Talk:353edo: Difference between revisions
re |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: I just fixed the external link (see page history). On that page, you'll see that it mentions a 353-year cycle (with 130 leap years), so it's not really about a 353-day cycle (although some years do happen to have 353 days in that system, it seems). Note that this is only a proposed calendar reform, as far as I know, to clarify the context. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 01:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC) | : I just fixed the external link (see page history). On that page, you'll see that it mentions a 353-year cycle (with 130 leap years), so it's not really about a 353-day cycle (although some years do happen to have 353 days in that system, it seems). Note that this is only a proposed calendar reform, as far as I know, to clarify the context. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 01:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC) | ||
:: Xenwolf, I see you're confusing the number of '''days''' in the common Hebrew year with the number of '''years''' in the cycle that was ''proposed'' to replace the original Hebrew calendar due to seasonal discrepancy. | |||
::: Yes, you are absolutely right. But I'd expect future readers to have the same difficulties… --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 06:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC) | |||
:::: I have edited the page to clarify that the number 353 can also mean the number of days. It is a neat coincidence. | |||