[HN Gopher] Lewis Carroll - computing the day of the week for an...
___________________________________________________________________
Lewis Carroll - computing the day of the week for any given date
(1887)
Author : beardyw
Score : 147 points
Date : 2024-05-24 08:56 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.futilitycloset.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.futilitycloset.com)
| beardyw wrote:
| If he could do it in 20 seconds I would call that remarkable!
|
| He didn't consider himself a "rapid computer".
| defrost wrote:
| His benchmark would have been _other_ Oxbridge Dons teaching
| mathematics . .
| ColinWright wrote:
| This is very similar to the method I use and, after conversation
| with him, the method Art Benjamin uses. It's trivial to do in 10
| to 15 seconds, though it requires practice, a very small amount
| of memorisation[0], and a small amount of mental arithmetic. I
| use it regularly, partly to keep in practice, and partly because
| once you have the skill you find it's surprisingly useful.
|
| JH Conway used a different technique[1] which I have swutch to
| when computing days in the current year. It's quicker and easier,
| but I find that it's harder to compute "The Doomsday" for other
| years (it's Thursday this year), so I revert to my standard
| method[2].
|
| Example: Today is 2024/05/24 Years since 2012
| is 12 Leap years is 12/4 = 3 Magic month number =
| 2 Date is 24 Add mod 7 is (12+3+2+24) =
| (-2)+3+2+3 = 6 = Friday
|
| [0] A "magic number" for each month. There are mnemonics, and
| they can be computed from first principles if needed. It's also
| easy to remember a few and then compute the others.
| 144 : Jan, Feb, Mar 025 : Apr, May, Jun 036 : Jul,
| Aug, Sep 146 : Oct, Nov, Dec
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_rule
|
| [2] All values computed mod 7. Take years since 1900. Add number
| of leap years since 1900 (so (YYYY-1900)/4 rounded down). Add the
| magic number for the month. Add the day of the month. Then
| Sunday=1, Wednesday=4, etc.
|
| Because the calendar repeats every 28 years, for more recent
| dates you can start with 2012 instead of 1900.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| > which I have swutch to
|
| That's a past participle I've never seent before
| purpleyhippo wrote:
| Second guessed myself and had to look up whether this was
| actually a word
| OJFord wrote:
| If it was phrased 'to which I have swutch' I don't think
| I'd bat an eyelid!
|
| (i.e. past perfect, I think?)
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| If 'swutch' is the (past) participle of 'to switch':
|
| Perfect: "to which I have swutch"
|
| Pluperfect/past perfect: "to which I had swutch"
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Google says the correct term is, in fact, Nintendo Switch.
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| I assume it lets you know where to buy one as well.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| How'd you guess?
| yazzku wrote:
| Trust Google with the facts.
| smallnamespace wrote:
| I find this all much ado ablaut nothing.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| maybe you haven't liveth long enough
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| For some reason part participles are particularly hard for me
| too (native English speaker who speaks no other languages
| fluently). (they must just be a mess in English? I can't
| imagine how non-native speakers ever get any of them)
|
| I'm going to go with swutcheted
| cyberax wrote:
| English verbs are pretty tame compared to Slavic verbs that
| can be modified with all kinds of perfective prefixes.
|
| On the other hand, Chinese verbs are even easier. They
| don't even have a tense!
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| For entertainment look up Germanic string and weak verbs.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Like the joke of the guy returning to Boston after being away
| for years; asks his cab driver "Do you know where I can get
| scrod" and the driver says "Sure, but I've never heard that
| in the past perfect before!"
| xorbax wrote:
| This might be the first time I get a joke's punchline but
| not the setup
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Scrod is the name for a small whitefish; he was looking
| for a seafood restaurant.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| I assume by 144 : Jan, Feb, Mar 025 :
| Apr, May, Jun 036 : Jul, Aug, Sep 146 : Oct, Nov,
| Dec
|
| You mean: Jan = 1, Feb = 4, Mar = 4, etc.
| chongli wrote:
| Yeah, since they're all mod 7.
| ColinWright wrote:
| Exactly so.
|
| I remember them in this table because they are squares
| (except for December), as well as "highlights" ... May=2 and
| August=3 are two that I have "to hand".
| reedf1 wrote:
| I am struggling to understand the advantages over the Lewis
| Carroll method, which I find very simple and quick. It seems to
| add quite a lot of complexity.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| Really? Colin's method seems pretty simple to memorize and
| work with. Especially since it's all addition mod 7. Given
| that the mod operator distributes over addition you can work
| answers out easily while working with small numbers.
|
| For example, what day of week was September 2, 1945?
| 45/4 = 11 (mod 7 = 4) 45 mod 7 = 3 (easy to work out
| from 7 times table) September = 6 2
|
| So you've got 4 + 3 (disappears under mod 7) and 6 + 2 mod 7
| = 1. So, the second world war ended on a Sunday.
| ColinWright wrote:
| I'm struggling to see why you think this is more complex ...
| the methods seem completely equivalent to me. The Carroll
| method does:
|
| 1: A calculation for the Century-Item ... divide by 4, take
| overplus from 3, multiply remainder by 2.
|
| 2: A calculation for the Year-Item ... Add together the
| number of dozens, the overplus, and the number of 4's in the
| overplus.
|
| 3: A calculation for the Month-Item ... alternatively,
| memorise a table: the required final numbers after division
| by 7 are January, 0; February, 3; March, 3; April, 6; May, 1;
| June, 4; July, 6; August 2; September, 5; October, 0;
| November, 3; and December, 5.
|
| Note that these numbers are exactly those in my table, minus
| 1.
|
| 4: Include the Day-Item.
|
| Then add them all (mod 7) and convert the number to a month.
|
| It's _exactly_ equivalent to what I described, except the
| Carroll method has additional calculations for the year.
| reedf1 wrote:
| Possibly it was in the clarity of his explanation. That
| makes sense, thank you.
| ColinWright wrote:
| I think it's unreasonable for you to have been downvoted, and
| I've given you an upvote to do what I can to balance that.
| Expressing confusion over something like this is perfectly
| reasonable.
| fifilura wrote:
| A little pressed with time, but does it handle leap years
| properly? Since every year divisible by 100 is not a leap year,
| unless it is also divisible by 400?
|
| (E.g. 1900 is not a leap year but 2000 is)
| ColinWright wrote:
| There is a small correction needed for January and February
| in leap years, and I haven't included the corrections for
| pre-1900. The Carroll method does deal with these issues and
| I have internalised them, but I find I never use them, so I
| retain only the simpler version.
| OscarCunningham wrote:
| One simple way to do January and February is to treat them
| as part of the previous year (with an adjustment for the
| constant you remember for those months).
| b_emery wrote:
| > partly because once you have the skill you find it's
| surprisingly useful.
|
| A statement I find to be true in general.
| ternaryoperator wrote:
| You don't have to take the mod 7 of each of the values. You can
| sum them into one number and take its mod 7. You'll get the
| same result.
| ColinWright wrote:
| You can take mod 7 anywhere you like as you go. It's a tool
| to make the arithmetic easier.
|
| No, you don't need to do it relentlessly as you go, but it
| can be used in an _ad hoc_ manner to keep the numbers small.
|
| Having said that, if you have 24, you can reduce it (mod 7)
| to 10, which you might find it easier to work with rather
| than reducing it to 3. Similarly if you start with 27 you can
| reduce it to -1 (mod 7). You don't always need to reduce
| things to the range [0..7).
|
| (Note, by convention the square bracket implies "included"
| and the round bracket implies "excluded", so [0..7) is the
| collection {0,1,2,3,4,5,6}.)
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Judging by that table (month numbers being the same for Feb +
| March in 2024), you have to adjust -1 for dates before March in
| leap years?
| tzs wrote:
| Yup. The designers of these kind of day of the week systems
| generally design as if the year started on March 1, so leap
| year shenanigans just mess with the last day of the year.
| They take that into account in their formulas for the
| century-based and year-based terms of the formulas so that
| each March 1 will be the right number of days after the
| previous March 1.
|
| That way when using the system you don't have to care about
| leap years except during January and February. The formulas
| always give February 28th as the day before March 1 which in
| leap years is one day too late because of February 29th, and
| so as you surmised you need to adjust by -1 for dates in
| those months.
| hn8305823 wrote:
| Why is it called "doomsday"? Neither the wiki article nor MW
| dictionary definition explain this etnymology/usage.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doomsday
| ColinWright wrote:
| _" When I taught at Princeton five years ago, I asked my old
| college roommate to get to John Conway and ask. To my
| surprise it took 3, not 2, degrees of separation to get to
| him. He said he wanted the name to end in "-day" and "Dooms"
| popped into his head."_
|
| -- https://www.rudy.ca/doomsday.html
|
| Likely that sprung to mind because of the "Domesday Book":
|
| _" Domesday Book (/'du:mzdeI/ DOOMZ-day; the Middle English
| spelling of "Doomsday Book") is a manuscript record of the
| Great Survey of much of England and parts of Wales completed
| in 1086 at the behest of King William the Conqueror."_
|
| -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_Book
| tzs wrote:
| > A "magic number" for each month. There are mnemonics, and
| they can be computed from first principles if needed. It's also
| easy to remember a few and then compute the others.
| > 144 : Jan, Feb, Mar 025 : Apr, May, Jun 036 :
| Jul, Aug, Sep 146 : Oct, Nov, Dec
|
| It can be useful to combine mnemonics and computation. Consider
| this sequence: 0, 1, -1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3,
| 4, 4
|
| It is the offset between the day of the year of the 1st of each
| month and the day of the year the 1st would be if the preceding
| months had all been 30 day months. For example if the first 11
| months had all been 30 day months Christmas, December 25, would
| be day 30 x 11 + 25 = 355. Add the 12th item from the offset
| sequence, 4, to that to get the real day of the year for
| December 25th, which is 359.
|
| The offset sequence is fairly easy to memorize.
|
| Once you have that sequence memorized its easy to get the month
| magic numbers for day of week calculations. There are a few
| different sets of month magic numbers in use, but for all of
| them: Magic(n) = 2 n + Offset(n) + c
|
| where Magic(n) is the magic number for month n (1 <= n <= 12),
| Offset(n) is the n'th item in the offset sequence, and c is a
| constant that depends on just what set of magic month numbers
| you use. For the 1 4 4 0 2 5 0 3 6 1 4 6 magic numbers c = -1.
|
| For example for month 12, December, we get 2 x 12 + 4 + -1 = 6
| mod 7.
|
| By memorizing the offset sequence and using that to get the
| month magic numbers you get, at the cost a small amount of
| calculation to get the month numbers, easy day of year and days
| between dates calculations.
|
| Of course it works both ways. Given memorized month magic
| numbers you can compute Magic(n) - 2 n - c and that will equal
| Offset(n) mod 7. As long as you remember that Offset(n) is in
| [-1,4] and so adjust anything outside that range by
| adding/subtracting multiples of 7 to get into range it should
| be fine.
| schoen wrote:
| > Then Sunday=1, Wednesday=4, etc.
|
| That's a helpful encoding because it matches up with numbering
| that's routinely used in Portuguese, Hebrew, Greek, and by
| Quakers, among many others.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_days_of_the_week#...
|
| These are mostly ultimately because of the Hebrew Bible account
| in which Sunday is the first day of creation (e.g. Genesis 1:5,
| 1:8, 1:13, ...).
| throwaway211 wrote:
| Reading the article, I wandered into the difference of Old Style
| and New Style dates and what happened in 1752.
|
| From [1]: By the 18th century, the English legal year - used for
| legal, financial and other civil purposes - had for centuries
| begun on 25 March, or Lady Day.[13][i] Thus, for example, 24
| March 1707 was immediately followed by 25 March 1708, while the
| day following 31 December 1708 was 1 January 1708, with 1709
| still nearly three months away.
|
| Thank goodness that happened.
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_(New_Style)_Act_175...
| beardyw wrote:
| Yes, I have been following Pepys (17th century) and the dates
| confused me a lot until I got the hang of it.
| tomoyoirl wrote:
| The Romans also used the March-based year; that's why February
| has fewer days and why October is literally the eighth month
| omoikane wrote:
| The linux `cal` utility has special handling to recognize
| September 1752:
|
| https://github.com/util-linux/util-linux/blob/9f15d2de811773...
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| To this day the UK tax year still begins on April 6th, for
| reasons [1] that have to do with the migration from Julian to
| Gregorian calendars almost 300 years ago. I wonder if other
| countries have so many of these legacy patches from ye olden
| times.
|
| [1] https://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-tax-year-begins-on-
| ap...
| anonymousiam wrote:
| I just typed "cal 1752" and got a calendar with a September
| that has no dates between Wednesday the 2nd and Thursday the
| 14th.
|
| Although disputed by some, apparently the switch to the
| Gregorian calendar is also the basis for "April Fools' Day."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
| schoen wrote:
| I've been amused by this for a while, although I think when I
| first saw it I didn't realize that there was so much country-
| to-country variation in what year the Gregorian calendar was
| legally adopted.
|
| Maybe a better (or much worse!) behavior would be to show the
| switch _in the current locale_ , so in ru_RU it happens in
| 1918, but in es_ES (or es_MX, es_CO, es_AR, es_PY, ...) it
| happens in 1582.
| interroboink wrote:
| Though note the wiki page for Carroll's method[1] states:
| 1676, February 23 ... Dates before 1752 would
| in England be given Old Style with 25 March as the
| first day of the new year. Carroll's method however assumes 1
| January as the first day of the year, thus he fails to
| arrive at the correct answer, namely "Friday".
| ... It is noteworthy that those who have republished
| Carroll's method have failed to point out his error"
|
| Indeed, the linked article has this flaw, too (:
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determination_of_the_day_of_th...
| gcanyon wrote:
| I did a write-up of (what I think is) a more straightforward way
| to do this here:
| https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/a-better-way-to-cal...
| ColinWright wrote:
| It's really interesting watching Art Benjamin do this in his TED
| talk[0] ... if you watch closely you can see him keeping track of
| the intermediate calculations in his hand movements.
|
| Very clever, and obvious once you know.
|
| [0]
| https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_a_performance_of_m...
| ... starts at 7:47
| llm_trw wrote:
| To people who say that notation doesn't matter, this is what all
| mathematics was like before we got our new better notation.
|
| I'd go as far as saying that in mathematics little other than
| notation matters and the same is true in computer science.
|
| This is why lisp like languages are the obvious choice when
| variables are explicit.
| tzs wrote:
| Chess was like that too. Consider a game where the first move
| was for white to move the knight that is closest to the white
| king to the square that is two squares forward and one square
| to the left of where the knight started.
|
| Here's how that move would have been written at various times
| from the 17th century to the present [1].
|
| Early 1600s: The white king commands his owne knight into the
| third house before his owne bishop.
|
| Mid-1700s: K. knight to His Bishop's 3d.
|
| Early 1800s: K.Kt. to B.third sq.
|
| Around 1850: K.Kt to B's 3rd.
|
| Around 1860: K.Kt to B. 3d.
|
| Around 1870: K.Kt to B3.
|
| Around 1890: KKt-B3.
|
| Early 1900s: Kt-KB3.
|
| Mid 1900s: N-KB3.
|
| Last quarter of 1900s to present: Nf3 or if you want to avoid
| language-specific piece names f3.
|
| [1]
| https://www.knightschessclub.org/the_history_of_notation.htm...
| SamBam wrote:
| So Lewis Carroll's method for today (May 24 2024):
|
| The Century-Item:
|
| The year is 2024. The century is 20.
|
| 20/4 = 5, with no remainder. Overplus is 0. 3-0 = 3. 3x2 = 6.
|
| The Year-Item:
|
| The year part is 24. Number of dozens: 2
|
| 24/12=2. Overplus: 24 mod 12 = 0. Number of 4's in the overplus:
| 0. 2+0+0 = 2.
|
| The Month-Item: May: 1 (from the text).
|
| The Day-Item: The day is 24.
|
| Adding all items:
|
| 6+2+1+24=33. 33 mod 7 = 5, which is Friday.
| digging wrote:
| > The Month-Item: May: 1 (from the text).
|
| This was the part I as hoping you'd write out :) I can't make
| heads or tails of the explanation.
| SamBam wrote:
| Agreed. I don't get from the explanation how March is 3 and
| May is 1, as they are both 31 days and neither begins nor end
| with a vowel. I assumed there was some missing text about
| what to do if the month _doesn 't_ begin or end with a vowel.
| ot1138 wrote:
| Neat but what is this useful for?
| Andruru wrote:
| What do you mean, what knowing the day of week a date is useful
| for ?
| ot1138 wrote:
| Yes, that's what people typically use a calendar for. So you
| agree that this trick isn't useful for anything?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Making people think you're smarter than you are. That's about
| it.
| bumbledraven wrote:
| Carroll's algorithm has evolved over the years. The First Sunday
| Doomsday Algorithm
| (https://firstsundaydoomsday.blogspot.com/2009/12/quick-start...)
| includes all the improvements published as of 2023, including
| Fong & Walters' nifty "odd+11" rule for calculating the year code
| (https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0765).
| tzs wrote:
| For the part that depends on the last two digits of the year I
| use a method that I've not seen anywhere else. It is
| algorithmically more work than Conway's method (Y + Y//4, where Y
| is the last two digits of the year and // is integer division
| rounding positive results down), but I think is easier for quick
| mental computation for most people.
|
| Let Y = 10 T + U, i.e., T is the first digit of the two digit
| year and U is the second digit.
|
| If T is even, the year part is: 2 T + U if
| U = 0, 1, 2, or 3 2 T + U + 1 if U = 4, 5, 6, or 7
| 2 T + U + 2 if U = 8 or 9
|
| If T is odd: 3 + 2 T + U if U = 0 or 1
| 3 + 2 T + U + 1 if U = 2, 3, 4, or 5 3 + 2 T + U + 2 if
| U = 6, 7, 8 or 9
|
| Algorithmically I compute it something like this:
| Compute 2 T + U If T is even Add 1 if T >= 4 and
| add another 1 if T >= 8 else Add 3 Add
| 1 if T >= 2 and add another 1 if T >= 6
|
| Those add 1s come from the way leap years are distributed within
| decades. The 2 T + U takes into account any leap years when U =
| 0. The add 1s are to take care of the leap years that happen when
| U != 0. In even decades those occur at 4 and 8, and in odd
| decades they occur at 2 and 6.
|
| Example: for 2024, T=2 and U=4. Mentally my train of thought
| would be: 2 doubles to 4, plus 4 = 8 = 1 mod 7,
| even decade so add 1 for 4 <= T < 8 giving 2.
|
| For that example there is not really easier than Conway's Y +
| Y//4, which would be 24 + 6 = 30 = 2 mod 7.
|
| Example: for 2099, T = 9 and U = 9. Mentally that goes something
| like this: 9 = 2 mod 7 doubles to 4, add 9 = 2
| mod 7 giving 6 T was odd so add 3 giving 9 = 2 mod 7
| T was odd so the so there were leap years at 2 and 6, which each
| add 1 That gives us 4
|
| I find that easier that Conway's 99 + 99/4. I can do that, and at
| decent speed, but I can make mistakes.
|
| With my method you never have to deal with a number above 32, and
| that's only if you do no reductions mod 7 along the way. If you
| reduce mod 7 whenever you can you never have to deal with
| anything above 12.
|
| Note: when reducing mod 7 along the way it is crucial to remember
| that whether you take the T is even case or the T is odd case
| depends on the actual value of T. E.g., when I am doing 2099 I
| reduce both T and U to 2 right away but first note that 9 is odd
| so will need to take the odd case.
| thyrsus wrote:
| I'm having trouble following the algorithm for the month number.
|
| From the article:
|
| The Month-Item. -- If it begins or ends with a vowel, subtract
| the number, denoting its place in the year, from 10. This, plus
| its number of days, gives the item for the following month. The
| item for January is '0'; for February or March (the 3rd month),
| '3'; for December (the 12th month), '12.' [So, for clarity, the
| required final numbers after division by 7 are January, 0;
| February, 3; March, 3; April, 6; May, 1; June, 4; July, 6; August
| 2; September, 5; October, 0; November, 3; and December, 5.]
|
| My attempt to implement:
|
| For January, the preceding month is December, which neither
| begins nor ends with a vowel, so I do not subtract 10. The days
| in December are 31, so 12+31 = 43 mod 7 = 1, not the 0 of the
| article.
|
| For February, the preceding month is January, which ends in a
| vowel, so I subtract 1 from 10, giving 9, add the days in January
| 1+31 = 32 mod 7 = 4, not the 3 of the article.
|
| For March, the preceding month is February, which ends in a
| vowel, so I subtract 2 from 10 giving 8 and add February's 28
| days 8+28 = 36 mod 7 = 1, not the 3 of the article. Had I used a
| leap year 29 for the days in February at this step the result
| would be 2, which still does not match the article result. Since
| the article has a constant result for March, it is either always
| using 28 or always using 29 days in February.
|
| For April, the preceding month is March, which neither begins nor
| ends in a vowel so I do not subtract it from 10. 31 days in March
| gives 3+31 = 34 mod 7 = 6, which does match the article result.
|
| For May, the preceding month is April, which starts with a vowel,
| so I subtract its position from 10, 10-4 = 6, add April's 30 days
| 6+30 = 36 mod 7 = 1 which does match the article.
|
| For June, the preceding month is May, ending in a vowel, so I
| subtract May's 5 from 10, and adding May's 31 days gives 5+31= 36
| mod 7 = 1 which does not match the article.
|
| This should suffice to illustrate my misunderstanding; what have
| I got wrong?
|
| [edit: typos]
| rrgmitchell wrote:
| I struggled with this too. The best understanding I've been
| able to come to is this:
|
| 1. Every month's item number can be calculated from the
| preceding month's _item number_ by the method given. I.e. add
| the number of days in the preceding month to the preceding
| month 's _item number_ then take mod 7.
|
| 2. For January we take it that _there is no preceding month_.
| Therefore the numbers in such a calculation are all zero, so we
| end up with zero.
|
| 3. For later months you don't need to start at January and go
| month by month to the month you want; you can start at a month
| with a start- or end-vowel and use the shortcut that such a
| month's item number is ten minus the month number.
|
| 4. For the purposes of 3, 'y' does not count as a vowel.
|
| Or maybe it's easier just to learn them!
| v8xi wrote:
| Also had this issue. I even tried a bunch of different
| reformulations/reinterpretation of the provided formula and
| nothing helped :(
| xorbax wrote:
| Perhaps if someone who gets the language did it for today's
| date, we'd both get some clarity. I've tried working
| backwards but the labyrinthine explanation doesn't project
| rhdunn wrote:
| January -- The item for January is '0' = 0
|
| February, March -- The item ... for February or March (the 3rd
| month), '3' = 3
|
| December -- The item ... for December (the 12th month), '12.'
|
| So these all use fixed values.
|
| The `(10-place)+days mod 7` logic works for May, July,
| September, and November using the previous month's values --
| effectively every other month. The vowel trick is likely a
| nmemonic for not having to remember which months to do this
| for.
|
| The other months are the previous month's `item+days mod 7`,
| although it is unclear where this interpretation is deduced. --
| The "If it begins or ends with a vowel, subtract the number,
| denoting its place in the year, from 10." text does not apply,
| so I would have assumed that is was 0 not the calculated item
| value. Thus, I would have expected it to just use the days in
| month.
| roland35 wrote:
| This is why we need the international fixed calendar!!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar
| hasbriwn23 wrote:
| I made an app to learn this -
| https://grantas33.github.io/Doomsday-algorithm-practice/
| shhsshs wrote:
| https://benjoffe.com/weekle
| bee_rider wrote:
| What a pain.
|
| We really should just declared the year to be 360 days long, with
| 12 months, 30 days each, split into 6 day long weeks. The extra 5
| days? Everybody take a vacation. Leap days go in there too
| somehow. Every month starts with a Monday and ends with a Sunday.
| Wednesday will be removed because it was no good anyway.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I love very confident explanations that use the word "somehow"
| as if we're just supposed to ignore it. It adds to the humor
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-24 23:00 UTC)