Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ]
26 Dec 2012, 7:19 pm
26 Dec 2012, 8:41 pm
26 Dec 2012, 9:41 pm
26 Dec 2012, 9:51 pm
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
26 Dec 2012, 10:11 pm
26 Dec 2012, 10:13 pm
26 Dec 2012, 10:17 pm
26 Dec 2012, 10:19 pm
26 Dec 2012, 10:49 pm
26 Dec 2012, 11:26 pm
wtfid2 wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Thanks for the summary.
The interview raises a point. There have been limited times in the past where the calendar changed. The calendar we have today is not the same calendar as in the year 1. If he was using the pattern of today's calendar to calculate day of the week in the year 1, then he is quite likely to be wrong.
For example, the calculation of leap years has changed. Today, the rule is that it is a leap year if the year is divisible by 4 unless it is divisible by 100 unless it is divisible by 400. That is, 1900 was not a leap year and 2100 will not be a leap year. But 2000 was a leap year because it was divisible by 400. It used to just be a leap year if it were divisible by 4.
And errors introduced by the extra leap years resulted in a period of 11 or 12 days being taken out of the calendar in October of one year. That is, those days never existed at all on our calendar.
Note that not all countries were on the same calendar. Back then a particular month, day, and year in Britain would be a different day than that particular month, day, and year in many other countries.
Furthermore, the new year was not January 1, but occurred during the month of March. Prior to the change that made January 1 the first day of the year, December 31 was followed by January 1 in the same year.
I should have known you would find a way to throw math into all of this lol.The interview raises a point. There have been limited times in the past where the calendar changed. The calendar we have today is not the same calendar as in the year 1. If he was using the pattern of today's calendar to calculate day of the week in the year 1, then he is quite likely to be wrong.
For example, the calculation of leap years has changed. Today, the rule is that it is a leap year if the year is divisible by 4 unless it is divisible by 100 unless it is divisible by 400. That is, 1900 was not a leap year and 2100 will not be a leap year. But 2000 was a leap year because it was divisible by 400. It used to just be a leap year if it were divisible by 4.
And errors introduced by the extra leap years resulted in a period of 11 or 12 days being taken out of the calendar in October of one year. That is, those days never existed at all on our calendar.
Note that not all countries were on the same calendar. Back then a particular month, day, and year in Britain would be a different day than that particular month, day, and year in many other countries.
Furthermore, the new year was not January 1, but occurred during the month of March. Prior to the change that made January 1 the first day of the year, December 31 was followed by January 1 in the same year.
Twenty five years or thirty ago, I could have given much more detail about the calendar changes (and would likely have insisted on it) if the topic came up in conversation.
That said, it is reasonably impressive to be able to determine the day of the week based on the patterns found in the current calendar. One could learn to do this fairly quickly with a little math (do a Google search for Zeller's Congruence), but with his inability to even do the simplest of multiplications, it is amazing. However, what really impresses me is his ability to remember the weather on any particular day.
Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| I have a thing for 'snooty' females |
20 Jun 2025, 4:40 am |
| What's the oldest, most eclectic electronic thing you own? |
16 Jul 2025, 3:46 am |
