[Aztlan] 3M-day year

[Elaine Day Schele]

Hi Ivan,

You are absolutely correct.  I have just looked it up in the paper version 
of the Palenque Roundtable Part III 1974 publication and it does have the 
364 number, so it is a Adobe Acrobat issue.

Elaine
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ivan Van Laningham" <ivanlan at pauahtun.org>
To: "Aztlan Mailing List" <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 3M-day year


> Hi All--
> The "3M" is probably a typo or PDF artifact for 364, better known as
> "the computing year"; in fact, on page 3, Lounsbury says, "(i) the
> 'computing year' of 3M days;".
>
> To verify this, I took one of Lounsbury's examples of a contrived
> number, 1272544.  As he states, it is evenly divisible by 2392:
>
> >>> 1272544%2392
> 0
>
> but not by any other factors he mentioned _except_ 364 (% is mod, or
> modulo):
>
> >>> 1272544%260
> 104
> >>> 1272544%780
> 364
> >>> 1272544%360
> 304
> >>> 1272544%2392
> 0
> >>> 1272544%1820
> 364
> >>> 1272544%364
> 0
>
> I haven't had a chance to go over this article in detail, but that's my
> best guess based on the cursory look I've had so far.
>
> Can anyone confirm?  I can do some more digging, but it may take me a
> day or two to squeeze out the time.
>
> Metta,
> Ivan
>
> martha noyes wrote:
>> The Lounsbury article is available at:
>> www.mesoweb.com/pari/publications/RT03/Rationale.pdf
>>
>> 3M appears several times in the paper - p.2 - quoting Thompson, "Very
>> frequently the LR [long reckonings] is a multiple of the 260-day
>> count, or it may be a multiple of the 3M-day year",  p.3 - "As
>> already mentioned . . .divisible by 260 or by 3M", p.3  "the
>> 'computing year' of 3M days", p. 4 - Unlike many of the CN [companion
>> numbers], the one in this instance is not evenly divisible by 260 or
>> 780, but it is by 3M", p. 8 - "Condition No. 2 may have involved . . .
>> 3M or 117", "we may surmise . . .same position in the 3M-day cycle
>> (the so-called computing year), or else that it have the same
>> position in the 819-day cycle", "Whether the 3M-day cycle . . . or
>> the 1820-day cycle . . . were ends in themselves or were only
>> reckoning devices"
>>
>> Thanks
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aztlan mailing list
>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>> Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>> Click to view Calendar of Events 
>> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Ivan Van Laningham
> God N Locomotive Works
> http://www.pauahtun.org/
> http://www.python.org/workshops/1998-11/proceedings/papers/laningham/laningham.html
> Army Signal Corps:  Cu Chi, Class of '70
> Author:  Teach Yourself Python in 24 Hours
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Click to view Calendar of Events 
> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>