Numerical nonsense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Eine Alpensinfonie
    Host
    • Nov 2010
    • 20575

    Numerical nonsense

    Today I climbed up the staircase from the Ground Floor in a department store. I was greeted with the news that I was now on the 1st Floor, which of course was a lie. Any logic will tell you the Ground Floor is really the 1st floor (unless you include the basement, in which case the 1st floor is really the 3rd...) Conventions are strange.

    Edward VIII abdicated to marry Mrs Simpson. Except that he wasn't Edward the Eighth. He was Edward the Ninth.

    An octave higher means 8 notes higher, but it's only 7.

    Similarly, the French believe in the 8 day week and the 15 day fortnight.
  • teamsaint
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 25231

    #2
    Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
    Today I climbed up the staircase from the Ground Floor in a department store. I was greeted with the news that I was now on the 1st Floor, which of course was a lie. Any logic will tell you the Ground Floor is really the 1st floor (unless you include the basement, in which case the 1st floor is really the 3rd...) Conventions are strange.

    Edward VIII abdicated to marry Mrs Simpson. Except that he wasn't Edward the Eighth. He was Edward the Ninth.

    An octave higher means 8 notes higher, but it's only 7.

    Similarly, the French believe in the 8 day week and the 15 day fortnight.
    if this is an issue, EA, can I suggest that a visit to the Festival place shopping centre in Basingstoke is probably a bad idea.
    Actually, it is anyway.

    Schubert symphonies?

    EDit: some excellent points made, though !
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

    I am not a number, I am a free man.

    Comment

    • ferneyhoughgeliebte
      Gone fishin'
      • Sep 2011
      • 30163

      #3
      Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
      Edward VIII abdicated to marry Mrs Simpson. Except that he wasn't Edward the Eighth. He was Edward the Ninth.
      Was he??! (Genuine question - never heard this before. Who was Edward the Noughth?)

      An octave higher means 8 notes higher, but it's only 7.
      Ah - now here you defeat your argument about which floor you were on in the Department Store:

      Either you count from the note you started on
      C(1st floor) D(2nd) E(3rd) F(4th) G(5th) A(6th) B(7th) C(8th)

      OR count the first note up as the second:

      C (Ground Floor) D(1st floor) E(2nd) F(3rd) G(4th) A(5th) B(6th) C(7th)

      It's like those beastly Americans who seem to count their fingers "0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9" - and so regard the Millennium as starting in 2000! (Yes - it still rankles! )
      [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

      Comment

      • mangerton
        Full Member
        • Nov 2010
        • 3346

        #4
        Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
        Today I climbed up the staircase from the Ground Floor in a department store. I was greeted with the news that I was now on the 1st Floor, which of course was a lie. Any logic will tell you the Ground Floor is really the 1st floor (unless you include the basement, in which case the 1st floor is really the 3rd...) Conventions are strange.

        Edward VIII abdicated to marry Mrs Simpson. Except that he wasn't Edward the Eighth. He was Edward the Ninth.

        An octave higher means 8 notes higher, but it's only 7.

        Similarly, the French believe in the 8 day week and the 15 day fortnight.
        Well, this is all true. It all depends whether you count inclusively or not. I didn't know that about Edward. I would have thought eight was more than sufficient. What would you do if there was a second basement? I'm sure I once visited a department store with one.

        As far as music is concerned, yes, an octave's only seven notes higher, and organ stops "twelfth" and "fifteenth" are labelled accordingly, and not "thirteenth" and "sixteenth" as one might expect.

        It's probably done thus to confuse foreigners.

        Comment

        • Eine Alpensinfonie
          Host
          • Nov 2010
          • 20575

          #5
          Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
          Was he??! (Genuine question - never heard this before. Who was Edward the Noughth?)
          Edward the Confessor.

          It's getting more and more like Bruckner.

          Comment

          • aeolium
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 3992

            #6
            Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
            Edward the Confessor.
            Although according to officialdom, that Edward was already the Third:

            Comment

            • Eine Alpensinfonie
              Host
              • Nov 2010
              • 20575

              #7
              Ah...um...yes. Thanks for that. So Edward VIII was Edward XI.
              I wonder why they started again with the Normans.

              Comment

              • Flosshilde
                Full Member
                • Nov 2010
                • 7988

                #8
                There's a tiny link on that page to 'Kenneth II' - except it takes you to the royalty home page, & not to anything about said Kenneth.

                Comment

                • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                  Gone fishin'
                  • Sep 2011
                  • 30163

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
                  Edward the Confessor.
                  Oh, of course!
                  [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                  Comment

                  • teamsaint
                    Full Member
                    • Nov 2010
                    • 25231

                    #10
                    Herman's Hermit's Henry V111 was numerically correct, but of course the name was wrong,since none of the group were really called Henry.
                    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

                    I am not a number, I am a free man.

                    Comment

                    • jean
                      Late member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 7100

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
                      ...So Edward VIII was Edward XI...
                      Why so bothered about him?

                      Don't all the others have to be re-numbered too?

                      Comment

                      • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                        Gone fishin'
                        • Sep 2011
                        • 30163

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                        There's a tiny link on that page to 'Kenneth II' - except it takes you to the royalty home page, & not to anything about said Kenneth.
                        Key facts about King Kenneth II of Scotland who was born , reigned (971 - 995) including biography, historical timeline and links to the British royal family tree.
                        [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                        Comment

                        • Pabmusic
                          Full Member
                          • May 2011
                          • 5537

                          #13
                          The British system (well, most of Europe's actually) is the older one. As I understand it, buildings were usually one-storey affairs in medieval times, so that a second storey was very unusual and anything higher almost unknown. So for most of the time there was no need to name the ground floor at all. Hence, when one of those new-fangled upper storeys was added, it was the feature of interest and there was little thought to naming a floor that had never been called anything before. Third storeys thus became "the second (new) floor" and so on.

                          There is rather more logic to it than in - say - treating January 1st, 2000 as the start of the new millennium, as if there had been a year 0.

                          Comment

                          • Eine Alpensinfonie
                            Host
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 20575

                            #14
                            Taking the historical dates of King Herod into account, the millennium was probably nearer to 1995, not 2000, and certainly not 2001.

                            Comment

                            • Pabmusic
                              Full Member
                              • May 2011
                              • 5537

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
                              Taking the historical dates of King Herod into account, the millennium was probably nearer to 1995, not 2000, and certainly not 2001.
                              Well yes, I agree. If, that is, you're following Matthew (Three Wise Men, Massacre of the Innocents, Flight Into Egypt) because Herod died in about 6 BCE. Not so if you're following Luke (No Room at the Inn, Shepherds in the Fields) because Quirinius (who ordered the census) did not take up his post until about 6 CE - ten years later than the date suggested by Matthew. (There's nothing in Matthew about Mary and Joseph having to go to Bethlehem because of a census, since they live there anyway. And Jesus is not born in a stable, but in his parents' house.)
                              Last edited by Pabmusic; 24-09-13, 05:42.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X