Mathematics desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 7[edit]

Number of days in each month[edit]

Transferred from Miscellaneous desk

The printed version of the Oxford English Dictionary says:

In the Julian calendar, the months in leap year had alternately 31 and 30 days, while in other years February had only 29 instead of 30. This symmetrical arrangement was under Augustus broken up by the transference of a day from February to August, and of a day from September and November to October and December respectively, producing the system now in use.

This is utter nonsense. Is it still perpetuated in the online version? Britannica online has it. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that text in the big OED on-line where there are only eight occurrences of "symmetrical arrangement". Dbfirs 08:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does this text occur in "the printed version", and which printed version do you mean (OED1 or OED2, Supplements, Additions)? It's not under "Julian", "February", or "August" in the OED1, for example. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to wrap it, the text I quoted in the opening post appears in both the first and the second editions of the printed version. 80.5.88.70 (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:80A7:2041:64BB:DB22 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BE3D:8000:C52A:17D4:13F8:5C17 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.112.86 (talk) [reply]

Original poster blocked as sock of Vote (X) for Change; further postings from this IP removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our article, Julian calendar#Sacrobosco's theory on month lengths, does not state how prevalent acceptance of Sacrobosco's theory was or when it was generally accepted as disproven, but does say that it "is still widely repeated but is certainly wrong." -- ToE 16:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the original poster being blocked, I would like to know if it's correct that that statement in question appears in the printed OED: to check it it's necessary to know where it appears. As I said, it's not under "Julian", "February", or "August" in the OED1. The original poster also wrote that "Britannica online has it", but this is somewhat misleading: what it actually says here is that the version here called nonsense is "supposed" to have happened but that "several scholars, however, believe" it's wrong. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]