Welcome statement


Parting Words from Moristotle” (07/31/2023)
tells how to access our archives
of art, poems, stories, serials, travelogues,
essays, reviews, interviews, correspondence….

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Ask Wednesday: The husband yet again on the calendar

Fourteen calendars in sestina

By Morris Dean

The last time we interviewed the husband who last month with his wife celebrated their 47th wedding anniversary, he explained why a particular date recurs on the same day of the week according to a pattern, using for example the date April 29, which occurred on Monday this year (see calendar above right). As you may recall from that interview, April 29 falls on Monday again in the years 2019, 2024, 2030, and 2041. Note the number of intervening years, or intervals:
2013 [6 yrs] 2019 [5 yrs] 2024 [6 yrs] 2030 [11 yrs] 2041
And note that the sum of the four intervals is 28 [6 + 5 + 6 + 11 = 28].
    Today, after explaining why we need only fourteen calendars altogether, the husband shows us his template of calendar-recurrence patterns.
    [Our timorous questions are in italics.]


You say we need but fourteen calendars?
Yes, that gives us all possible patterns.
The reason is that any given year
must start on one of only seven days:
seven calendars—plus seven for leaps.
They cover a 28-year cycle....

Why is it a 28-year cycle?
Our common Gregorian calendar
needs twenty-eight to get seven that leap
(one leap year every four is the pattern).
Two calendars for each of seven days
on which begins a leap or non-leap year.

Is't true that, for twenty-one of the years
of a given 28-year cycle
(when February has twenty-eight days),
seven of the said fourteen calendars
must be reused in line with a pattern
by which from year to year they jump, or leap?


Yes. This lovely template—

Years 01-28 (which correspond to 2001-28)
begin on the weekday shown by the column headings
                                        —shows how they leap
and when they're used over the course of years
according to determining pattern.
What you should attend to is the cycle
for reusing the fourteen calendars
shown by the columns under the weekdays.

For instance, take the column for Tuesday,
when 2013 began. We leapt
here from—or can reuse the calendar
of—year 2002, eleven years
before in the 28-year cycle.
Each column shows its own leaping pattern.

What about each determines its pattern?
To answer that, just focus on each day-
column: the template reveals the cycle.
Where falls each year prior to the next leap
year—four, three, two, or one before such year?
Answer says when next the same calendar.*

Annual patterns of predictive leaps
are shown by day for whatever year:
the cycle for reuse of calendar.


* You might appreciate having it spelled out. Compare Observations 1-5 below with the template, which we repeat for your convenience:
Years 01-28 (which correspond to 2001-28)
begin on the weekday shown by the column headings
  1. For each leap year (four years before another leap), it will be 5 yrs. before another year starts on the same day, but of course you'll have to use the regular-year calendar for it. (Twenty-eight yrs. must pass before you can use the same leap-year calendar again.)
  2. For each year three years before a leap year, it will be 6 yrs. before another year starts again on the same day of the week—that is, before you can use that year's calendar again.
  3. For each year two years before a leap year, similarly, it will be 6 yrs. before another year starts again on the same day. However, that year will be a leap year, so you'll have to use the alternative, leap-year calendar.
  4. For each year one year before a leap year, it will be 11 yrs before another year starts again on the same day and you can use the same calendar. (The jump of 11 yrs. is represented by a blank in the template.)
  5. In the 28-year cycle, you use each of the seven regular-year calendars three times and each of the seven leap-year calendars once.
To use the template for earlier years through 1901 or later years through 2099, simply lay it on top of them so the templates abut. For example, the template years 01-28 correspond to the calendar years 1917-44, 1945-72, 1973-2000, 2001-28, 2029-56, 2057-84. (The years 1901-16 correspond to template years 13-28, and the years 1985-2099 correspond to 01-15.)
    Why are the years 1900 and 2100 not included? They (and other years) which are divisible by 100 but not divisible by 400 are not leap years—the extra day (February 29) is not needed in order to keep the Gregorian calendar in sync. In order to use the template for periods involving a 00 year that is not a leap year, the appropriate regular-year calendar must be used for the 00 year itself, and the template must be shifted to apply to subsequent years. I will explain the shift in a subsequent article if people are interested.

Note that you can't extend back in time to years prior to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar (1752 in Britain and the British Empire, including the eastern part of what is now the United States).

Quiz question for extra credit: Why after 2019 does April 29 occur on the same day of the week again in 2024? Why doesn't it have to wait until 2030, the way January 1 through February 28 have to do?
_______________
Copyright © 2013 by Morris Dean

Please comment

11 comments:

  1. Thanks Morris. Now I have more useless information locked in my head.(smile) Did you figure this out yourself or did you research it. Both of which takes time. If information like this was gold we would both be very rich men. I did enjoy the read, as I do with all topics that strain the mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Konotahe, I'm glad you asked. The answer could be (and perhaps should be) an article. I figured it all out in my head while lying in bed some years ago unable to go to sleep without inducing drowsiness by trying to focus on thinking about something. The reason I thought about THIS will be revealed in the article, whose practical point will be to describe and explain a mnemonic device for what day of the week a date falls on (useful for making appointments). Obviously, this calls for another sestina.
          But right now I'm working on tomorrow's "Thor's Day" column, to develop a neat idea that came to me at the gym a couple of hours ago....

      Delete
  2. Correction. A few minutes ago I revised a couple of paragraphs to read as follows:

    To use the template for earlier years through 1901 or later years through 2099, simply lay it on top of them so the templates abut. For example, the template years 01-28 correspond to the calendar years 1917-44, 1945-72, 1973-2000, 2001-28, 2029-56, 2057-84. (The years 1901-16 correspond to template years 13-28, and the years 1985-2099 correspond to 01-15.)
        Why are the years 1900 and 2100 not included? They (and other years) which are divisible by 100 but not divisible by 400 are
    not leap years—the extra day (February 29) is not needed in order to keep the Gregorian calendar in sync. In order to use the template for periods involving a 00 year that is not a leap year, the appropriate regular-year calendar must be used for the 00 year itself, and the template must be shifted to apply to subsequent years. I will explain the shift in a subsequent article if people are interested.

    The original statements that the template years 01-28 correspond to the calendar years..."2085-2112...2673-2700," that "700 years must pass (twenty-five 28-year cycles) before template years 01-28 again correspond to the last two digits of the years (2701-28)," and that "obviously, exceptions must be made for such years when you lay the template over periods involving them" were quite misleading.
        I had been remembering that a 400-year period was required to get template years 01-28 in sync again with years' last two digits, when I discovered that it takes 700 years for an even number of 28-year cycles. I should have been more critical and rejected that red herring. A 400-year period works because of the shifts involved in accommodating, for example, 2100, 2200, and 2300. It's a little complicated. I was, however, able to do the shifts in my head when I was "on stage" and had just been asked to give the day of the week of some date after 2099....
        I do have one new "retirement goal": to be able to do that trick again. I hope my brain is still up to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. For some strange reason I am reminded of an article I wrote years ago about a guy who went to great lengths, including the creation of some very complex software, in an attempt to set the record for memorizing the most digits of Pi. For those who don't recall, Pi is "approximately equal" to 3.14159...but folks who think that isn't quite exact enough can keep grinding it out to something like one million digits. If there was ever a real need to do such, or just a practical reason, people of sound mind would simply use a high-speed computer. Some folks, however, view the memorization of Pi as "the religion of the universe" and have actually managed to memorize it out to 67,890 digits (official Guinness World Record) or 100,000 digits (unofficial record).

    Perhaps you can promote your calendar musings as an alternative "religion of the universe" to give Pi disciples something else to ponder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! Perhaps I can....But I was thinking more of trying to get on "The Ed Sullivan Show." Oh, wait a minute, I think Ed died....

      Delete
  4. Maybe you can bring Sullivan's little Italian mouse puppet sidekick out of retirement and the two of you can launch your calendar shtick as a vaudeville revival act. The Pi disciples may or may not be impressed, but you will be regarded as a god by anyone who has sat through a session with one of those disciples attempting the interminable - and dare I say pointless - recounting of Pi into the tens of thousands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. motomynd, surely you jest. Confess now that you made all of that up about a religion of pi and record recitations.

      Delete
  5. Anyone who claims the reciting of Pi to be as boring as watching grass grow, greatly insults the excitement of healthy, striving grass. Sadly, I actually sat as a witness for a record attempt, so I can vouch such is painfully real. Do a search for "Pi record memorization" and you will learn more about these zealots. The world-record holder went at it for something like 24 hours straight. On my personal "pointlessness meter" it ranks right there with someone performing the same role in the same Shakespearean play over and over and over...and not even being paid for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All right, then, if you vouchsafe it. What pointlessness humans do get up to! How many of those 24 hours were you there for?

      Delete
  6. Pointlessness that some may say is not altogether different from memorizing a calendar, to point out the painfully obvious. As much as I may be a fan of brain power and stubbornly doing things the old-fashioned way, there is a reason calculators and computers were invented. Mercifully, I was only there for a few hours, for a test session that ended after something like 10,000 digits of Pi. Memorizing Pi may or may not stimulate one's brain, but it has a mind-numbing effect on spectators, and is not something I would recommend for anyone who actually has a life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. motomynd, I wanted to reply sooner but I was out in the garden pointing a flat [i.e., pointless] shovel into the earth to plant some poesies for my wife.
          First, thanks for the admirable pointedness of your prose. Even if you weren't making a point, there'd still be the inimitably pointed style with which you didn't make it. (I'm not saying there was ever an instance where the first type of point was lacking; I certainly can't remember one. I'm just trying to emphasize how much I admire your writing style.)
          I think I shared somewhere that the reason (or point) I worked all of this calendar stuff out (in my head) was that I was suffering from insomnia and found that I could put myself to sleep by trying to concentrate on something and, for whatever reason, I selected the calendar to think about.
          You may have contributed the essential point that the more pointless the topic concentrated on, the better the technique puts you to sleep.
          It might not be pointless to write a sestina about that....
          I believe that the Shakespearean actor you alluded to performed "All's Well That Ends' Well" 789 or so times because it kept him close to the director's wife, with whom he was having a torrid affair. It appears that his point was territorial and agricultural; he needed to secure the ground where he hoped to spade and plant.
          Not a few of the people who went to see his performances had a similar point—the hope that more intimate acquaintance with their date might follow. At any rate, admission was cheap, so little would be lost if it didn't turn out well.
          Psychotherapists a generation ago often focused on helping their patients identify what the "payoff" was to whatever behavior concerned them. The underlying assumption was that any behavior is motivated by an expected payoff, or every behavior has at least one point, often several.
          It appears that my earlier point about the "pointlessness humans get up to" might need adjustment....

      Delete