[Aztlan] 13 x 20 is commonplace

[Carl callaway]

Dear Lloyd,

Thanks for your comments. Yes you are correct "Era Day" is also a loaded term. Can we come to a consensus as to what to call this? Zero Day is a good possibility. Are there others to consider?

Yes, I should have not used the e-word "extraordinary" but  do like the beauty how certain Maya mathematics work out-even in mundane calculations. I will refrain from such flowerly words and praises in future listings.

I look forward to more comments on the topics of "Zero Day" mathematics and events.

All the Best,

Carl

  

----- Original Message ----
From: "ECOLING at aol.com" <ECOLING at aol.com>
To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:01:18 PM
Subject: [Aztlan] 13 x 20 is commonplace

Carl Calloway may have brought out something intresting, I don't know,
that requires a few more minutes and more than a first reading to evaluate.

But I have to point out two weaknesses immediately.
Carl writes:

<<
What is so very extraordinary about this CR is that  if you count 13 B'aktuns
above or below it you will end up on a day 12 Lamat. Count 13 B'aktuns and 13
Piktuns above or below the day 12 Lamat 11 Kumk'u and one will again fall
upon a day with a 12 Lamat. Keep adding higher cycles with multiples of 13 and
one will land on yet another 12 Lamat (note if the base CR was 11 Imix, or any
other 260 day, then following the same addition of thirteen cycles, another 11
day 11 Imix will be reached).>>

This is not extraordinary at all.

Any even number of Winals will be divisible by 20.
So a multiple of 13 times that
(or 13 times any larger period ending which is a multiple of winals,
like TUUN, K'atun, Baktun, etc.)
taken as a DN Distance Number, will not change the day of the Tzolk'in at
all.

This is most emphatically *not* a property of the particular calendar round
mentioned by Carl,
nor of any particular calendar round.   It is true for *all* calendar rounds,
and is a property of the base-20 system and the 260-day cycle.

This should be a warning sign of how easy it is to believe there is
something significant in facts where there is nothing such at all,
there is mere mathematical necessity.   Like the fact that any decimal
number ending in 0 is divisible by 5.   That says nothing about what
the Maya were thinking about any particular dates.

*

Carl's wish to refer to "13.0.0.0.0" as the "Era Event" embodies
the same unwarranted assumption as I was commenting on with
John Major Jenkins.   (At least if it refers to the future.)
Referring to the date in 3114 BC, we can more objectively term it something
like the zero-point of the (present 5-digit) long-count.
It is not a good idea to embody wishes and assumptions in terminology,
unless we are truly certain that the assumptions are all correct,
not merely wishful hypotheses.
In that I agree with Carl (so not "creation event",
but the term "era event" is just as full of assumptions.

I'll get back to the more interesting possibilities that Carl mentions.

Best wishes,
Lloyd

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683



**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
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