Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 June 6

Humanities desk
< June 5	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 7 >

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

June 6

Referring to a peer who's an MP in the House of Commons

I'm aware that some MPs in the British Parliament were formerly lords, such as Viscount Thurso. Would they be referred to in the House as 'the honourable gentlemen for XXX' if they are not members or Privy Council, or would they be 'the right honourable gentleman' given members of the peerage are referred to as 'the right honourable' as a matter of course.

Indeed, would they be referred to as a 'gentleman' at all given that they are members of the peerage. Would 'the right honourable (or noble) lord' be the recommended form of reference? 118.160.101.6 (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hansard is your friend. Unsurprisingly, the point was raised at least once when Mr Sinclair was an MP: [1] If that doesn't work, the short answer is that some called him "noble and honourable", others simply "honourable". The speaker may have favoured the latter. (Incidentally, you seem unclear in your question whether you're interested in what what he would be called, or what someone would recommend he be called; if the latter, you'd need to indicate who that someone is.) Henry^Flower 13:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The correct mode is "The (Right) Honourable member" for (constituency). One of the advantages of this form is that it is gender neutral. Otherwise the form is "the honourable lady"/"the honourable gentleman" etc. 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

28th birthday riddle

Is it true that for everyone currently living on Earth, their 28th birthday fell or will fall on the same day of the week as when they were born? The next time this will be false will be for people born in 2072, because 2100 won't be a leap year. For those born on February 29, both leap and non-leap year birthdays (which may be assumed to be on March 1) are counted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The calendar tends to repeat itself after some years. Perpetual calendar gets into it a bit. And, for what it's worth, I checked your question against my own dates, and it works. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000 -- the Julian calendar repeats itself after 28 years (4 years in a leap-year cycle × 7 days in a week), and between March 1st 1900 and Feb 28th 2100 the Gregorian calendar has been and will be in a constant alignment with the Julian calendar (since 2000 was a leap year in both calendars)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

...The rule must therefore apply to one's 56th and 84th birthdays also.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I checked that also. It only gets tripped up by non-leap centuries, as noted above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The 400th anniversary of an event falls on the same day of the week as the event itself (no exceptions). That's the answer to the riddle:

Why does the thirteenth day of the month fall more often on a Friday than on any other day of the week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A42:AD00:493D:8AD5:E045:57A2 (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What does the one have to do with the other? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Per Friday the 13th the most times that the 13th can fall on a Friday in a year is 3 and that doesn't happen very often so something is being lost in the translation. That can happen with riddles :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking just at the 2019 calendar, we see the 13th falling on Sunday twice, Monday once, Tuesday once, Wednesday 3 times, Thursday once, Friday twice and Saturday twice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

well, the thirteenth day of the month just doesn't[only unnoticeably --see below, I stand corrected] fall more often on a Friday than on any other day of the week. Always check the does it? question before the why?. As for why it appears to fall more often, this an instance of confirmation bias: you just don't care about the 13th falling on other days, don't remember when this happen, while you remember when it fall on a Friday. Gem fr (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Except the turtle in Pogo (comic strip), who might fret that "Friday the 13th came on a Tuesday this month!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I know, I myself am quite worrying that next Thursday, which will be the 13th, might fall on a Friday. Gem fr (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A Gregorian leap-year cycle contains 400 years, which is 146,097 days ((400*365.25)-3), and by coincidence, this number 146,097 happens to be evenly divisible by 7. So where Julian calendar weekdates repeat in a 28-year cycle, Gregorian calendar weekdates repeat in a 400-year cycle... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see also Doomsday rule. The 400 year cycle contains 4800 months, each of which has a 13th. Since 4800 is not divisible by 7, the 13th can't occur an equal number of times on each day of the week. By my calculation it happens to fall on monday 685 times, tuesday 685 times, wednesday 687 times, thursday 684 times, friday 688 times, saturday 684 times, and sunday 687 times. So it really does fall on friday the most. The answer to "why friday?" is basically that it's a coincidence. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't need to reinvent the wheel, as this is already shown in Friday the 13th#Occurrence. I wouldn't call it coincidence, though. It's more a feature of the Pigeonhole principle. If the number of items to be pigeonholed is not an exact multiple of the number of pigeonholes, it's inescapable that there will be at least one pigeonhole that contains more items than any other. Which one that is (or ones those are) will depend on the particulars of the case. The Gregorian calendar started on 15 October 1582, a Friday. Had a different day of the week been chosen, I suspect that would change the day of the week on which the 13th most often falls. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The 13th coming on a Friday once more than on a Wednesday or a Sunday in a 400 year span is not likely to be noticed by the average human. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The punch line being, "...even if that person lives to be 400 years old." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

JackofOz, nice catch on #Occurence, I'll look there. The unequal frequencies of the days comes from the pigeonhole principle, but that the most frequent day happens to be Friday, rather than say Wednesday, is coincidence. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Still not quite with you. What is coinciding with what? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"Friday" is coinciding with "weekday with more occurrence of the 13th of a month" Gem fr (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

(???) Is Donald Trump "coinciding" with "President of the USA", and does that make his presidency a "coincidence"? Sorry to seem obtuse and argumentative, but I've never heard the word "coincidence" ever used in this way and I'd need some convincing to believe it's a valid usage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@User talk:JackofOz I believe the coincidence is that, if it were any other day than Friday, the incidence level would not be remarked upon. Matt Deres (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

As to which specific days occur (slightly) more often, wouldn't that be connected to the various months having different numbers of days? That is, if all the months had 28 days, then all the 13ths would come on the same day of the week, whichever day it might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

coincidence is a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another. Donald Trump ran to be POTUS, a causal connection is obvious, so, his presidency is no "coincidence". Gem fr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And the exact pattern of weekdays in a 400-year Gregorian cycle is defined, known, predictable and fixed. If that ain't a causal connection, nothing is. The creators of the calendar wouldn't have arranged matters specifically in order to give Friday a very slight edge over the other days, but they did in fact create that edge. It was causal even if it was unintended. There's no coincidence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason why the word apparent is in the definition of coincidence: if you look for a causal connection hard enough, you always find one, the world is determinist enough for that. I just checked chance randomness indeterminism etc. And found no mention of Antoine Augustin Cournot and his enlightening, classical and operational definition. How is that so? It would help you. Gem fr (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, we'll have to agree to disagree, but before I go, let me try one last time. If I say to you "In this month of June 2019, there are 5 Saturdays and 5 Sundays, but only 4 of each of the other days", would you ascribe this to coincidence? I'll await your response before continuing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point: "there is perfect determinism linking weekday and month and date sequences, so this is no coincidence". You miss mine: this determinism rely entirely upon the coincidence that 15 October 1582 was a Friday. This fact was contingent, not something that had to happen, it could had been otherwise and there is just no cause other that some random choice by Gregorian reformers. And, so, is also a coincidence things depending on this fact, like your example. I think we are off topic, though. Gem fr (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That's where we differ. That 15 October 1582 happened to be a Friday was not any sort of coincidence but a simple fact. The consequences of starting the Gregorian calendar on that particular day are not coincidences either. But yes, we're off topic, so I'll let this go now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The original question is true if all living people were born after 28 February 1900. List of the oldest living people says the oldest verified person was born in 1903. There are many unverified claims of older people and 119 is not an implausible age. Jeanne Calment was 122. There are sceptics but her age is generally accepted. Number 2 at Oldest people#Ten oldest verified people ever was 119 years, 97 days. If she had been born 28 February 1900 and reached the same age then she would have died 5 June 2019, one day before the question was asked. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The "constant difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars" is 13 days. What a coincidence. In the International Fixed Calendar every month has Friday 13th. 2A00:23A8:830:A600:8DBB:FD9:5F5F:1135 (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

It's only 13 because that's the current difference between Julian and Gregorian. In 2100 the difference should become 14, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. Gem fr (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)