Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 January 29

= January 29 =

Mystery Object
What is the thing on the left? --Viennese Waltz 08:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Spork and a melon baller, I'd say. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the melon baller but I'm not sure about the spork. Those aren't fork tines at the top end, they don't stick out.  They're like grooves or ridges, it's a corrugated effect. --Viennese Waltz 08:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Melon spoon" gets similar Google Images. Not sure why you'd need a baller and a spoon, but then, I'd use a fork. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that it produces fluted curls of melon, rather than balls (sorry, I couldn't find a picture). There's a similar widget for butter - see File:Butter curls.jpg. Alansplodge (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's also the butter spreader. If anyone ever needed one. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of a nine thousand year lease?
I'm currently sorting out my late mother's estate, and have been looking through the deeds of her house. The parcel of land the house was built on was leased to the man who built it in 1932, for a period of nine thousand five hundred years, with an annual ground rent of £10. Every time the house has been sold, the lease has been assigned to the new owner. The ground rent has not increased in that time (£10 a year would have been a significant sum of money in 1932, but is a peppercorn now), and I've found no record of my mum ever paying it, or even who it would be paid to after all this time. But why on earth would anyone find it necessary to set a lease length of nine and a half thousand years? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm no lawyer, but I think I've heard that sometimes some kind of restrictive covenant prevents freehold sales of land. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't pay the nickel each month (or whatever the lease says), the landlord (or his grandkid) can repossess the land, which, conveniently enough, now has a house (or large brewery) on it. And now we're talking future dollars. At least that's how I understand things work in Baltimore, per ground rent. Here's the UK legislation on that sort of thing. Lots of rules about needing notice, seems unlikely you'll be swooped down upon. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The land was effectively sold sans "freehold rights". In some places, the right to vote was restricted to freeholders. All I can think of quickly . Collect (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't think that was relevant in 1932. A landowner collecting £10 a year ground rent in 1932 was assuring himself of some income. If the lease is long enough he can collect it indefinitely, and so can his children (unless they've failed to account for inflation). But does anybody really need to guarantee that income for nine thousand years? Surely a few hundred would be more than enough. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough for the current generation. No harm in doing something nice for the descendants you'll never meet. They're still family.
 * And there are still many breakthroughs to be made regarding immortality. Wouldn't you feel a bit stupid if you thawed out (or whatever) just to find you'd lost prime land (or all your land) through shortsightedness? Better to err on the side of caution, if someone's willing to sign. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's sort of like how social media data agreements give firms dibs on anything you upload "irrevocably" and "perpetually". They probably won't need it forever, but maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not certain, but I think the following is probably relevant. Centuries ago, the legal mechanisms associated with real property became some cumbersome that the practice grew up of inventing a fictitious owner and a lease from that owner, so that the title (which was in practice to the freehold) could be treated in law as a lease: see ejectment. I believe it was the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 that changed this, but leases were not necessarily converted to freehold until much later: I own a property that was leased in 1707 for 500 years, and changed hands several times after 1852 before being converted by a Deed of Enlargement into an estate of fee simple in 1919. My guess would be that the 9500 years was the remainder of a previous lease that dated to before 1852. --ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Thousand-Year Lease tries to explain the puzzle, but I'm not sure that I really understand the answer. It seems to hinge on the landlord and his/her descendants being able to keep some control of how the land is used. R.I.P. Ultra-Long Leases mentions the town of Paisley in Scotland, which "can boast (if that term be apt) 11 leases granted for a million years".
 * The article lists the disadvantages (presumably for the tenant, which may be advantages for the landlord!) of ultra-long leases as follows: (i) they tend to beget subleases which can become needlessly complex; (ii) they may be vulnerable to the landlord terminating them without the tenant’s consent for a breach of the terms of the lease – such as non-payment of rent; (iii) they may allow for an inappropriate degree of control by the landlord in relation to things like permitted uses of the property; and (iv) they may allow a landlord to extract a payment from the tenant in exchange for the landlord’s not insisting on particular conditions in the lease. Just as important perhaps as those practical reasons is the fact that ownership of land in Scotland was, until 2000, largely “feudal”: in other words land tenure was, essentially, hierarchical. That was swept away by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000 ". In other words, people just want to keep the land in the family for prestige purpose, even if they have no direct control over it.
 * The article goes on to say that "Since 2000 it has no longer been possible to grant any type of lease for more than 175 years" (in Scotland that is). Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Depending on where it is, a rule against perpetuities may eventually kick in, typically after 120 years or so. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Could someone explain the math behind this musical concept ?
Someone once told me: "The circle of fifths - C increased by a fifth is G; G increased by a fifth is D; D increased by a fifth is A; A increased by a fifth is E; E increased by a fifth is B; B increased by a fifth is F#; F# inceased by a fifth is C#; C# increased by a fifth is G#; G# increased by a fifth is D#; D# increased by a fifth is A#; A# increased by a fifth is F; F increased by a fifth is C - produces the 12 notes of the octave."

How is this expressed with math, how is this exactly found?

PS: I already know the formula to 12 tone equal temperament. 440*2^(2/12). The fact that octave (on our 12tet) is 2x.

Posting this here on miscellaneous because its a mix or math and music subject. 201.78.189.0 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

201.78.189.0 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A Perfect fifth is a frequency ratio of 3:2 This means that the frequency is increased by 50% going from C to G, and another 50% going from G to D and so on.  The complete circle has twelve such increases.  Now 1.5 to the power of 12 is 129.7463 so a complete circle of perfect fifths would represent an increase in frequency of  almost 12,975%.  An octave represents a doubling of the frequency, so seven octaves (from almost the lowest note to nearly the highest on a piano) represents an increase of 2 to the power of 7 which is 128 (i.e. 12,800%).  A perfect circle of fifths would give slightly more than seven octaves (1.36% too much) so piano tuners slightly flatten the fifths to give perfect octaves.  There is a much better explanation at Circle of fifths.    D b f i r s   14:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Start with Musical_tuning which explains some of the math involved. Technically speaking, the circle of fifths only works under systems of Musical temperament which adjust perfect just intonation so that the notes of the octave cycle back properly.  You can read any of those articles, or follow links, to see how the math works.  -- Jayron 32 14:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am reading those articles and still not finding or not understanding the math. Lets imagine we hade 3 tone equal temperament and instead of perfect fifith we have 1.618. What would be the note symbol order?201.78.189.0 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, your last question doesn't make any sense to me. The twelfth power of 1.5 is very close to the seventh power of 2, and if you divide each member of the finite series 1.5, 2.25, 3.375 ... by a suitable power of 2 to bring it within the range [1,2] (in musical terms, move them to the fundamental octave) they are all reasonably close to the powers of 2 ^ (1/12), though some are closer than others. What is it you don't understand? --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not miscalculation, the number 1.5 is used to make the 12 tone equal temperament (at least to select the note order number, what will have flat or not, how many letters without flats or sharps we will have...). I was just asking how the thing would work if we had 3 tones instead of 12 and 1.618 instead of 1.5. I made that expecting people to answer what the note order would be in this case, by showing how they calculated it to this alternate tuning I would be able to discover how it is done.
 * In the normal equal tempered scale, an octave is divided into twelve intervals, so each semitone represents a frequency ratio of the twelfth root of two (that's 1.0594630943593 or about a 6% increase in frequency). When you ask about a 3-tone equal temperament, do you mean just three notes in an octave? If so, then the ratio would be the cube root of two (about a 26% increase for each interval). Alternatively, do you mean tuning in Major thirds? That's four semitones, so the sequence would be C to E to G♯ to B♯. There is the same problem here of a mismatch because a perfect third is a ratio of 5:4 (a 25% increase) whereas the equal tempered third is almost 26%.  D b f i r s   17:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am asking/mean the tuning: 3 tones equal temperament, that uses still use octave (2x), but instead of using 1.5 to do the maths, it use 1.618
 * I think the OP is wondering what the note symbols would be if we used slightly different systems? The answer is: the same systems.  The 12 notes are still the same 12 notes (A A# B C C# D D# E F F# G G#), the distinction is the exact relationship between the 12 notes.  Under any two intonation/temperament systems, the notes other than the root will be a tiny bit different from each other from one system to the other. -- Jayron 32 17:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting 1.618 (the Golden Ratio)? We have an article on Musical tuning.  For tuning in fifths, you might like to read Pythagorean tuning.   D b f i r s   18:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I said 1.618 (with 3 tone equal temperament and octave), just as a different way to ask the question, since I was not able to find the math concept, on the said articles (or didnt understood them), I was expecting, that if people answered hwhat the symbols of 3 tones equal temperament with octave and 1.618 instead of 1.5 are, I would be able to find the math by myself (or people would post it while solving the problem). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.151.47 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ... but why choose 1.618 ? It wouldn't sound tuneful, and you couldn't get an octave, so the tuning wouldn't work. Only simple ratios such as 2:1, 3:2 , 5:4 etc are considered to be pleasant intervals in Western music, so early instruments were tuned this way.  Perhaps if you study all the articles that people have linked above, you might grasp the maths of tuning, but come back and ask again if there are some bits that you don't understand.   D b f i r s   19:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, IP user, but I don't think anybody understands what you're asking. The trouble for me is that I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "3 tones equal temperament" or what "symbols" you are talking about. I get that you're asking about a "dominant" ratio of 1.618 instead of 1.5, but I don't know why. I observe that the cube of 1.618 is somewhere near 4 (but not very close), so is that what you mean by a "3 tones equal temperament"? --ColinFine (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If there were a musical culture whose most important intervals are 1:2 and 5:8 (rather than 1:2 and 2:3), their tempered scale could indeed have three notes to the octave; log(8/5) is a bit more than two-thirds of log(2). If the notes were named (in order of pitch) P Q R, then the "circle of minor sixths" would go P R Q. —Tamfang (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the OP meant the ratio 1.681825665441... which would give an equal-tempered version of that scale.   D b f i r s   12:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

While the OP does mention that understands the ratios, it seems to me that the original question is not actually about the frequency ratios, but about the fact that we get back to C after completing 12 steps. What matters in this case are only two facts: Now we can combine the two facts, and get what's called modulo 12. Conveniently, most of us have a device in our homes that does that operation every day - twice: A clock. A jump of a musical fifth corresponds to a clockwise move of the hour hand of 7 hours, or, which is the same thing, a counterclockwise move of 5 hours. You can easily try for yourself that if you repeat these jumps often enough, you will end up where you started. In this case, you have to do 12 such jumps. &mdash; Sebastian 05:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You have 12 steps, which you call C, C#, D, .... B.
 * 2) The next step, after B, gives you a C again. (You may say that this would be an octave above the original C, but since we want to use this for comparing keys, not notes, the octave doesn't matter. A key of C is a key of C, regardless the octave.) Mathematically, this circular behavior is expressed with the modulo operation. Just use 0 for C, 1 for C#, and so on.


 * Yes, I agree that's what the OP seems to be asking, but it is impossible to do this with a ratio of 1.618. The OP has never explained whether this is just a miscalculation, or some attempt to link music with the Golden ratio.    D b f i r s   08:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The ratios between individual notes don't matter for the question why we get back to C; they only distract from the underlying mathematics. You can use any tuning system for the twelve-note chromatic scale and even some idiosyncratic system based on the golden ratio, and the above two facts still apply. &mdash; Sebastian 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Try your clock analogy with a jump of $$\pi$$ minutes. I agree that you can approximate the octave, but 1.618 doesn't get close within the range of human hearing.   D b f i r s   11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Howard Goodall's "Big Bangs" series has an excellent 45 minute episode on Equal Temperament. Unfortunately the best link I can find is a very low--audio-quality version at youtube. If you can find this somewhere, it's well worth watching. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Or you can read corresponding chapter in the spin-off book. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

35 Battery Royal Artillery
Hello I am a former member of 35 Bty when it was with 25 Regiment. As you will be aware it is the 250th anniversary of the Bty this year. I am told it was formed from the 1stMadras Artillery and a re-organization was ordered in the February of 1765 Unfortunately I cannot find a date that the Bty was formed. Not being very good with computers and researching I was wondering if you could be of any assistance as myself and former 35 Bty members of 25 Regt would like to have a get together and celebrate the 250th Birthday.

Many Thanks

Tony Pearson ( 35 Bty 1971-1978)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.229.246 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I had a good go at it, but couldn't get closer than the year. Perhaps you might try the National Army Museum; it seems to be fairly easy, see their Research Enquiries page and click on "online contact form". You could also try the Royal Artillery Museum; see their page Our Research Policy which has an email address for the librarian at the bottom of the page that you can click. Good luck. Alansplodge (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)