Author Topic: The Bleachers  (Read 112991 times)

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #210 on: June 06, 2011, 06:28:11 pm »
Sorry.  I forgot to mention that that was in Jesmath years.

Ray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2101
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #211 on: June 06, 2011, 06:34:41 pm »
didn't jesmath years always add age or years?  :-)

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #212 on: June 06, 2011, 06:56:58 pm »
That is the beauty of Jesmath.  It is not mathematical.

Dave23

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12697
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #213 on: June 06, 2011, 07:02:39 pm »
...so it's like jeslogic?

AZSteve

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #214 on: June 06, 2011, 07:18:06 pm »
My Dad landed at  Normandy D-Day +3, captured during the Battle of the Bulge,my hero....

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #215 on: June 06, 2011, 07:29:53 pm »
Those that were captured in the Battle of the Bulge went through some terrible times.  I hope he came out all right.

AZSteve

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #216 on: June 06, 2011, 07:33:43 pm »
oh yeah, Dad came home became a police officer,helped raise thre kids, died of cancer in'76 at 57, a short life but well lived

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #217 on: June 06, 2011, 07:41:54 pm »
didn't jesmath years always add age or years?  :-)

No.  Really pretty simple.  If you are just going to give the age in years, you simply round to the nearest year, which would refer to a player 22 years and ten months old as a 23-year-old.  When you are looking to have comparisons of players based on age, grouping them in that manner makes more sense to me than it does to refer to player A as 21 when he is 21 years and 11 months and 29 days old to compare him with player B who is three days older, but referred to as 22.  Referring the first player as 21 and the second player as 22 suggests that player A has a full year of additional development to catch up to or pass player B, though he would actually have 3 days.

Unfortunately, that is combined with simply some pretty rotten math in calculated a players age by ANY system and errors by any standard.

Happens.

Ray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2101
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #218 on: June 06, 2011, 09:05:33 pm »
No.  Really pretty simple.  If you are just going to give the age in years, you simply round to the nearest year, which would refer to a player 22 years and ten months old as a 23-year-old.  When you are looking to have comparisons of players based on age, grouping them in that manner makes more sense to me than it does to refer to player A as 21 when he is 21 years and 11 months and 29 days old to compare him with player B who is three days older, but referred to as 22.  Referring the first player as 21 and the second player as 22 suggests that player A has a full year of additional development to catch up to or pass player B, though he would actually have 3 days.

Unfortunately, that is combined with simply some pretty rotten math in calculated a players age by ANY system and errors by any standard.

Happens.

I honestly get what your saying...when i was in high school and folks would ask me the time, i'd say 11:27:55, cuz it seemed to me at the time it was closer to 11:28 than 11:27, and what i said was about to be wrong...yes i thought too much then.  lol

there really isn't a way to get around the age comparisons...when you use as big a measure of time as a year, even trying to change it around is going to provide new holes, but i do get what your doing.  using your method, just change the months to the half years, and you have the same problem.

Jes Beard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17183
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #219 on: June 06, 2011, 10:01:13 pm »
It didn't help when someone pointed it out and my explanation was "enhanced" by several miscalculations which resulted from an inability to perform simple math to determine player ages on any system, "jesmath" or otherwise.

Gracehoney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #220 on: June 07, 2011, 03:11:09 pm »
"Jesmath" strikes me very much as the way they list the ages of race horses, as all of them always being born on the same day in any calendar year, or, alternately, the way the British list the birthday of the sovereign as so-and-such a day, irrelevant of when she or he was actually born.  It is all a convenience anyway.  I read somewhere that the ancient Chinese used to figure a child was one year old at birth, having gestated for a year.  So, it is workable.....

 ;D

davep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15849
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #221 on: June 07, 2011, 03:39:25 pm »
Close.  The Chinese (and many other societies) gave the age of a newborn as being "in his first year", and then "in his second year", etc.  It had nothing to do with the gestation period, and was a perfectly fine way to keep track of age, as long as everyone understood what was meant by it.


Scoop

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #223 on: June 10, 2011, 02:52:25 pm »
Sorry about the virus everyone.  That just capped off a couple months of computer issues over the past month or more.  If it's any consolation, I've deleted my address book so it should not happen again.

FITS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3211
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
    • HealthSource Nutrition
Re: The Bleachers
« Reply #224 on: June 10, 2011, 03:10:04 pm »
Welcome back, Scoopee.