## So what's the verdict?

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

 Posts 615
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
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.

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

 Posts 615
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
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.

 Posts 615
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
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).

 Posts 29
Casual Member
hotdog8
Casual Member
Joined: Feb 21 2018, 01:52 PM
09 Apr 2018, 23:38 #12
I like part of what you've done, certainly. You're one of the few willing to go for a 6-day week (which I won't give up), and the principle of 26/27 days per month seems sound enough. I just wouldn't distribute that difference where you've done so. Originally I did it almost as you've done it, but then I found (with some help) what I consider a better distribution for the extra days.

Your leap year rule eventually has the calendar "off" by a whole week, which is more than the Gregorian ever is, and leads, among other things, to financial questions: how long is a month? If one month is much longer or shorter than another, how would that work?
Thanks Paul for bringing that question to my attention. I have been giving it a lot of thought, comparing my 26z and 27z day months to the Gregorian 28d, 29d, 30d and 31d day months and how the financial system currently copes with periodic payments given these differing month-lengths. Basically my calendar is fine with weekly (stintly??) and monthly periodic payments, but there is a problem that I haven't been able to solve when it comes to fortnightly payments.

With weekly payments with my calendar there is no problem. If your work contract involves being on a yearly salary you would work your 3, 4, 5 or even 6 days for the stint and collect your pay at either the end of that stint or the beginning of the next stint. You would get paid for exactly 51z stints in a year BUT you would work a stint less every eight years and in that year you would receive 50z stints of pay each at an amount greater than each stint of the previous 7 years;

Let a1 = the weekly amount of pay in a regular year
Let a2 = the weekly amount of pay in a leap-year
Let b = the yearly amount of salary, which is a fixed constant

then a1 = b / 51   comparing with  a2 = b / 50
then b = a1 x 51  comparing with b = a2 x 50

since b is fixed, then a1 < a2

If however your work contract stipulates an hourly rate plus penalties and if you are paid weekly then you would lose a week of pay in a leap-year. However this fact is just semantic and really only is applicable and relevant for taxation purposes; the end of a year is always followed by the start of a new one and thus your weekly pay packet is safe with the arrival of a new stint from the start of the next year after the leap-year has ended - you lose nothing, and indeed would probably pay less tax in that leap year than in other regular years.

The above mentioned examples show the benefits of being paid weekly under my calendar. With monthly payments, again there are no problems. You could either just divide your yearly salary in both a regular and a leap-year by 10z or, if you were pedantic with a regular year, you would calculate a daily rate of pay earned and multiply that by either 26z or 27z days depending on which month you were in (it's hard when you are dealing with a salary to know what figure should be used as the denominator in calculating the daily rate of pay because the number of days worked in each week - and hence each month, and so too hence each year - changes according to ones workload for the stint, and also ones productivity. I thought it best to divide ones annual allowance by a full regular year ie. 266z days, to get the daily rate of pay and then multiply that by the number of dozenal days in each respective month). Note that in a leap-year the monthly allowance on a salary would for all intents and purposes be practically the same as the monthly allowances in a regular year of my calendar. Thus it would be wise if my calendar was adopted to make sure that when you enter into a work agreement with your employer you get paid weekly and not monthly if you are to be placed on a salary because there is a real economic benefit in doing so!

As for monthly periodic payments when on an hourly rate plus penalties, it is simply a matter of totalling the data from the punch-clock, so to speak, for the month and then getting paid accordingly. Monthly payments for hourly rate workers under my calendar are not a problem: they work exactly the same way as under a Gregorian calendar.

However, fortnightly payments in my system are a problem Paul, because the number of stints in my regular years is an odd number ie. 51. I think what this means is that in one year there will be 26z fortnightly payments and then in the following year 27z fortnightly payments, assuming you work the whole year from the beginning to the end of it and then too the next year. This gives a total of 51z fortnightly payments in two years, which is a correct figure since there are 51z stints in 1 regular year of my calendar, thus giving 51z fortnights in 2 regular years. This isn't a problem per se until we come to the 7th and 8th years of my calendar's cycle. Here I shall assume that we have been working for the whole 6 years prior to the seventh year, so that we have earned 133z fortnightly payments (51z x 6/2 = 133z) up until the start of the 7th year, and that in this year we shall earn another 26z fortnightly paychecks, leaving a remainder of 1 stint unpaid (but worked for) at the end of the year. Now, we need the 8th year to have an odd number of fortnights, to account for the one stint left over from the 7th year and then accounting for the fact that we want our fortnightly payments for the rest of the year to be in an even amount of stints, so as to divide nicely into my calendar's 8-year cycle. Thus, 1 odd stint plus an even number of stints equals an odd number. BUT the 8th year in my calendar's cycle has an EVEN number of fortnights! Does this mean that my calendar is unstable when it comes to fortnightly periodic payments, and that it will keep borrowing stints from the following year and the next year after that, and then blow-out from my 8-year cycle?

Anyway, really all this is irrelevant because my calendar has other flaws too, as discussed previously, such as the distribution of days in my months, and therefore a lack of synchronization between it and the dates of the solstices/equinoxes. Although it only requires - for all intents and purposes, and for at least the far distant future - the one publication and copy of it (of the 7-year perennial calendar, since the month of January shown in it can be seen to be the same as every month of the 8th year leap year, so you wouldn't need a separate calendar for the leap-year, just refer to January of the perennial calendar) it seems that it is just too simplistic and not scientifically practical, which I can totally understand given the yearning of scientists to create laws and order out of chaos!

 Posts 615
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
Good to see the working out of the salary problem. Some of it is a solution, some seems intractable or at least difficult. From the start, although no economist, I see a problem in changing people's salary rate for any period depending on the type of calendar year involved. That's one reason I stayed with imitating the current 365d/366d days (265z/266z). That my leap years aren't in the same place as the Gregorian is insignificant. The disadvantages in what Sunny and I have created are, I think, two: 1) there are three calendar types instead of two, because there are two non-leap year types; 2) it's a little harder to know which year is a leap year in a list of them, because a few do not occur four years after the previous one.

As I've often said, there are trade-offs no matter what you do. I don't want to put all the extra days at the end of the year, even if that's the simplest way, because it throws off the seasons too much and it creates a big disparity in the last month. Putting the extra days at the end of every second month solves the latter problem but not the former. Still, if you want only the winter or the summer to be in the right place but don't care about the other one (the respective summer or winter), then every second month works well enough and results in the familiar two calendar types instead of three.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
I think a clean-up of terminology is warranted here:

hotdog8 wrote:Basically my calendar is fine with weekly (stintly??) and monthly periodic payments, but there is a problem that I haven't been able to solve when it comes to fortnightly payments.
First of all, it appears you are using the terms week and stint interchangeably to mean a hexa·day. Why bother to adopt a new term if you are just going to co-opt an existing term anyway?  I would advocate leaving the term week alone. Let it mean only what it has always meant, a septa·day, and don't use it to refer to any other length period.

Second, it appears in context that you are not using the term fortnight to refer to what it literally means, "fourteen nights', i.e. fourteen = twezeen days.  You seem instead to be using it to mean an unqua·day, a dozen days. I would strongly advocate leaving the term fortnight alone too, so that it continues to mean fourteen days, or two seven-day weeks, and nothing else.

It's clear what really is needed here are distinct new terms for both the hexa·day and the unqua·day, because you are pointing out potential usages for both.  Now, I have suggested this other term, stint, but unfortunately we now have prior precedents both for it meaning an unqua·day and for it meaning a hexa·day.  Greg Egan's original usage of stint (or rather that of his fictional aliens) meant a dozen days.  But at one point I've suggested using it to mean a hexa·day, instead.  My bad.  What I would suggest instead is to give Greg Egan's original usage priority, and let stint refer to a dozen days; but refer to a half-dozen days, naturally enough, as a half·stint.  If necessary for clarity, refer to the former as a full·stint in contrast to a half·stint.

So a typical month of 26z days would consist of 2.6z (i.e., two-and-a-half) full·stints, just by sliding the radix point to the left.  Or you could call it 5 half·stints, since 5 halves is of course 2.6z. Similarly, a year of 265z or 266z days would consist of 26.6z (twenzy-six-and-a-half) full·stints, or 51z (fivzy-one) half·stints, minus a day unless it's a leap year.

(In my business, software development, it's common these days to follow "Agile" process. One of the principles of "Agile" is to break up all work into "sprints", usually spanning a fortnight each, where the team delivers a chunk of functionality that has been completely implemented, tested, and deployed to the customer, all within that "sprint".  Now, in a dozenal world, an "Agile sprint" would likely span a dozen-day stint, so the fact that "sprint" and stint rhyme is rather appealing.)

As for something like "stintly payments", I would advocate against using -ly as a way to invert periods of time into frequencies (such as frequencies of payment), unless it's already in common usage.  Hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, quarterly all flow well enough, but even fortnightly already starts to sound awkward. If a dozenal society decides to pay people by the dwell instead of by the hour (half·dwell), calling it "dwellly pay" just won't work.  But a -wise suffix might work better.  So: stintwise pay, dwellwise pay, etc

But consider this source of confusion that occurs even in mainstream usage:  If something occurs bimonthly does that mean twice (bi times) as often as monthly (i.e., twice a month), or does that mean once every two months (every bi·month)? If something occurs semimonthly, does it occur half (semi) as often as monthly, i.e. every two months, or does it occur every half-month (every semi·month)? We get into the same trouble with something like half·stintwise. Does that mean (half·stint)wise (every half·stint), or does that mean half·(stintwise) (half as often as stintwise, i.e. every two stints)?

What I would suggest in such instances is to use per instead.  If the period between successive paychecks is a half·stint, then talk about "pay per half·stint".  If the period is a full·stint, then talk about "pay per full·stint".

Or maybe we just need to scrounge for some other word that can mean a half·stint, without having to deal with that awkward half prefix.
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)

 Posts 29
Casual Member
hotdog8
Casual Member
Joined: Feb 21 2018, 01:52 PM
I like all of it - Good Stuff! What about calling a dozen days a stint and 6 days a sprint?

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
hotdog8 wrote: x
I like all of it - Good Stuff! What about calling a dozen days a stint and 6 days a sprint?
Uh, no. At least, in my world, I wouldn't want to use sprint as a unit of time. Rather, a sprint is the sum of all the activities a software development team commits to accomplish, during a certain bound period of time. The typical timeframe it occurs in is a fortnight in the mainstream world. I think it's appealing that, in a dozenal world, a sprint would likely take a stint (a dozen days). I also find it appealing that a stint would likely be a typical paycheck period, just like a fortnight is in the mainstream.

For a half•stint, I was thinking it ought to be called something like, a leg . Something you normally think of as half of a pair. Not sure leg is the best choice though, as it doesn't really feel abstract enough to me to represent a time period.
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)

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
How about calling a hexa•day or half•stint a stretch?  So a stretch would include a four-day work•stretch and a two-day stretch•end. You could think of a work•stretch as an unbroken stretch of days of work.

Full time work in our mainstream world is 4 dwells every 5 out of 7 days, so averaging 2ᘔ.35186ᘔ%z (twenzy-ten and two sevenths pergross) time at work. If people continued to work a typical 4•dwell work-shift, but only 4 out of every 6 days, the average would go down to 28%z (twenzy-eight pergross) work-time. Adding a quarter•dwell (half•hour) to each work-day would bring the average back up to 2ᘔ%z (twenzy-ten pergross) work-time. But who knows? Maybe the quality-of-life improvement of eliminating "hump day" would yield enough productivity improvement to make that unnecessary.

A stint would be an unqua•day, so it would consist of two stretches. I suppose the first would be the front stretch of the stint, and the second the back stretch of the stint, on the loop to getting to that next stintwise paycheck. (Assuming of course that a stint would be the typical pay period.)

A month would be 5 stretches (more or less). A year would be 51z (fivzy-one) stretches (or a day less).

Or maybe every month should be exactly 5 stretches, and a year should be an even 50z (fifzy) stretches, with the 5 or 6 additional days "floating" (a la Paul's "S-days") in between the months, stints, and stretches, but not part of any of them.  Here is a picture of what I am suggesting:

I suppose those extra days would be holidays of a sort, creating special 3•day stretch•ends. No work of course, but ... no pay? I guess not, if pay is tied to actual stints. I wonder what the unions would think of that? Workers still need to pay to eat on those days, after all. Maybe the unions would negotiate for those days to accrue pay at the regular dwellwise rate, as a kind of periodic bonus.

At the end of every odd month and the start of the following even month, there will be a stint straddling the two.  If we make sure to place the extra days only after the even months, we can avoid having any "rogue" 3•day stretch•end occurring in the middle of a stint, derailing the focus of the work. That would place "leap-day" (the extra-extra day in a leap year) after December.

A quarter would be 3 months or 13z (thirzeen) stretches, or 7.6z (seven and a half) stints. So that means the second "month-straddling" stint out of every three would also straddle two quarters. It would also mean that only one extra day would fall in the winter and summer quarters, but two would always fall in the spring quarter, and two in the fall quarter only in a leap year.

Hmm, if instead of this, we were to follow Paul's S-day pattern, would any of the resulting long stretch•ends be "roguish"? I don't recall off-hand
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)

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
I should stress that the calendar I've sketched above in no way attempts to track key astronomical events such as solstices and equinoxes, like Paul's calendar does. All it does is regularize the Gregorian year in terms of stints and stretches rather than weeks and fortnights, mostly for the benefit of business and employment and accounting and what not.

The names for the days-of-the-stretch would need to be something other than just co-opting six of the seven day-of-the-week names. Particularly if we imagine a hybrid world where this calendar were adopted for civil purposes, while the religiously-minded continued to follow the traditional week-based calendar in parallel with it. But I think Paul's idea of using names based on the Latin primary and secondary colors would work:
1. Ruber = "Red" day
2. Arantius = "Orange" day
3. Flavus = "Yellow" day
4. Viridius = "Green" day
5. Caeruleus = "Blue" day
6. Purpureus = "Purple" day
Although come to think of it, starting the work-stretch with a color symbolizing stopping, and stopping the work-stretch with a color symbolizing starting, seems a bit inapt.  And for that matter, Paul's placement of his S-days differs from my placement of "extra" days, so there is no guarantee that Paul's stretches and mine would remain aligned.  Oh well, I suppose I need a different set of names then ...

Even though I've shown the traditional month-names above, these regularized months wouldn't track with the traditional months exactly. Nor would they necessary track with Paul's Zodiac-based months.  So the best names I could come up with for these, off-hand, would be:
1. Erstwinter ≈ January-ish
2. Midwinter ≈ February-ish
3. Latewinter ≈ March-ish
4. Erstspring ≈ April-ish
5. Midspring ≈ May-ish
6. Latespring ≈ June-ish
7. Erstsummer ≈ July-ish
8. Midsummer ≈ August-ish
9. Latesummer ≈ September-ish
10. Erstautumn ≈ October-ish
11. Midautumn ≈ November-ish
12. Lateautumn ≈ December-ish
I suppose we could also come up with names for the "extra" days:
1. Winterday = after Midwinter
2. Springday = before Midspring
3. Midyearday = after Latespring
4. Summerday = after Midsummer
5. Autumnday = before Midautumn
6. Leapday = after Lateautumn, in a leap year only
As for the leap rules, I'd probably go with:
• Leap every year that is a multiple of 22 = 4.
• Unleap every year that is a multiple of 27 = ᘔ8z = 128d.  The next one is due in 1228z = 2048d.
This would make the average year length 265.2ᘔᘔ6z = 365.2421875d which is almost perfect.
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)

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
It occurs to me that the season-based month names I suggested above exhibit northern-hemisphere chauvinism. So perhaps better names would be something like these:
1. Januariunx
2. Februariunx
3. Martiunx
4. Apriliunx
5. Maiunx
6. Juniunx
7. Juliunx
8. Augustunx
9. Ennembrunx
10. Dectobrunx
11. Levembrunx
12. Dozembrunx
The common -unx ending is a form of uncia, indicating that the month approximates the similarly-named traditional month, but is adapted for this dozenal calendar.

Not sure how to name the "extra" days now, however.
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)

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
Hmm, maybe we could ordinally name the seasons in the "extra" day names.
1. First-Season Day
2. Second-Season Day
3. Mid-Year Day
4. Third-Season Day
5. Fourth-Season Day
6. Leap Day
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)

 Posts 615
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
Yes, there's roguery in the S-days. They occur at the end of months 5 6 7 8 9 or 6 7 8 9 X or 5 6 7 8 9 X, that last for leap years. (Today is S5, the first S-day in the year 6851.) Because counting by stints is going to run into extra-day bumps anyhow, I figure that where the bumps are matters not so much. I'll let who gets paid for what when be determined by others. The S-days as indicated here don't have names.

Even though they could take names from the months they follow, I still try to make use of the fakery that the S-days don't belong to a month. I'm not truly succeeding. I thought of numbering them consecutively, as S1, S2, etc. But that caused confusion as to where they actually fell, given the three types of calendar required.

Your plan is simpler, and better for normal purposes, especially if the years all start on what is nominally January 1 (the differing leap year rule aside). If you start the year on a solstice, however, the main problem with the alternating plan (extra day every two months) remains that either the winter or the summer solstice always starts a month, but not both. In order to give the northern and summer hemispheres equality with respect to December and June, I've done what I've indicated above, following Sunny's suggestion. He's put a slight twist on it, starting his year on the June solstice even though he's in the northern hemisphere.

The days of the week currently run from red to purple, yes. Although red means stop, it's also the shortest in frequency (if longest in wave length) and usually considered "lighter" or "brighter" than violet. Not that that must make sense when it comes to 6-day periods. Infra and ultra may suggest the current ordering, in English if not in Latin. (A nod to you for making the suggestion to use colors in the first place. It was proving tough to find a fairly neutral set of six items.)

"Stretch" strikes me as good, especially in the several ways you used it. "Stint" made sense also for a 6-day period, despite someone's prior use of it to mean a dozen days.
Last edited by Paul Rapoport on May 27 2018, 02:15 PM, edited 1 time in total.

 Posts 190
Regular
sunny
Regular
Joined: Jun 30 2013, 08:58 AM
I use Paul's calendar that starts on summer solstice, partly for the reason that the epoch started on that day, but more for a reason that I take the sun as the day and year marker.

I use the "universal clock" on the website https://dozenal.ae-web.ca/clock/universal, with '0' preferred on the top, and because in the main clock "1a", the slowest hand would thus would follow the sun at the date line, I actually prefer considering the date line as the prime meridian, and if you see this on the 2D world map, the marker, which is the sun here (actually the sub-solar point of the sun), moves through and covers the the map in a day from far east to far west, where it again starts the day back from that far east.

The day starts all over the world at the time where it is noon at this prime meridian (and also the date line), i.e, the day starts at the highest sun shine part. The same way, the most sunshine part of the year is the summer solstice at northern hemisphere, hence I consider this analogue. Although, I cannot say for sure that it makes any sense to directly relate these two in this manner.

I personally find it a bit weird to consider the midnight as any marker/pointer here, because in the opposite direction of the sun (180 degrees or 12 hrs on either side), there is no sub-solar like point to observe and predict the actual deep, darkest point/time of the day, we can only sense sunrise, sunset and noon point.

Regarding colors running from red to purple, how about we consider them purple to red?, it could signify stop at the weekend for off-day. Consider a battery which is fully charged, it could be associated with purple/violet that amounts to all the energy it can hold for it's capacity, next is blue which still signifies a good charge after 1/6th of it's use, next comes green which levels as okay in indication but above 50%, next is yellow which is still okay but below half of it's total capacity, orange is something to look out for as the battery won't last long, and finally red means the battery is near the empty available energy.

So, the weekend at red makes sense? or for some considering weekend(s) at both the orange and red? More to that, the color of the violet end of the spectrum signifies alertness because that color makes the mind alert (so, some of us usually cut of those on our screens as much as possible at night to have a good sleep), and the red light makes us calm, as they are low energetic waves.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
sunny wrote: I personally find it a bit weird to consider the midnight as any marker/pointer here, because in the opposite direction of the sun (180 degrees or 12 hrs on either side), there is no sub-solar like point to observe and predict the actual deep, darkest point/time of the day, we can only sense sunrise, sunset and noon point.
That's true ... If one is relying on the sun alone. But of course we can observe the stars at night and calculate what constellation would be at zenith when the sun is at nadir, depending on the time of year, and watch for that. Or we can just observe the sun's zenith at noon and simply say "midnight was 0.6z day ago (or 0.6z day from now) when all of us were (will be) asleep." How easy it is to observe a particular astronomical event does not necessarily dictate what its significance is. It would be weird to me to be up and about my work for several dwells on a beautiful day, but then have to say, upon returning from lunch, that that day had "ended" and a "new" day had begun.

Of course, with a universal clock everyone around the world will have their "official" day ending at some "weird" time-of-day ... except for those privileged enough to be living at the prime meridian.
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)

 Posts 615
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
The UTC clocks include information about phases so that the user knows when the local overnight and afternoon phases begin. I have yet to determine whether starting my local overnight at about 280 is weird, or becomes less so with use. On the clocks it’s possible to mark that time as 1280, just as we may think of traditional midnight as 1000 = 000.

Also there’s a choice of time bands, because there’s no compelling reason to use 1 hour (60 trices).

Regarding when the day starts, the Julian Day system counts each day from noon GMT. I find it arguable to use the sun rather than its absence to start the day and year, even if I haven’t made that switch myself.

Sunny also suggested we move the date line slightly, which we did. It now goes through only water from the North Pole to Antarctica, with the exception of a few km of almost uninhabited land on one island. If that new line were ever put into use, because time bands aren’t time zones and everyone would use UTC, it shouldn’t be necessary to move lines, the way meridians are bent now.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
Another differentiating factor in Paul's months is that they are named for the constellations of the Zodiac rather than the traditional names, because they start and end at times more correspondent with those and the cardinal points of the solar year (solstices and equinoxes) than the traditional months do. Moreover, he uses the Greek names for them, and their transliterations into Latin (though not their translations):
1. Αἰγόκερως = Aigókerо̄s (Capricorn)
2. Ὑδροχόος = Hudrokhóos (Aquarius)
3. Ἰχθύες = Ikhthū́es (Pisces)
4. Κριός = Kriós (Aries)
5. Ταύρος = Taúros (Taurus)
6. Δίδυμοι = Dídumoi (Gemini)
7. Καρκίνος = Karkίnos (Cancer)
8. Λέων = Léо̄n (Leo)
9. Παρθένος = Parthénos (Virgo)
10. Ζυγός = Zugós (Libra)
11. Σκορπιός = Skorpiós (Scorpio)
12. Τοξότης = Toxótēs (Sagittarius)
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)

 Posts 190
Regular
sunny
Regular
Joined: Jun 30 2013, 08:58 AM
Paul Rapoport wrote:Even though they could take names from the months they follow, I still try to make use of the fakery that the S-days don't belong to a month. I'm not truly succeeding.
And that is why I now prefer "4-6" as cardinal "week-day" representation for them instead of "5-0". And thus the week they fell onto, is considered as the largest week (which here is 5th and last week) of the month, being that month itself as the longest in comparison to months that have thirty days!

 Posts 615
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
So far, I've been able to have it both ways. By calling the S-days 5-0 cardinally, I consider them not to belong to a week. But they are days, obviously, and must be counted as such. Clearly if something happens weekly, the S-days can't be omitted, and then calling them 4-6 makes sense.

There's not much difference between the two ways of numbering them. I simply prefer to minimize attaching them to either a week or a month, however necessary that may be in counting them as part of either.