Sequential Day

[R. Richard]

Today is (in the USA anyhow) Sequential Day, 10/11/12. The last one we'll have this century.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, has 11/12/13 been canceled?

 

[lovecraft68]

Oh, has 11/12/13 been canceled?

Not officially, but there are still a lot of people who think we're all going to die this year, so this could be it.

 

[R. Richard]

Oh, has 11/12/13 been canceled?

It all edns 12/21/12, according to the Mayans, or so some say.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Oh, has 11/12/13 been canceled?

It all edns 12/21/12, according to the Mayans, or so some say.

No, not the end of "it all;" just the end of the baktun that ends the latest "long count." It starts all over again on December 22.

And, speaking of December, isn't December 13, 2014 a sequential day as well (12/13/14)?

 

[topace]

Two more to go before Sequential days are over for the century.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Unless we switch to the Maya Calendar. It has 13 months; we could celebrate 13/14/15!

Though in Mayan numerical notation it would be:

... .... __
__ __ __
__ __ __

 

[Handley_Page]

We'll have to await the 10th November for our Sequential Day.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Yes, HP, why do you and us write our dates in that ridiculous ascending order of day/month/year? Of course going year/month/day would make much more sense for archiving and filing, but then we would be past our sequential days for this century...

 

[Handley_Page]

Yes, HP, why do you and us write our dates in that ridiculous ascending order of day/month/year? Of course going year/month/day would make much more sense for archiving and filing, but then we would be past our sequential days for this century...

Because we in the UK concentrate on the DAY, not the month, as far as as I know.
There is a move afoot to have the Year first (YY_MM_DD), but to my old-fashioned mind it looks barmy, and I notice that MS Word does that as a default. But I'm not keen.

 

[fifty5]

Because we in the UK concentrate on the DAY, not the month, as far as as I know.
There is a move afoot to have the Year first (YY_MM_DD), but to my old-fashioned mind it looks barmy, and I notice that MS Word does that as a default. But I'm not keen.

Year-month-day is as sensible as putting thousands before hundreds, before tens before units: the most significant quantity first.

Month/day/year is what seems weird to me...

Mind you, 'short form' x-illions also seem weird too: a billion is surely two millions multiplied together and a trillion, three of them. Using 'billion' to mean a thousand millions just seems wrong.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Year-month-day is as sensible as putting thousands before hundreds, before tens before units: the most significant quantity first.

Month/day/year is what seems weird to me...

Mind you, 'short form' x-illions also seem weird too: a billion is surely two millions multiplied together and a trillion, three of them. Using 'billion' to mean a thousand millions just seems wrong.

1) It's not the "most significant" first; it's the larger units first. Clearly in English Monarchical date notation the day is mot significant followed by the Monarch and then the year of the reign.

2) That comes from the traditional English way of recording calendar dates, as in the 18th day of October in the year 2012, but simplified to October 18th, 2012.

3) The American (or "short" as you call it) actually keeps the same intervals between its higher-order numbers than does the British. The "distance" between these number is always the same in American nomenclature, while in the British it increases geometrically. If we applied the same principal to the lower order numbers, you'd need 100 hundreds to make a thousand. The American is more consistent, changing after every thousand of the preceding higher-order number.

 

[fifty5]

1) It's not the "most significant" first; it's the larger units first.

They are the same thing, mathematically speaking: "most significant" means "largest" when one is discussing numbers.

Clearly in English Monarchical date notation the day is mot significant followed by the Monarch and then the year of the reign.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is: "English Monarchical date notation" and who uses it? (And is "mot" a typo for 'not', or 'most'?

2) That comes from the traditional English way of recording calendar dates, as in the 18th day of October in the year 2012, but simplified to October 18th, 2012.

Ah, I see. I was taking a rational rather than a verbal perspective.

3) The American (or "short" as you call it) actually keeps the same intervals between its higher-order numbers than does the British.

There are two internationally recognised verbal systems for numbers above a million, known as the short and the long. The UK used to use the long system, but then officially adopted the short one (under Harold Wilson, I think - where are you, Og?), which gave uniformity with the US. Around the world, some countries use one, some the other, and some use variants auch as including the terms milliard, billiard as well as the xillions.

The "distance" between these number is always the same in American nomenclature, while in the British it increases geometrically.

Sorry, but both are geometric: the short system at an interval of 3 digits - multiplying by 1,000 (after the first, which is 6); the long at 6 digits - multiplying by 1,000,000.

If we applied the same principal to the lower order numbers, you'd need 100 hundreds to make a thousand. The American is more consistent, changing after every thousand of the preceding higher-order number.

Sorry again, the prefix to 'illion' indicates 1 (from mono), 2 (from bi - as in bicycle), 3 (from tri - tricycle), 4 (from quad - quad-bike), etc.

If a million, 1 with 6 zeros, is one, two ought logically be 1 with twice 6 = 12 zeros, three should be 1 with 3x6=18 zeros etc.

To prevent further misunderstanding, none of the numbers one, ten, hundred, or thousand has a prefix indicating 1/2/3 etc. so cannot be liable to this 1,2,3 kind of system.

What amuses me is which such prefixes derive from Latin and which from Greek (or from Latin, and, or derived from, Greek). Thus one has a unicycle, but a monorail (and million); a diode, but a bicycle (and billion); tetrahedron, but quadruplets (and quadrillion); pentaprism, but quintuplets (and quintillion); a hexameter, but a sextet (and sextillion); and so on. Tri comes from both, the roots in both languages are too similar to give a difference, thus triathlon, triumvirate, tricycle, triode ... and trillion.


I hope that explains better where I am coming from.