Ken Pledger wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

I collect pretty calendars and knew that one year I could revisit an
old calendar and hang it up to use for that new year. I had to wait 6
years because now I am re-using a 1998 calendar for year 2004. So that
I can basicly recycle my old calendars and have a stock of 6 calendars
to cover every future year....

You need 14, not 6. A year may begin on any day of the week (7
possibilities), and it may be either a leap year or not (2
possibilities), giving 14 possible year-patterns altogether. This
ignores holidays such as Easter.

I wrote the above mainly for the horticulture value, hoping that
someone knows of calendars with tree pictures, not for the
mathematics.

But since you layed the issue out mathematically, may as well partake.
Granted it is 7 possible days for which January 1 can fall on. So I
need 7 calendars in all for all possible future years, not 14.

I do not accept the 2 possibilities of the 29Feb for leap years to
make 7 X 2 = 14. I consider Leap years as gimmick years for which the
7 possible 1January can cover. I mean by this, that having bought 7
calendars each starting with one of the 7 possible January 1st and
which all 7 are nonleap years. Now, on all 7 calendars I write the
leap years on the backside covering the total years which I expect to
be alive so that I do not forget, or just writing a few years of the
sequence such as 2000.... 2004 ..... 2008 ....

So, after each year I look at 31Dec and in my other 6 calendars I fish
out the one that harmonizes 31Dec with the correct 1January. If that
year happens to be a leap year containing a 29Feb which none of my 7
calendars possess, then I look at my backpage footnote to remember if
it is a leap year and then in amongst the other 6 calendars in my
possession I write a post-it rememberance note to make another switch
of calendars.

So what I am saying is the total number of calendars needed to cover
every future year is 7, not 14, because on leap years two joints have
to be conformed in the Dec31 and 1Jan, but also Feb29 and 1Mar.

But I am not certain of that method, Ken. I am not certain that if I
were to collect 7 calendars all having nonleap years and all having a
different day of the week for 1Jan, whether those 7 will cover all
bases for a 29Feb and 1Mar
switch.

Would you know Ken, whether 7 calendars is the Minimum number of
calendars to cover all future years, provided those 7 have a double
switch in leap years? You see, I am certain that 14 will cover all
bases, but will 7 cover all bases if I make a double switch in leap
years.



The cycle of recurring year-patterns goes 6, 11, 11, 28.
What I mean, for example, is that
your 1993 calendar could be re-used in 1993 + 6 = 1999,
your 1994 calendar could be re-used in 1994 + 11 = 2005,
your 1995 calendar could be re-used in 1995 + 11 = 2006,
your 1996 calendar could be re-used in 1996 + 28 = 2024.

Like you, I keep old calendars. This "6, 11, 11, 28" rule shows
when I can re-use the nicer ones. Since 1998 was two years after a leap
year, your 1998 calendar can't actually be re-used this year, but rather
in 1998 + 11 = 2009.

Ken Pledger.

Ken, I was wondering if we can redesign the calendar such that the
winter months do not fall between two years. Where Jan 1 is autumnal
equinox to relieve the confusion when saying winter of 2006 whether
you mean december of 2005 or January of 2006.

If we made the Autumnal equinox or if we made say 14Dec or 7November
as 1 January, by that way, we can have all the four seasons into one
year without winter divided between two different years. And when we
make such a switch we
have all the months have either 30 or 31 days, including February. And
a leap year in such a revision would have December, the last month
have either 30 or 31 days depending on whether it is leap year or not.

The purpose for the change is that it is best to have all the seasons
represented in one year and not to have winter divided between two
years.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies