Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique)
12 Jul 1995 04:02:26 GMT
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com says...
>In article <3tsqpn$4u4@lace.Colorado.EDU>, hgibbons@hoshi.Colorado.EDU (Hugh G
>|> Richard P. Muller (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>|> > I think you also have to recognize the significance of the number 12
>|> > to ancient cultures. Many of these cultures had a hard time with
>|> > non-integers, so their number systems had bases that could be divided
>|> > by many smaller numbers.
>|> > I believe that the Sumerian number system was based on 60 (1*2*3*4*5).
>|> > This is also a good explaination also for why there are 60 minutes in
>|> > an hour. Similarly, the number 12 (1*2*3*4) plays a large role in many
>|> > similar cultures. I think that people believed that whatever calendar
>|> > system they chose had to fit into cosmic harmony as they saw it, and
>|> > so they shoe-horned the calendar into 12 months, even though 13 may
>|> > have been more practical.
>|> If you assume that the original definition of the month was based on
>|> the lunar period (full moon to full moon or new moon to new-moon),
>|> twelve would be a closer approximation than 13. (There are
>|> 12.37 cycles of the moon per year.)
>In Chinese traditional calender, in some years there are 13 months.
I wonder if thats why when the calender was reformed to 12 months
suddenly the number 13 became unlucky?
for you math freaks, how about...
365.24 x 100 x 24 x 60 x 60/24902.72727 x 5280 x 12 x 2 =1
24902.72727 x 5280 / 360 x 1000 = 365.24
or 5^2 + 6^2 + 7^2 + 8^2 +9^2 + 10^2 / 7^2 + 8^2