Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique)
Whittet (Whittet@shore.net)
26 Jul 1995 14:44:18 GMT
In article <rburbach-2607950740310001@rburbach.dialup.inch.com>, rburbach@inch.com says...
>
>In article <souters-2507951326190001@mac2lvl2-3s.edfac.usyd.edu.au>,
>souters@mackie.edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter) wrote:
>
>
>> The chief problem is that 13 happens to be a prime number. This makes it
>> mathematically impossible to subdivide a year in any satisfactory fashion.
>> You cannot even divide such a year into the customary four seasons and
>> hope to come out with the same number of whole months in each season.
>wel, the seasons start and end with the solstices and equinoxws, which
>makes this a moot point.
>>
>> By contrast, a 12-month year can be easily divided into halves
>> (six-monthly periods), quarters (3-monthly), thirds (4-monthly), and
>> sixths (bimonthly) of more or less equal size.
>
>and what advantage is there in this?
First off, its wrong, a year of 364 days divides beautifully
364 +1.24 = days in a year
364/4 = 91 = days in a season
364/7 = 52 = weeks in a year
364/13 =28 = days in a month
28 + 1.24 = 29.24 days in a lunar month
364/28 =13 = months in a year
364/52 = 7 = days in a week
91/7 = 13 = weeks in a season
Secondly, the twelve month year was an invention of the Romans so that
the emperors could have a month named after them like the other gods.
>
>randy
Steve
|