[Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

[John Major Jenkins]

Sid,
Regarding C:  "The Maya in 3414 BC [sic 3114 BC] would either write
13.0.0.0.0  OR  0.0.0.0.0."

As written, this statement implies the Maya were around in 3414 BC [sic,
3114 BC] and were writing. I don't see this as being very clear, or
correct, at all.

Regarding B: "13.0.0.0.0 in 3114 BC is mathematically equivalent to
0.0.0.0.0."

I don't see what important clarifying distinction is made by emphasizing
"mathematically"; in fact, the technical precision implied in that term
imposes a limit on what is really a general issue of how the two
calendrical dates were conceived. Were they referential to the same
date? Yes; thus the two dates "were treated as being equivalent."
Although I risk transgressing the "rule against using analogies" I think
a good analogy for clarifying this point is the equivalence between
13:00 Military Time and 1:00 p.m. Civil Time. 
JMJ
     

-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
[mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of Sid Hollander
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:55 PM
To: AZATLAN
Subject: [Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

Am I following this correctly? I feel there is a communication problem
here.

IS:
A. "13.0.0.0.0 in 3114 BC was treated as being equivalent to 0.0.0.0.0."

The same as:
B. "13.0.0.0.0 in 3114 BC is mathematically equivalent to 0.0.0.0.0."

or This:
C. "The Maya in 3414 BC would either write 13.0.0.0.0  OR  0.0.0.0.0."

I think JMJ's intentions would be clearer if he wrote B or C instead of
A.


-- 
Sid Hollander
Merida, Yucatan
_______________________________________________
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