[Aztlan] Circular reasoning re 2112

[Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías]

Listeros,

JMJ's statement

>  Were they referential to the same
> date? Yes; thus the two dates "were treated as being equivalent."

is a good example of leaping forward without resolving problematic  
issues. The above statement is squarely false because "the two dates"  
DO NOT EXIST. That is, while 13.0.0.0.0 was indeed written a few times  
by the Classic Maya, 0.0.0.0.0 is completely unattested. So how could  
it have ever been treated one way or the other (by the Maya, that is)?

This is why phrasing is all-important and why Andy is absolutely right  
in qualifying this speculative idea with the term "mathematically". Of  
course it imposes a limit, but that's the only way you can refer to  
this issue which is not a general one, as JMJ would have it, but a  
very restricted one, which currently resides only in the field of  
hypotheses until and if a 0.0.0.0.0 statement is found.

Jorge