Talk:Last Friday of each month: Difference between revisions

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)

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.

October 4th in year 1582 was the date in the Julian calendar (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

Line 162:

:::proletic should be proleptic?!? --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Yes, three misspellings corrected. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

::::Yes, three misspellings of proleptic corrected. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

:: I don't know what the Java language says (as per its documentation) concerning ''what'' it returns from its date/time functions; does it reportedly return a Gregorian date, or does it switch to a Julian date at a certain point (date), and if so, why assume ''any'' date as the chosen switchover date would be, more-or-less, capricious as different countries adopted the Gregorian calendar at different times. But if it's for a Gregorian calendar, then yes, it's wrong. There's a lot (time, ego, emotions, reputations, ...) invested in the existing Java code (and others), and the resistance in changing/correcting it will be great. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Line 223:

:First, it's discontinuous based on where the results of the program are being understood. Second, it's discontinuous because it was not used before certain dates (which depend on location).

:: No, both calendars are continuous. Just because one was adopted at a certain date, doesn't mean the calendar is discontinous. Both calendars have current day usage, and the Gregorian calandar is proleptic, that is, dates previous to its ''inception'' are "present" down to January 1st, year 1 --- no matter when that calendar was adopted. The only discontinuity is when showing a specific calendar, and then a different calendar, during the switchover (when one calendar was "dropped", another adopted for common use).

The problem would be solved if, when showing that "split" calendar, which dates are Julian, which dates are Gregorian. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

:It's true that some of these discontinuities can be interpreted as being an artifact of the transition from Julian calendar to Gregorian calendar, but that doesn't eliminate the discontinuities, it only labels them. (And, also, we can legitimately say that all days before its adoption are "missing" from it.)

:Also, "where the results of the program are being understood" can be awkward to implement. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 18:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

:: Again, there are no missing days, no discontinuites. It only appears missing (or discontinuous) because a calendar is shown in one format (O.S. or old style or Julian) and then another format (N.S. or new style or Gregorian) during the switchover. If we switched over to a Mayan calendar, there won't be 12,000 missing years (or whatever). Both (er, all three) calendars are continuous (up to the present day). I don't want to go into the exception of the Mayan calendar when it "starts over" later this year (2012). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)