-Henry, in order for it to benefit from their publicity. But, here, I don’t call it that, because Hanke & Henry didn’t invent 30,30,31 or Nearest-Monday year-start.

.

Besides, H&H’s proposal includes elimination of time-zones and the international date-line, and Hanke wants to put holidays on weekends in order to take away days-off, in order to save money for business.

.

So it can’t really be said that 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start is really the same as the Hanke-Henry proposal.

.

November 28th (30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday)

.

6 Frimaire CCXXVII

Mâche Lettuce

.

N. Autumn3 2nd    (28&14 Calendar)

.

Or 

.

N. Autumn3 Week 1 Tuesday

.

Michael Ossipoff

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff

Dear Michael et al

1. A simpler way to identify the ISO weekday W01-1 is to say the Monday of the week that includes the first Thursday of January That is, in fact, the ISO definition, and, I think, fairly comprehensible to most people.

2. I think that the universal time zone proposal has been decoupled from the HH calendar such that one can support the calendar without the universal time zone proposal.

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Walter—

.

You asked:

.

[quote]

Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?

[/quote]

.

A lot of people haven’t heard of that, and it’s clearer to most people to just say:

.

“The year starts on the Monday that’s closest to January 1st of our familiar civil calendar.”

.

[quote]

If, as you suggest, you can accept a 30-30-31 quarter format in a leap year calendar, using the ISO 8601 week numbering system, then you are virtually using the Hanke-Henry Calendar in its current proposed form. 

[/quote]

.

Yes, and maybe it would be good to call it Hanke-Henry, in order for it to benefit from their publicity. But, here, I don’t call it that, because Hanke & Henry didn’t invent 30,30,31 or Nearest-Monday year-start.

.

Besides, H&H’s proposal includes elimination of time-zones and the international date-line, and Hanke wants to put holidays on weekends in order to take away days-off, in order to save money for business.

.

So it can’t really be said that 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start is really the same as the Hanke-Henry proposal.

.

November 28th (30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday)

.

6 Frimaire CCXXVII

Mâche Lettuce

.

N. Autumn3 2nd    (28&14 Calendar)

.

Or 

.

N. Autumn3 Week 1 Tuesday

.

Michael Ossipoff

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael Ossipoff

1. A simpler way to identify the ISO weekday W01-1 is to say the Monday of the week that includes the first Thursday of January That is, in fact, the ISO definition, and, I think, fairly comprehensible to most people.


That doesn't sound simpler to me. It sounds arbitrary, with unclear motivation.

Saying to start the year on the Monday that'd closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st seems clearer, with obvious and natural motivation and justification.

2. I think that the universal time zone proposal has been decoupled from the HH calendar such that one can support the calendar without the universal time zone proposal.

I'm glad to hear of that improvement  Did they say that they no longer want to put holidays on weekends?

Michael Ossiopff

6 Frimaire CCXXVII

 

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:34 AM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael et al

1. A simpler way to identify the ISO weekday W01-1 is to say the Monday of the week that includes the first Thursday of January That is, in fact, the ISO definition, and, I think, fairly comprehensible to most people.

2. I think that the universal time zone proposal has been decoupled from the HH calendar such that one can support the calendar without the universal time zone proposal.

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Walter—

.

You asked:

.

[quote]

Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?

[/quote]

.

A lot of people haven’t heard of that, and it’s clearer to most people to just say:

.

“The year starts on the Monday that’s closest to January 1st of our familiar civil calendar.”

.

[quote]

If, as you suggest, you can accept a 30-30-31 quarter format in a leap year calendar, using the ISO 8601 week numbering system, then you are virtually using the Hanke-Henry Calendar in its current proposed form. 

[/quote]

.

Yes, and maybe it would be good to call it Hanke-Henry, in order for it to benefit from their publicity. But, here, I don’t call it that, because Hanke & Henry didn’t invent 30,30,31 or Nearest-Monday year-start.

.

Besides, H&H’s proposal includes elimination of time-zones and the international date-line, and Hanke wants to put holidays on weekends in order to take away days-off, in order to save money for business.

.

So it can’t really be said that 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start is really the same as the Hanke-Henry proposal.

.

November 28th (30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday)

.

6 Frimaire CCXXVII

Mâche Lettuce

.

N. Autumn3 2nd    (28&14 Calendar)

.

Or 

.

N. Autumn3 Week 1 Tuesday

.

Michael Ossipoff

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Walter J Ziobro
Dear Michael et al:


1. According to the Wikipedia entry on ISO 8601, there are 4 possible ways to define W01:


There are several mutually equivalent and compatible descriptions of week 01:
  • the week with the year's first Thursday in it (the formal ISO definition),
  • the week with 4 January in it,
  • the first week with the majority (four or more) of its days in the starting year, and
  • the week starting with the Monday in the period 29 December – 4 January.
Pick your favorite.

2.  With regard to holidays in the HH Calendar, I don't know what the current position is, but I presume that whatever it is, different countries, localities, and religions will continue to define their own holidays, even if the HH Calendar were adopted.

Anyway, I have felt that, whether or not the HH Calendar is adopted, many secular holidays and observances in the US and Canada can and ought to be defined solely by  ISO weekdays:

http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/North_American_Weekday_Holiday_Act

Walter Ziobro


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]>
To: CALNDR-L <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tue, Nov 27, 2018 11:40 am
Subject: Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

1. A simpler way to identify the ISO weekday W01-1 is to say the Monday of the week that includes the first Thursday of January That is, in fact, the ISO definition, and, I think, fairly comprehensible to most people.

That doesn't sound simpler to me. It sounds arbitrary, with unclear motivation.

Saying to start the year on the Monday that'd closest to Roman-Gregorian January 1st seems clearer, with obvious and natural motivation and justification.

2. I think that the universal time zone proposal has been decoupled from the HH calendar such that one can support the calendar without the universal time zone proposal.
I'm glad to hear of that improvement  Did they say that they no longer want to put holidays on weekends?

Michael Ossiopff

6 Frimaire CCXXVII

 

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:34 AM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael et al
1. A simpler way to identify the ISO weekday W01-1 is to say the Monday of the week that includes the first Thursday of January That is, in fact, the ISO definition, and, I think, fairly comprehensible to most people.
2. I think that the universal time zone proposal has been decoupled from the HH calendar such that one can support the calendar without the universal time zone proposal.
Walter Ziobro
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Walter—
.
You asked:
.
[quote]
Why not just say that the year starts on ISO weekday W01-1 ?
[/quote]
.
A lot of people haven’t heard of that, and it’s clearer to most people to just say:
.
“The year starts on the Monday that’s closest to January 1st of our familiar civil calendar.”
.
[quote]
If, as you suggest, you can accept a 30-30-31 quarter format in a leap year calendar, using the ISO 8601 week numbering system, then you are virtually using the Hanke-Henry Calendar in its current proposed form. 
[/quote]
.
Yes, and maybe it would be good to call it Hanke-Henry, in order for it to benefit from their publicity. But, here, I don’t call it that, because Hanke & Henry didn’t invent 30,30,31 or Nearest-Monday year-start.
.
Besides, H&H’s proposal includes elimination of time-zones and the international date-line, and Hanke wants to put holidays on weekends in order to take away days-off, in order to save money for business.
.
So it can’t really be said that 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday year-start is really the same as the Hanke-Henry proposal.
.
November 28th (30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday)
.
6 Frimaire CCXXVII
Mâche Lettuce
.
N. Autumn3 2nd    (28&14 Calendar)
.
Or 
.
N. Autumn3 Week 1 Tuesday
.
Michael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael Ossipoff

[quote]

1. According to the Wikipedia entry on ISO 8601, there are 4 possible ways to define W01:

[/quote]

.

Wikipedia is mistaken. There’s another way: The Nearest-Monday wording.

.

But, if Nearest-Monday weren’t equivalent to those you listed, that would be fine with me, because it would mean that Nearest-Monday a whole new year-start rule that of my own invention. Take your choice.  I say Nearest-Monday is equivalent to the four definitions that you listed, and that, therefore, there aren’t just 4 possible ways to define that year-start rule.

.

But even if it isn’t a distinct newly-invented year-start rule, Nearest-Monday is a clearer, briefer, and more naturally and obviously motivated wording.

.

[quote]

There are several mutually equivalent and compatible descriptions of week 01:

.

  • the week with the year's first Thursday in it (the formal ISO definition),
  • the week with 4 January in it,
  • the first week with the majority (four or more) of its days in the starting year, and
  • the week starting with the Monday in the period 29 December – 4 January.

Pick your favorite.

[/quote]

 

None of those is my favorite.

 

Nearest-Monday is my favorite. See above.

.

[quote]

2.  With regard to holidays in the HH Calendar, I don't know what the current position is, but I presume that whatever it is, different countries, localities, and religions will continue to define their own holidays, even if the HH Calendar were adopted.

[/quote]

.

Maybe, but if there’d be an effort, by H&H, to put holidays on weekends, and if it were successful here, then the fact that that didn’t happen somewhere else would be small consolation.

.

[quote]

Anyway, I have felt that, whether or not the HH Calendar is adopted, many secular holidays and observances in the US and Canada can and ought to be defined solely by  ISO weekdays

[/quote]

.

Yes, not on weekends.

.

N. Autumn3 Week 1 Wednesday

.

Frimaire 7 CCXXVII

Cauliflower

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Amos Shapir-2
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Description 3 is actually the definition of the first week -- the week belongs to the year which has a majority of its days.
The other descriptions are just alternative ways of computing it.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:10 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael et al:


1. According to the Wikipedia entry on ISO 8601, there are 4 possible ways to define W01:


There are several mutually equivalent and compatible descriptions of week 01:
  • the week with the year's first Thursday in it (the formal ISO definition),
  • the week with 4 January in it,
  • the first week with the majority (four or more) of its days in the starting year, and
  • the week starting with the Monday in the period 29 December – 4 January.
Pick your favorite.

--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

7-day Week Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Brij Bhushan metric VIJ
Amos, Walter, Michael Ossipoff Cc, sirs:
To me, I feel this definition ‘to count days’ in the week/month/year seems confusing, day during weeks near-start of YEAR! 
Expressing ‘first 7-days’ seems confusing unless FIRST WEEK IS LESS THAN 7-days, so should include “W00-D01 (Monday) through D06 (Saturday) followed by D00/07 (Sunday). Say, April 10 - 101st day is W14-D03 (14*7+3=D101); and “NO WEEK, 6th day can be W00-D06”? 
Thanks & regards, sirs!
Flt Lt Brij Bhushan VIJ (Retd.),IAF
Wednesday, 2018 Nov. 28H02:94(decimal)

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 28, 2018, at 00:34, Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:

Description 3 is actually the definition of the first week -- the week belongs to the year which has a majority of its days.
The other descriptions are just alternative ways of computing it.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:10 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael et al:


1. According to the Wikipedia entry on ISO 8601, there are 4 possible ways to define W01:


There are several mutually equivalent and compatible descriptions of week 01:
  • the week with the year's first Thursday in it (the formal ISO definition),
  • the week with 4 January in it,
  • the first week with the majority (four or more) of its days in the starting year, and
  • the week starting with the Monday in the period 29 December – 4 January.
Pick your favorite.

--
Amos Shapir
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

HH calendar time Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Dear Walter and Calendar People

I wonder whether the time zone feature of the HH calendar was proposed, because it would be easier to get the web page to display in universal time than in local time.
I don't think this is the reason, but if it were, it'd be a very bad reason.

Karl

Wednesday Epsilon November 2018
----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 27/11/2018 - 16:34 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Dear Michael et al

1. A simpler way to identify the ISO weekday W01-1 is to say the Monday of the week that includes the first Thursday of January That is, in fact, the ISO definition, and, I think, fairly comprehensible to most people.

2. I think that the universal time zone proposal has been decoupled from the HH calendar such that one can support the calendar without the universal time zone proposal.

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systematic general definitions of year-start rules and 7-day month-systems

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Amos Shapir-2
Yes, but does not my Nearest-Monday wording define the same year-start day as do the Wikipedia article's several rules?

Michael Ossipoff

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:34 AM Amos Shapir <[hidden email]> wrote:
Description 3 is actually the definition of the first week -- the week belongs to the year which has a majority of its days.
The other descriptions are just alternative ways of computing it.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:10 PM Walter J Ziobro <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Michael et al:


1. According to the Wikipedia entry on ISO 8601, there are 4 possible ways to define W01:


There are several mutually equivalent and compatible descriptions of week 01:
  • the week with the year's first Thursday in it (the formal ISO definition),
  • the week with 4 January in it,
  • the first week with the majority (four or more) of its days in the starting year, and
  • the week starting with the Monday in the period 29 December – 4 January.
Pick your favorite.

--
Amos Shapir