Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 January 22

= January 22 =

Patent/Copyright Paradoxes
What was the name of the scientist/mathematician who tried to patent/copyright paradoxes and failed?Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that like a joke? Something like ironic patent lawyers tell at cocktail parties when the get really drunk?  -- Jayron  32  04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Ironic patent lawyers'? --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of lame jokes at those parties... I don't remember any this bad. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No...this was no patent lawyer. Google returned an excerpt from Slaves of the Machine: The Quickening of Computer Technology where on page 85 it says:


 * Paradoxes caused so much fear and loathing for mathematicians that by 1900 a German named David Hilbert, the greatest mathematician of his age, had had enough. He wanted a completely infallible, purely mechanical method anyone could follow to show although some deeply flawed piece of reasoning looked reasonable, it is in fact nonsense. Armed with such a method, he though, he could banish paradoxes forever.He sought a foolproof way to turn disguised nonsense into patent nonsensical. He failed utterly.


 * I'm fuzzy on the details, but I thought I read a mathematician actually tried to patent/copyright paradoxes.Smallman12q (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only did Hilbert fail in his quest, Kurt Gödel proved that this was because no such algorithmic method for testing whether a proposed theroem is true can possibly exist. This follows from Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which prove (roughly speaking) that in any system of mathematics there must exist at least one statement that is true but for which no proof is possible in the entire system.  --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, January 23, 2011.
 * Ah! the other meaning of wikt:patent, from the Latin: patens ... "Explicit and obvious". Astronaut (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been puzzling over this, because I too remembered something along these lines, but I realized that what I was remembering was the story about Kurt Gödel trying to explain to the US Citizenship board that there was a paradox in the US Constitution, and being told by Einstein that this would basically result in him being denied citizenship if he brought it up (and so on). Not sure if that's useful to you or not, but it was the closest thing that resonated with me... --Mr.98 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you can copyright anything you like. You just have to write it down and circle a C at the bottom, and follow it with a date. It doesn't mean someone else can't rewrite the same problem in their own wording. --Lgriot (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, you don't need to write the © and the date; in all countries that are party to the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic. As for re-writing, it's true that copyright is meant to cover expression and not ideas, but in practice this is a very blurry distinction. (If I write a book about a young wizard named Narry Smotter, I will probably still be sued for copyright violation, even if I have written everything in my own words.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What is "the fall of the Synagogue"
The description of File:Vitrail Varennes Jarcy MNMA Cluny.jpg says that it depicts "the fall of the Synagoge." Thank you. --Sushiya (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question 1: Does this refer to any specific event in the history? I found there occurred the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70CE, but I'm not sure if the Temple is called the Synagogue.
 * Question 2: Which is the picture of the "fall" in this stained glass?
 * The middle panel on the right represents the "fall of the Synagogue". It is a woman with a broken staff, a bowed head (or a broken neck?), and the Ten Commandments at her feet. This is a common medieval representation of "Synagoga", the Latin word for "synagogue", represented as a woman because the Latin word is feminine. It doesn't refer to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, but the symbolic role of Christ as the new Law, replacing the Old (Jewish) Law. Also, I've spent 20 minutes looking for information and images about this, and then I realized, of course Wikipedia would have an article about Ecclesia and Synagoga. It even has an image of the statues from Notre Dame de Paris! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would venture to guess, and it is just a guess, that it refers to the fall of the First Temple in the early 5th century BCE. I say it is the fall of the first and not the second because the fall of the second synogogue (which is the greek word for "assembly") because the later is not recorded in The Hebrew Bible. For question 2, it is probably the decapitated man in the upper right side, because the bother lower images are the angels playing stringed instruments and the upper left are the shepards that are also mentioned in the description. schyler (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But then it doesn't really fit with the other images relating to Christ's birth. And even though the destruction of the Temple in 70 is not mentioned in the Bible, it is at least supposed to be prophesized in the New Testament, and that event was far better known to medieval people than any previous Temple-destruction. (There are numerous medieval poems and romances about the events of 70, there is an important one in Middle English for example.) Also, medieval people love allegory. They love allegory a lot, way too much really. This is definitely not meant to represent a real event. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dudes! We totally have Allegory in the Middle Ages and Siege of Jerusalem (poem). Hooray for Wikipedia! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Adam and schyler. Now I have made my translation of the Commons Picture of the Day caption for that image, which required me to understand the concept of the picture. --Sushiya (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

HMT means HM Trawler or HM Troopship?
In my recent tinkerings with various WWII naval stub articles, I've noticed that we seem to be using the initials HMT to mean both His Majesty's Trawler and His Majesty's Troopship. They can't both be right. Can anyone find a definitive reference as to how these titles should actually be abbreviated please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can make out they are both right, however unlikely that seems. This supplement from the London Gazette from 1940 refers to the HMT Tamarisk, which was a trawler, and here is a postcard of the troopship HMT Asturias . Mikenorton (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My favourite duplicate acronym is OM, which usually means the Order of Merit but could also mean the Order of Manitoba. One day, some lucky Manitoban is going to get both gongs, and then she'll be Mary Smith OM OM.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That'll work better if she converts to, for example, Hinduism. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, January 23, 2011.
 * Thanks Mikenorton. I'll resist the temptation to start changing the names of articles! Alansplodge (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article says that the HMT prefix is Hired Military Transport ! anybody have a reliable ref for His/Her Majesties Troopship? MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add a Google search finds a lot of use of Hired Military Transport, one example from the Telegraph newspaper . MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It makes sense because non-combatant ships don't usually have the "His Majestey's" prefix; tankers etc were/are RFA (Royal Fleet Auxilliary). The term used in the Falklands War was STUFT (Ship Taken-Up From Trade); none of the liners used then adopted an "HMT" prefix. However, "His Majestey's Troopship" is used in several WP articles, such as HMT Rohna. More research needed. Alansplodge (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Me again; one of the sources cited on the Ship prefix page (The Corporation of Lower St. Lawrence Pilots) says "HMT = His/Her Majesty’s Troopship". I can't find any reference on the page for "Hired Military Transport". Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To add another to the mix, here is reference to His Majesty's Tug HMT Hamlet. Mikenorton (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Albert Terhune's parents
The article about Albert Terhune's father says that there were only two children - Albert and one more.

The article about Albert's mother says there were SIX children.

Which - if either - is correct?

EoGuy (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several sources that give six children, with three who survived to adulthood, Christine Terhune Herrick, Virginia Terhune Van De Water and Albert Payson Terhune. Virginia is not mentioned in the article about her father, but she was a published author and I don't think that there is any doubt about her existence e.g. . Mikenorton (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Irish politics question
Actually, this is a question about parliamentary-style democracies in general. Currently, Brian Cowen is resigning from leadership of his party but somehow remaining taoiseach, that is, prime minister, for the next month or so. Apparently this is not unprecedented in Ireland. Has this sort of thing happened outside of Ireland? It seems very bassackwards to me. I thought that the position of PM basically proceeded ex officio from leadership of the ruling party, so that if the PM were to lose or relinquish control of his party he would thereby cease to be PM, end of story. But apparently not. Apparently the two positions are technically independent. And apparently it is sometimes advantageous to exploit that independence so that you can have your cake and eat it too. So why not just have two completely separate offices: party chairman and PM? Another thing: it appears to me, reading these Irish news stories, that there are two kinds of no confidence vote: one affecting a government and one affecting a premiership? The idea here is that the Green Party, the coalition partners of Fianna Fail, won't vote against the government of which they are a part, but might vote "against the PM". Once again, I didn't think that was a separate option. Can someone clear up my rather copious pile of confusion? L ANTZY T ALK 19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, someone has to fulfill the function and duties of PM while a new leader is selected. The office can not be left vacant. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As Ireland follows the Westminster Model, the leader of the largest party is asked by the head-of-state (presumably the Irish President) to form a government; the party leader can nominate any member of the Dáil to be the PM. Convention, however, is that the PM and the party leader is the same person. Another interesting question is why are the opposition raising a vote-of-no-confidence when Ireland is going to the polls on 11th March this year anyway? CS Miller (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine Gael is saying that there needs to be a new "credible" government in place before some EU thing happens in a few weeks. Also that the current situation is just generally bad and embarrassing for Ireland. The realpolitik reason is probably that they figure FF has bottomed out and the opposition is worried there might be a rally or a dead cat bounce in the next few weeks. L ANTZY T ALK 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * John Major resigned as leader of the UK Conservative Party in 1995 and fought a successful leadership election whilst remaining PM. Dalliance (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So this scenario isn't too unusual in the context of the Westminster system? L ANTZY T ALK 20:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * After the defeat of Germany in early May 1945, Winston Churchill's British Wartime Coalition (in which the Labour leader, Clement Attlee had served as Deputy Prime Minister) broke up on the 23rd. Churchill then formed (constitutionally speaking, upon the King's request) a Caretaker Government of ministers from the Conservative Party and its allies (with none from the revived Opposition), which ruled the country, conducted diplomacy and continued the war against Japan for two months until the results of the General Election were declared on 26 July 1945, leading immediately to the Third Labour Government under Attlee. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that the Prime Ministership belongs to whoever can command a majority in a confidence vote in Parliament. It's just a matter of custom that this is usually the leader of the majority party (or of some party, if no party has a majority). So if Cowen's party wants to support him as Taoiseach when he isn't their leader, that's their prerogative. I don't think it would happen here in Canada; instead, a Prime Minister who chooses to leave office will announce his resignation in advance, allowing the party time to choose a new leader before he (or she, of course) actually resigns the leadership. That's what Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien all did, anyway. --Anonymous, 05:26 UTC, January 23, 2011.
 * Mackenzie Bowell is generally cited as the only Canadian Prime Minister to be kicked out of the office in circumstances comparable to Brian Cowen, although even he was allowed to remain Prime Minister in name for a few months, while Charles Tupper actually led the government. It's arguably worse to have a lame duck like Chretien remain in power for nearly a year, unable to make any long term decisions because everyone knows he's going to resign before the next election. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What psychological problems are likely to be faced by North Koreans upon unification?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the new Kim (or whoever) doesn't markedly change the nature of regime, and it collapses rapidly. What psychological problems are likely to be faced by the average North Korean during reunification, and in paritcular, in discovering the true nature of the Dear and Great leaders? Egg Centric (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Our Korean reunification article, especially the second section "Comparison to Germany" covers this, but not in much detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmiller (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure North Koreans are already well aware of the "true nature of the Dear and Great leaders". Rimush (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of what I've read has led me to think that they are not really that aware, and that even the ones that escape have a very hard time really believing that it could have been as bad as it was. Things look a lot different to you when you've been raised inside a system with no other point of reference. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they can, but people from outside can be fooled pretty badly about how badly the people inside are fooled. I recall that the media pretty much bought the idea that Romanians all loved Nicolae Ceauşescu, that his 99% re-election numbers or whatever were more or less real.  Then at the first sign of a chink in his armor, they all lined up to be part of his firing squad.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * People inside a totalitarian dictatorship can be thoroughly disgusted and resentful, but most of them will not be very well-informed about things outside their own personal experiences... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an article on the shock North Koreans experience after defecting to South Korea -- . Now multiply that times 24 million. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Would it be anything like the problems Americans experience when they discover that the rest of the world does things differently from them, like spelling? (Sorry, been having a bad time correcting incorrect corrections to articles by ignorant editors - and I mean ignorant literally!) HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's funny to be a little glib about how the majority of English speakers speak differently than the style you grew up with, but a lot of the above posters have had very insightful, if not moving answers on a very serious issue. So no, I don't think assimilation from a totalitarian dictatorship that's something akin to 1984 is anything like your bias towards Americans. Not adding a "U" and a couple of unnecessary phrases isn't totalitarianism. Shadowjams (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Missed the point entirely. The issue isn't the different spelling styles. I can handle that with no problems at all. It's the fact that so many Americans don't know that there other perfectly correct ways of spelling words in English, and go around "correcting" others' spelling when it's already correct. (In my country we all know that there are multiple forms of English.) THAT'S the parallel with North Korea. A lack of exposure to another system. Yes, I know it's a trivial example, but I was trying to bring it a little closer to home for some here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's entirely trivial. Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the Washington Post article linked in Mwalcoff's post above tells of language variations being one of the challenges faced by defectors. HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That article was about current North Korean defectors trying to assimilate into South Korea, when the South Korean dialects of Korean are spoken around them on a daily basis. Such a case would be highly unlikely in the event of a reunification, as there would not be a sudden migration of everyone southward or northward. People would stay where they were. Only the political and economic situations in the North would change. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  20:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing that surprised many East Germans after the wall came down, and this might apply to North Koreans too, was the discovery that not everything they had been told about the West was, in fact, a complete lie. For example, the East German government had long told them that West Berlin and other large West German cities had a problem with drug addicts, and everyone simply assumed it was a lie - then the Wall came down, they drove into West Berlin, and discovered that there were in fact drug addicts in West Berlin - maybe not to the same dangerous extent as the propaganda had implied, but clearly present nevertheless. Pais (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Der Golem
I've just watched the 1920 German film Der Golem (our article is at The Golem: How He Came into the World). It's set in some facsimile 'mediaeval' time, mostly in the Ghetto. I notice that the male Jewish characters have circles on their clothes (a single circle each, roughly on the top left front) (there's only one female Jewish character really, and she doesn't go outside her house voluntarily, so I don't know if it's supposed to be a gender difference). A lot of the male Jewish characters also seem to wear pointy wizard's hats.

I'm not sure what my question specifically is, other than where can I read more about this? and maybe how would this resonate for Germans in 1920?. 86.164.164.183 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jewish hat and yellow badge (the parts about the "rota") are the articles. Not sure about the last question. 213.122.68.238 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And Golem. None of this originates in the movie. Josefov is interesting as the orignial setting. Rmhermen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all interesting. It slightly saps my faith in humanity, but interesting. I'll add a little to the article on the film, for anyone else in the same situation. I'm still interested in other relevant links, especially on how it was received and understood by Germans in 1920 (would the hats and badges have been recognised? would the average audience root for the Jews?) 86.164.58.119 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

UK tax deductable amounts for small businesses
The last time I had a conversation with an accountant, he said that the HMRC will accept deductions up to particular amounts without query for things like the cost of running a phone etc.

Where can I find out what these various amounts are and what they cover? Are they given somewhere on the HMRC website or anywhere else, or are they known only to accountants? Thanks 92.24.178.157 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably that's not an official rule, but just common practice to not check plausible amounts for things that anyone has - like phones. Wikiweek (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, there definitely are official rules for certain things like expenses, but god knows where to find em. It's very unlikely they're all in one place. Egg Centric (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Rules about deductions exist. No doubt. But the HMRC probably only check if you indeed have some expenses if they look fishy. Claiming that you have a phone line won't be checked then. Wikiweek (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about running a small business from premises, or from home? If the former, you'll have proof of your phone expenditure in the form of bills.  If the latter then yes, HMRC do allow you to claim the proportion of your home phone bill that you use for business.  If you're asking whether you're OK to claim a modest amount for a phone you don't actually use then no - if you're unlucky enough to get audited they will want proof that anything you are claiming for has actually been spent, even if it's a small amount, and they will be looking to see whether any general claim - like a proportion of an existing phone bill - is "reasonable".  HMRC do accept reasonable estimated claims for "use of the home as an office".  It tends to be a pretty nominal sum - £5 a week was quoted to me by an accountant - and covers things like heat and light. If you have one room dedicated as an office you can claim a percentage of your household running costs, based roughly on the percentage of the house's floor space that your office occupies - but there could be capital gains tax implications* when you come to sell the house if you go down this route, so professional advice is necessary before you do so.  HMRC's website is quite useful - see here for working from home, and here for tax-deductible expenses for self-employed people. Basically, if they think you are making reasonable claims they will probably accept them.  If they think you are trying it on, they have the power to inspect you down to the last paper clip, surcharge and even fine you for anything you've claimed that you shouldn't have, charge you interest, and go back and do the same for previous years. It pays to try and get it right.   Ka renjc 14:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh - and potentially business rates too. Ka renjc 14:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you asking about how far you can go cheating the HMRC and still get away with it? Anyway, your question sounds like asking for legal advice, that the RD cannot provide.Quest09 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagination is one thing, but facts are another. You're insinuating that anyone who fills in a tax form is a crook - an absurd conclusion. Even a taxable income of one pound requires filling in the forms. In any case, most people in business earn less than employees, since in business, unlike employees, more often than not you have a negative income as most businesses fail. The short answer is no I'm not, but the HMRC gives various allowances for some expenses, and its not obvious what they are. 92.24.184.8 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The OP asked where he can find out about what deductions claims are acceptable to HMRC.  Asking where information can be found is not a request for legal advice.   Ka renjc 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You may find what you are looking for here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/thelibrary/ Ehrenkater (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Where could I find out what allowances etc I can claim without getting stung by CGT on my home? Thanks 92.24.184.8 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)