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.

I collect calendars that have a botany interest. The 1998 calendar is
from Sierra Club showing for January a Bloodroot from Illinois. It is
a beautiful flower of luminescent white and in the middle a yellow
that is almost gold.

What I need for my collection of calendars are SierraClub type
pictures of pretty and outstanding trees.

I have crop patterns calendar but I need calendars showing trees.

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

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
om...
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.

I collect calendars that have a botany interest. The 1998 calendar is
from Sierra Club showing for January a Bloodroot from Illinois. It is
a beautiful flower of luminescent white and in the middle a yellow
that is almost gold.

What I need for my collection of calendars are SierraClub type
pictures of pretty and outstanding trees.

I have crop patterns calendar but I need calendars showing trees.

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

Since 1998 was not a leap year but 2004 was one, the two calendars cannot be
in sync throughout the year. January and February match but after that
they'll be one day out. You'll need a 1999 calendar for the rest of the
year.

Of course, if you've got a 1976 calendar there....

Naturally the dates of Easter and the other moveable feasts won't match
--
Paul V. S. Townsend
Interchange the alphabetic elements to reply

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.

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.

Please do not use logic when responding to a
post by Archimedes Plutonium. After all, his
name is an anagram of "I pound his male
rectum" and "Penis could mature him".

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
....
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
....
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.
....

I don't know Ken, but I do know that any set of 7 non-leap-year
calendars that start with 7 different days is enough. If a year
starts on a Monday -- eg, 1996 and 2007 -- on 1 Jan of that year
use a calendar that starts on a Monday. If the year is not a leap
year, leave the same calendar up all year. If the year is a leap
year, put a postit note in place of 29 Feb, and on 1 March put up
the calendar that starts Tuesday. And so forth for other days of the
week. If you only have leap-year calendars, the plan is much
the same, except that in leap-years we leave the calendar up all
year, and in non-leap-years, cover up 29 Feb with a postit note to
change to the calendar that starts the year a day earlier in the week.

However, no mix of m leap-year and 7-m non-leap-year calendars,
with 0 m 7, will suffice for all possible years. The mix of
calendars must be able to represent 1 Jan and 1 March on any day
of the week. (For example, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1985, 1989, and
1993 all start on different days of the week and have 1 March on
different days too.) Second, the mix must be able to represent leap-
year 1 Mar on any day of the week. (For example, see 1968, 1972, 1976,
1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 calendars. On linux you can use the command
for ((i=1968;i1993;i+=4));do cal $i|head;done|less for this.)
Third, in a non-leap year, 1 March is 3 days later in the week and in
a leap year, 4 days later in the week. Hence a mix of 7 calendars,
some leap-year and some not, cannot represent all 1 March days of the
week. (Order the calendars by 1 Jan day-of-week and note that when a
leap-year calendar follows a non-leap-year calendar, or vice versa,
some 1 March day is doubly represented, leaving another unrepresented.)

It is simple to show that if you have any 13 or more calendars and no
more than 2 of them start on a given day of the week, then all 1 Jan
and 1 March possibilities are covered. But 12 is not necessarily
enough: eg, if you have calendars of 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988,
1992, 1969, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1985, and 1993, you will have 1 or 2
calendars for each possible 1 Jan, and 2 for most 1 March days,
but none for Wednesday.
-jiw

In article ,
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

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.

.... 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....


Yes, certainly; but I prefer to use 14 because I'm too lazy to
change calendars at the end of February. :-)


....
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....


Our calendar is undoubtedly a mess, and there have been various
quite good ideas for reforming it. However, many people are very
conservative about the calendar, either for religious reasons or just
because they don't like familiar things to be disturbed. It would be
much easier to convert the U.S.A. to metric weights and measures,
because that involves only one country. (Good luck to the Americans who
are trying!)

As for your equinoxes etc., IIRC both Christmas Day and New Year's
Day were originally approximations to the southern solstice. If they
had hit it accurately, we would have Christmas on the 1st January which
would also be the southern solstice (midsummer here and midwinter in the
northern hemisphere). There are lots of nice ideas like this in the
literature of calendar reform, but the general public of the whole world
isn't easy to convince.

Ken Pledger.

James Waldby wrote in message ...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
...
(snip)
...

I don't know Ken, but I do know that any set of 7 non-leap-year
calendars that start with 7 different days is enough. If a year
starts on a Monday -- eg, 1996 and 2007 -- on 1 Jan of that year
use a calendar that starts on a Monday. If the year is not a leap
year, leave the same calendar up all year. If the year is a leap
year, put a postit note in place of 29 Feb, and on 1 March put up
the calendar that starts Tuesday. And so forth for other days of the
week. If you only have leap-year calendars, the plan is much
the same, except that in leap-years we leave the calendar up all
year, and in non-leap-years, cover up 29 Feb with a postit note to
change to the calendar that starts the year a day earlier in the week.

(snip)

-jiw

I sense my age is beginning to degrade my faculties because as soon as
I posted yesterday I knew the answer was indeed 7. Habit is often
stronger than acumen for today I posted my previous message with
"5JAN03" when it was 5JAN04. And it is a habit of mine to incessantly
ask questions when if I took a moment out and thought about those
questions could answer many of them.

I wonder if Sierra Club makes calendars with trees on them. This year
I am experimenting with white-ash. Trying to get some purple fall
color.

Has anyone tried getting a fall color of "blue" leaves for trees? I am
guessing that some sort of hybrid of white ash may yield a blue leaf
deciduous tree.

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