|
|
Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique)
tim roy (timewise@cyber1.servtech.com)
6 Aug 1995 13:02:58 -0400
aa101291@dasher.csd.sc.edu (Benton StJ Bonney) writes:
>> Well, the year is too short to hold 13 months. We shouldn't add a
>> 13'th month just to "prove" we're not afraid of the number 13, should
>> we?
>I read some a suggestion some years ago that we adopt a calendar with 13
>months of four weeks each. 4x7x13=364. Add a new years day with the
>appropriate leap day/year correction and you have a system where the the
>nth day of the mth month is the same day of the week every year (if the
>365th day is at the end of the year).
Eastman Kodak had their own calendar for about 50 or 60 years, that
was supposedly superior to the one the rest of us use. After years of
trying to get everyone else to switch over to it, they gave it up
themselves.
|