So what's the verdict?

Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM

Apr 12 2018, 10:19 AM #25

I should point out that the idea of reducing the proportion of work-time to leisure-time does not require revolutionizing the calendar.  They are completely independent questions.  How about proposing a four-day-out-of-seven work-week, with Friday as part of the weekend?  You'll find that is already the de-facto norm on many college campuses, increasingly more likely in notoriously "party" schools, where the serious partying begins Thursday night.  It's only just a matter of time before someone will propose a three-day-out-of-seven work-week, and pile Thursday onto the weekend-heap too, and begin the partying Wednesday night. That's even better than a three-day-out-of-six work-week, all without getting the religious fundamentalists' undies in a bunch.

Of course, if one legislates such things within one's own country, one may just discover that other countries with stronger work-ethics are going to be more competitive, and whole industries will flee to foreign parts, leading to massive unemployment locally, and even more need for the less affluent to take on 2, 3, or even 4 menial jobs, leading to even less and less so-called "leisure time" ... Or perhaps not, who can tell these days? What do I know? I'm just here to tinker with math and language.  What alternate bases might add to these questions completely escapes me.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)
Quote
Like
Share

Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM

Apr 12 2018, 12:56 PM #26

I don't understand taking a calendar off the table, because we're not here to win or lose. No one other than a few friends will ever adopt a new calendar. Certainly not the DSA or DSGB. Even the more famous older world calendars (including the Brombergs) have got nowhere beyond an occasional article written about them.

Do try using your own calendar for a few years. It may not be easy. But even being at sixes and sevens with the rest of the world, I feel a difference in the things I structure for myself around the six-day stints (weeks) that are occasionally seven, and around the year that starts every time on a solstice.

I've resolutely avoided assuming anything about work days or holidays or indeed anything to do with one society or another. (S-days may be good candidates for days off, but so are national, local, or religious anniversaries.) I'm interested only in a good calendar based as much as possible on dozens.

The collaborative aspect needs another mention, and another nod to Sunny. He pointed out a defect in my starting year (year 0) and suggested another way to choose that year. I readily saw that his way was better and adopted it, even though I had to radically change my year numbers. (Sunny and I start our years 6 months apart. In the structure of the whole thing, that's actually a trivial difference.)

Were you to adopt Sunny's and my calendar for a trial, I'd hope you do so solely because you're temporarily interested in its merits.
Last edited by Paul Rapoport on Apr 12 2018, 02:00 PM, edited 4 times in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Kodegadulo
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM

Apr 12 2018, 01:29 PM #27

There's nothing wrong with investigating calendar reform as such. That's what this subforum is for, after all. I just think social revolution to reduce work-leisure ratio is a separate topic. And for either topic, the relevance of any particular numeric base is going to be tenuous at best, given that neither the Sun-Earth-Moon system, nor human work-ethic psychology, are conveniently artificial. Yes, six-day "stints" are a bit closer to being dozenal than seven-day "weeks". But remember that I was inspired to suggest "stint" as a term for "a stretch of days of work+leisure", because I'd seen it used that way in Greg Egan's Orthogonal novels. (Let's face it, I shamelessly stole the term from there. 😊) But those novels are about hexadactyl shape-shifting aliens from a different universe with different physics, who measure everything strictly in dozens. And for them, a "stint" was a dozen days. Eleven work days, one day off! Well, they weren't humans, so we wouldn't have to hold to that kind of work-ethic. But if we really want to be "dozenal", we'd be talking about dozen-day "stints" (or unqua•days). But then we'd struggle with the fact that our months would only be two-and-a-half "stints" long. Every fifth stint would straddle two months, not particularly elegant. That wasn't an issue for Egan's aliens, because their planet had no moon, so they had no concept of a "month". (No "tides" either. No "ocean" for tides to pull on, for that matter. Nothing even analogous to "water", as far as I could tell!)
Last edited by Kodegadulo on Apr 12 2018, 02:09 PM, edited 1 time in total.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)
Quote
Like
Share

Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM

Apr 12 2018, 01:51 PM #28

Yes, an alternative is 10(z)-day stints, with 3 in a month, probably. They still might be broken up into half-stints, for various purposes. If month-like periods are wanted, there'd be ten of them in a year.

One question is how you use the number 10(z). You may divide the year (260 days, omitting the extra days for this question) by 10 to get months of 26 days, as most of us have done. If you divide again by 10, you get a period of 2.6 days. Not really usable, although doubling that gives a stint of 5 days.

The point is that unavoidably the factor 5 is going to show up somewhere, in number of days in a stint, number of stints in a month, or number of months in a year. I've chosen to make the first division (of the year) friendly to a dozen as well as the first multiplication (of the day), and shoved 5 into the number of stints in a month, basically in the middle. A last possibility, which I've mentioned before, is to have 13(z) month-like periods in a year, each having 2 or 4 stints of 10 or 6 days each. Hello again, 5! You could divide the year into thirds easily, though.

If you don't want months, this becomes a slightly different matter, although you still may want to divide the year into quarters. Nonetheless, using either a stint or a quarter as the basis for much finance seems a bit tough.

If quarters don't need to be whole months, that changes things some. And so it goes. Again, I see a few good solutions. While having detailed reasons for what Sunny and I have done, I still welcome challenges and alternatives.
Quote
Like
Share

Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM

Apr 12 2018, 04:16 PM #29

BTW the calendar is on the web. It does appointments and events with repetitions of them in either Gregorian- or (Holocene) dozenal-calendar frequencies. The Gregorian calendar is present in decimal or dozenal counting, or it may be hidden. As usual with me, days are divisible either diurnally (dwells, breathers, etc.) or semi-diurnally (starting with hours, then going dozenal). So: many features (including backup and restore).
Quote
Like
Share