Talk:Last Friday of each month: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →1582: added whitespace (blank lines) in text body to be able to find statements more easily. -- ~~~~ |
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) →1582: why I brought that up, expressed thanks (agein) and corrected typos while reading |
||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
The only "missing days" are when one switches from one calendar to another. The Gregorian calendar is proleptic. October 5th follows 4 Oct in EVERY year in the Gregorian calendar (starting in January 1, year 1). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 06:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
The only "missing days" are when one switches from one calendar to another. The Gregorian calendar is proleptic. October 5th follows 4 Oct in EVERY year in the Gregorian calendar (starting in January 1, year 1). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 06:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
October 4th in year 1582 was the date in the Julian calender (the day before the switchover in some countries). The next day, the Gregorian calendar was adopted (or put into effect) in various countries, but not everywhere. The new Gregorian |
October 4th in year 1582 was the date in the Julian calender (the day before the switchover in some countries). The next day, the Gregorian calendar was adopted (or put into effect) in various countries, but not everywhere. The new Gregorian calendar says it was October 15th. If we switched to a Mayan calendar, would we be missing ''years'' (or whatever)? Of course not. Once the Gregorian calendar was adopted, it was like the calendar was in effect all along, with a continous calendar (proleptic) backward to January 1st, year 1. No missing days. That is why there are references to ''O.S.'' (''o''ld ''s''tyle) for years previous to the adoption of the new Gregorian calendar for those people who were born before the switchover. If the Gregorian calendar wasn't proleptic, there would be no need for ''O.S.'' type of dates. |
||
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington |
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
:::I think that means it's Julian before 10/15/1582 and Gregorian thereafter (and you can set the cutover date if you want). Honestly I have no idea what's going on with any of this. I think it's kind of a waste since the calendar change was so long ago. Seems sort of impractical to worry about it now. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
:::I think that means it's Julian before 10/15/1582 and Gregorian thereafter (and you can set the cutover date if you want). Honestly I have no idea what's going on with any of this. I think it's kind of a waste since the calendar change was so long ago. Seems sort of impractical to worry about it now. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::: The Gregorian Calendar isn't a hyrid calendar --- which is contrary to (I assume) some Java document --- one should refer to the (I can't believe I'm saying this) Vatican papers about it's description, rules, and implementation). Failing that, one could just check the bureau of weights and measurements, division of measurement standards, or whatever ... for the country you're in. It is proleptic (both in |
:::: The Gregorian Calendar isn't a hyrid calendar --- which is contrary to (I assume) some Java document --- one should refer to the (I can't believe I'm saying this) Vatican papers about it's description, rules, and implementation). Failing that, one could just check the bureau of weights and measurements, division of measurement standards, or whatever ... for the country you're in. It is proleptic (both in its inception and use) and there is no discontinuity. [Nothing is really simple, the more you know about something, the more detail there is that you don't want to necessarily know or care about]. The only point of interest is when states/countries switched over from the (whatever) older calendar(s) [in most cases, a Julian calendar] to the Gregorian calendar, and that switchover caused "missing days" when the new calendar was adopted and the old calendar was dropped. The pratical side to this is when referring to specific dates, such as (USA president) George Washington's birthday (some of old fogies still remember when GW's birthday was celebrated on the ''O.S.'' birthdate ... and then later came President's Day. The practical side of the changeover didn't really affect many people (or contracts), there was no driver's licenses to worry about, no retirements kicking in (Social Security was a long, long way off), I suppose there were a handful of people who suddenly become over the age of consent for marriage, property ownership, inheritance, impressment, and other ... stuff, the most important was the ability to buy beer, of course, of course. The adoption of a new/different calendar (with different leapyear rules, and now, leapsecond rules) isn't a simple thing, otherwise it wouldn't have been resisted for so long by many states/countries, and, not surprising, politics/religion/posturing played a big role in this. We still squabble (a very polite term) over daylight savings times, and you won't believe the (USA) laws around the use (or not) of it --- on how they affect labor (time worked vs. time passed), 24/7 type of contracts, end-of-use clauses, a whole host of incidentals. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::Ignoring pretty much all of that....do you have a problem with the Java code? What do you want to know about it? I don't want to know anything about the calendar systems yet. I'm just trying to figure out if you guys think the program is wrong or not. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
:::::Ignoring pretty much all of that....do you have a problem with the Java code? What do you want to know about it? I don't want to know anything about the calendar systems yet. I'm just trying to figure out if you guys think the program is wrong or not. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::I noticed that 2 programs produce different results and brought that up |
|||
::::::Thanks to GS for his elaborations! |
|||
::::::I couldn't care less about Java's calendar apart from watching out |
|||
::::::for NetRexx' solution:-)--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 07:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I don't have a dog in that fight (as pertaining to Java code and how it interprets/presents/discombobulates/converts Gregorian and Julian dates). But, as far as I can interpret from the quoted text from the documentation about the Object that the Java code is using, it states that the Gregorian calendar is a hybrid calendar. It isn't. (Could it mean the ''way'' Java treats dates is a hybrid system?) Possibly, the Java code treats dates after a "switchover" (there were many switchovers, depending on the state/country) as Gregorian, and Julian before that. |
I don't have a dog in that fight (as pertaining to Java code and how it interprets/presents/discombobulates/converts Gregorian and Julian dates). But, as far as I can interpret from the quoted text from the documentation about the Object that the Java code is using, it states that the Gregorian calendar is a hybrid calendar. It isn't. (Could it mean the ''way'' Java treats dates is a hybrid system?) Possibly, the Java code treats dates after a "switchover" (there were many switchovers, depending on the state/country) as Gregorian, and Julian before that. |
||
Line 187: | Line 192: | ||
This subject is, for the most part, pretty much out of my league, and needs a scholar's attention. I ain't that. I hoped I paraphrased and stated accurately some of the differences between Gregorian and Julian calendars (N.S. vs. O.S.). |
This subject is, for the most part, pretty much out of my league, and needs a scholar's attention. I ain't that. I hoped I paraphrased and stated accurately some of the differences between Gregorian and Julian calendars (N.S. vs. O.S.). |
||
Most people think that the leap year rule for the Julian |
Most people think that the leap year rule for the Julian calendar was simple: years divisible by 4 are leap years. Not so. Julian year 4 wasn't a leap year (see if the Java code supports that). Some scholars think that Julian year 8 wasn't a leap year as well, but I can't find that reference on the "google-net" anymore. |
||
If we don't read and understand history, we're doomed to repeat it's mistakes. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) |
If we don't read and understand history, we're doomed to repeat it's mistakes. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC) |