[Aztlan] 13 x 20 is commonplace

Mon Jul 21 21:53:02 CDT 2008

JMJ:

I do not believe that Carl meant 0.0.0.0.0  I believe there is a different venue yet to be proven for a "0" base.

Dea

D. M. Urquidi  P. O. Box 49485  Austin, Texas 78765  http://www.mayalords.org    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancientamericas/

--- On Mon, 7/21/08, John Major Jenkins <kahib at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> From: John Major Jenkins <kahib at ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 13 x 20 is commonplace
> To: "Carl callaway" <ahchich1 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Date: Monday, July 21, 2008, 7:51 PM
> Carl and Lloyd,
> "Zero Day" is not appropriate since the
> Long-Count-unit-place-value-designator that is utilized in
> the 3114 BC date/numerical-and/or-calendrical position
> holder (as found in the hieroglyphic record) is actually
> 13.0.0.0.0, not 0.0.0.0.0. And our own translated concept
> of "zero", though possibly loosely appropriate as
> long the proper linguistic caveats are always stated and
> acknowledged by the general consensus, is also loaded with
> Western (non-Maya) conceptual scientific/mathematical
> baggage. If we want to be true to the Maya meaning, let us
> recall that the Maya symbol that we translate as
> "zero" is a shell. Thus, the way that we should
> refer to a date 0.0.0.0.0 would be
> "shell-shell-shell-shell-shell."
> 
> JMJ
>    
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Carl callaway <ahchich1 at yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Jul 21, 2008 5:10 PM
> >To: ECOLING at aol.com, Aztlan
> ><aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> >Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 13 x 20 is commonplace
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >      
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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