This should probably be called "Universal Palindrome Day" because it is a palindrome irrespective of the endianness (big, little, or middle) that is used in various countries.
Here is the list of all such dates until the year 9999:
Here is my own blog post on this topic: https://susam.in/blog/universal-palindrome-day/ :-)
EDIT: fwiw, in my native language, most numbers from 100 and 1000 are pronounced middle endian, so I'm not complaining.
I don't have to remember the exact symbol for 2,020 in Roman numerals, because I can figure it out. In fact, I have no idea what it would be without sitting down and doing so.
I'm not saying it would be a good system, but it could be usable by mere mortals. I guess you could debate if this would really be "10,000 unique symbols" or just something akin to our current writing system for numbers.
When order matters, you invariably want big-endian notation, which is why that notation is acceptable everywhere regardless of the usual native notation. But by the same token, it means that all other styles are equally "nuts". European day-month-year notation doesn't have any technical advantages over month-day-year.
Starting with the most general and ending with the most specific is a logical order. Doing it the other way round is also logical. But starting with the middle makes no sense.
It doesn’t seem unusual to you because you use it often.
That said I’m German and I realize that German postal addresses are crazy for the same reason. I wish we‘d adopt the Chinese format: country first then province (state), then County then town then neighborhood then street and house.
German addresses are middle endian: street then house number then zip code then city then country. The right order seems to be: city, zip, street, house number. Most general to most specific.
1. Exact street location (street + house)
2. District (postal code)
Also I prefer this order over the Chinese, because I assume most people handling mail will need to smallest details and it would just be very annoying if local mailmen had to skip over country and city names every time before reaching the bit they actually need.
A more "logical" notation, as per the gp's comment would start:
1. Exact street location (house + street)
Postal_code, City, Country
10 Downing Street
Of course that's arguable, as postcode shouldn't really be considered a component of-, rather an alternative to- other sections of the address.
The broadest unit that is likely to change going first makes sense.
The english language—and every other real-world spoken language—is full of rules and exceptions that make absolutely zero logical sense. How far down this road do you want to go?
As long as we speak in a specific order, I don't think it's crazy at all to write in that same order. After all, normal written sentences follow the spoken order of words, too.
1. name of recipient,
2. town name,
3. street address or post box number,
4. four digit postal code.
(I have a vague memory of seeing that sort of order in German, too, in a historical context, but perhaps it was from Austria-Hungary.)
Interesting. We (Australian) say "Second of Feb, 2020". ;)
...and then the very next day, without adult supervision, you started saying your dates weirdly and dropping the “u”s out of words, stuff like that.*
* DISCLAIMER: May not be an accurate representation of history. :P
True, but nowadays we say "Independence Day" :-)
12/25 is often called Christmas, and yet 9/29 is never called Michaelmas. Same thing.
But one of their biggest holidays is explicitly called "4th of July", changing the ordering.
"4th of July" is not a method that Americans couldn't use if they wanted to, but it is an ossified usage that doesn't reflect how Americans generally refer to dates. Like Christmas, it is a proper name of limited evidentiary value.
This might help explain how Santa delivers all those presents in "one night".
Calling Christmas Eve "Christmas" is not common at all.
This matches why almost every country in the world uses “d/m/y” in normal usage.
Standard Chinese for example uses Y/M/D and I’m sure you can find many examples of other formats.
Several countries write a short data as M/D/Y, but these mostly have a significant American influence.
It wasn't "almost every country in the world doesn't use m/d/y", even if you would have liked it to be.
I speak English English.
Afaik all Germanic languages except English¹ (and close relatives) have the same thing. Ie this stuff is the same in Dutch, German, Swedish, Danish², etc.
We don't say "Twenty-three" but "Three-and-twenty". So far so good, but we do the hundreds, thousands etc just like English does. Thus, 123 is pronounced "hundred-three-and-twenty", i.e. precisely as nuts as what Americans do with dates.
¹) I assume that English fixed this at some point along the way (maybe due to French influences?), because the special number names between 10 and 20 do follow continental Germanic rules, eg compare "sixteen" and "twenty-one". We mainland Europeans like to mock the English speaking world for their insane unit systems, but at least their numbers make sense.
²) Danish has it worse. They have the same insane number ordering plus insane number names.
3 is "tre", 30 is "tredive". 4 is "fire", 40 is "fyrre". So far so good. Like in many languages, 10x sounds a bit like x.
But 6 is "seks", and 60 is "treds" (!). To make matters worse, 5 is "fem" but 50 is.. "halvtreds" (!!). Similarly 9 is "ni" and 90 is "halvfems". In Danish, for x <= 5 < 10, 10x sounds like ["", "halv"][x mod 2] + ceil(x / 20). I tried mocking the language by saying "fems" instead of "hundrede" but I just got blank stares.
And I'm lucky enough to have grown up on the same insane middle endianness as the Danes. I can't imagine how impossible Danish numbers must be to learn for eg an English speaker. Every time my wife says a number in Danish I spend half a minute doing the math, "she said something with 'tre' in it, so threes, but it ended with an s, so three times twenty, oh but wait there was 'halv' in front of it so subtract 10, ah, fifty". But she didn't say that, she said "to-hundrede-tre-og-halvtreds". By the time I'm done with the math I already forgot the other digits :-)
Swedish and Norwegian (and English for that matter) used to count the Germanic way, but swapped to the modern way for 20 onwards at various points.
There's an English nursery rhyme "Four and Twenty Blackbirds" which has the old way as its title. English also used to use the vigesimal system. My great-grandfather was supposedly a bit of a traditionalist even amongst his rural friends, who poked fun at him for saying things like "two score nine? I'm not paying that!".
Middle Endian dates make sense when the season something happens in is important.
“When’s your birthday? 10/23. When are we going to Ma’s? 11/19 thru 11/29. When do you go back into therapy? 12/8.”
As it could be written in English in Britain, Australia etc.
23/10 is pronounced "23rd of October" or (usually) "23rd'f October" or "23rd'f the 10th".
The range is "19th to 29th of November" or "... of the 11th".
The pronunciation "second of the second twenty-twenty" is usually used when the listener is writing, typing or confirming the date in figures.
Similarly the Sexagesimal notation, in common use (clocks etc), points to an generalization that would have been much better than the French system, where we rely on primes for increasing places in the number. Eg 4321(primal) would be 4x5 + 3x3 + 2x2 +1x1 = 34(decimal). Historically we may be stuck with counting on our fingers and toes though, through eternity.
The more "logical" Metric system which is not an extension of the "practical" Imperial system is inevitably bastardized and Creoled in everyday usage. Eg one buys a "Pound Plus" of Chocolate from Trader Joe's (500 grams!). Why is the choice is not one (or fice) Hectogram(s) vs one Kilogram i do not know... except that Hectogram is so obtuse/abstruse i had to google it! Maybe someone in a Metric country can correct me, if they think i am wrong using words like abstruse. One inevitably finds doubling and halving in everyday commerce.
We would do a lot better to extend to tripling, quintupling etc, like the Babylonians did, than directly to the (insane, in my opinion :-) French 10x Metric system.
Not that i am an American chauvinist. Eg i think the American middle endianistic dating system is off the wall weird, and i go out of my way to circumvent it.
Every date is interesting. Proof by contradiction: If there exists a non-empty set of uninteresting dates, there would be an earliest date in this set. But the earliest such date is itself interesting because it is the earliest uninteresting date, thus producing a contradiction.
Alternatively, being the smallest in the set of uninteresting numbers does not make a number interesting, at best it is unique like every other number and therefore uninteresting.
Sine time is relative based on the observer and observed, if neither change in any way (no “work” happened and no information is exchanged, even on the level of fundamental particles (or fields/loops/strings or whatever happens to be at the bottom)), for every possible combination of observer and observer, then time has not advanced in any meaningful sense.
The interesting number paradox applies to natural numbers, not real numbers.
> Alternatively, being the smallest in the set of uninteresting numbers does not make a number interesting
You are taking this too seriously. :-) Everyone would agree that "interesting" is subjective. This is supposed to be a humorous paradox, not a mathematical fact!
A set of dates obviously has an earliest date. The humour here is that an earliest date within the set of uninteresting dates is itself an interesting date by virtue of being the earliest such date in that set.
Uhh, no you’re thinking in terms of a finite set. From the set of all dates, what’s the latest possible date, or conversely the earliest possible date. The temptation is to say infinite BC is the earliest possible date, but infinity is not a number.
Infinity is not a number, it's a set of numbers, but specific infinities (e.g., the cardinality of the natural numbers, aleph-naught) are individual numbers, just not finite numbers.
perhaps if we hypothesize that there are a (countably) infinite number of number theoretic theorems, might every number be either a unique case or the largest or the smallest example of some instance?
> 20300302, 20400402, etc
For example, 2030-03-02 (yyyy-mm-dd) when written as 02-03-2030 (dd-mm-yyyy) is not a palindrome.
All dates in the list I have provided are universally palandromic, i.e., they are palindromes irrespective of the endianness (big, little, or middle) used to represent them.
Let us represent the 8 digits of such a date (in YYYY-MM-DD format) as abcd-ef-gh.
Since abcd-ef-gh (i.e., YYYY-MM-DD format) is a palindrome, we get a = h, b = g, c = f, and d = e.
Since ef-gh-abcd (i.e., MM-DD-YYYY format) is a palindrome, we get a = h, b = g, c = f, and d = e.
Since gh-ef-abcd (i.e., DD-MM-YYYY format) is a palindrome, we get a = f, b = e, c = h, and d = g.
Combining all of these, we get a = c = f = h and b = d = e = g.
Therefore, such a date must be of the format abab-ba-ba, i.e., it may have a maximum of only two distinct digits.
edit: NVM. Should read better.
The list in my comment contains only those dates that are palindromes in all of these three formats: yyyy-mm-dd, dd-mm-yyyy, and mm-dd-yyyy.
For at least some of them it’s the summer holidays and they are heat addled and doing something completely mindless with no idea of the day or date. I’m rather jealous.
I went into engineering and not physics, and never learned enough of the latter to question whether he was serious. Furthermore, since this was the first time any math tutor of mine in 18yrs had ever related anything to the real world, it seemed like magic to me and so I still ignorantly tell people it to this day.
As we learnt trigonometry, he'd sometimes draw just part of the scene, and explain how it related to what we were learning.
I remember the coupling rods: as the locomotive moves, each end traces a sine curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_rod
And also the electric catenary, which has a hyperbolic cosine curve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_line
I think there were also the pistons on the steam locomotive, and the curvature of the track.
(Occasionally, it was like the intro to https://vimeo.com/77451201 )
Not only that, but it's a strobogrammatic number when viewed on a 7-segment display.
And for many it's "watch a bunch of ads with budgets in the $5-10+ million range" day.
Sadly I slept through 0202 this morning...
> Because of the Gregorian Calendar Reform of 1582, the numbers of days after 1001-01-01 are fictitious, strictly spoken. They are valid only then, if we adopt the reform for dates before 1582, subsequently.
The explanation is muddled. This concept has a name, the definition at WP is succinct and clear: http://enwp.org/Proleptic_calendar
A Spaghetti Western style story, starring your hero, Palindrome.
On average today, 70% of Americans live to the age of 65. That rate varies greatly from country to country, but let’s assume that due to improvements in medical science and wealth, the likelihood of anyone born today, worldwide, being 50%.
After that, it’s a bit tougher. But today, the likelihood of a person aged 65 reaching the age of 100 is 3%. I couldn’t find data on the odds of 101, but let’s assume that this percentage will also be 3% in the future.
This means that there are approximately 5400 babies born today, that should reach 101. So almost certainly there is someone who will qualify as a Human Palindrome?
As mentioned, there are only two of these special 101 year gaps, in the 10,000 years from 0 to 10,000. Almost certainly there were no cases of this from 1000 to 1100?
So some baby born today will almost certainly become a trivia question answer for hundreds (thousands?) of years to come? Based on nothing more than the day they were born.
It seems that roughly for 360k babies there should be 1 man and 8 women dying at that age (death rate is ~60% per year). Of course, assuming US death rates, and technology as of today. Given that most kids are being born in poorer regions, and that global warming my seriously affect life span (especially in these regions), the results may be significantly lower.
Here's a good resource for anyone becoming a parent today: https://parentinghealthybabies.com/palindrome-names/
Edit! One I just thought of while brushing my teeth:
Errol Lorre (perhaps related to Peter?)
Only way to be sure is to name all 360,000 of them palindromically...
As for the rest of those names, I refuse to acknowledge them as names. They’re more like onomatopoeia.
If the author of the joke decides to use male pronouns for his hypothetical person, then so be it. There's nothing to be gained by "correcting" that.
Do you also complain about novelists misgendering their fictional characters?
The joke described a hypothetical person who was born and died on certain dates, and then fleshed that out with additional invented details: gender and use of diapers at both the beginning and end of his life. If you're going to complain about the author of the joke assigning their fictional character a gender you might as well also complain about them assigning him to use adult diapers, since many real actual people would also be deeply offended by such a mis-diapering. If you're going to complain about the author of a short humorous anecdote assigning their character a gender you might as well also complain about the author of a novel assigning their character a gender.
I'm happy to have a serious discussion here but I'm not going to bother if you continue to try to dismiss my arguments without engaging.
Your argument was not dismissed, it was deliberately engaged. The person could exist with a nontrivial degree of probability, and therefore, gendering the person is inappropriate.
Also you're ignoring the mis-diapering issue.
The person described could exist, so gendering them is inappropriate if we're to fix our issues with inclusion in tech. If you're asserting that the person described is definitely fictional, sure, give them any gender. But they're not, they're a hypothetical person with non-trivial likelihood.
Characters in novels have a trivial/negligible likelihood of existing because the specificity of events described in the story rules out their existence to a large degree. Whereas here, all that's described is a potential person born today and dies 12-12-2121. Of the ~360,000 people born today, you're looking at a sizeable likelihood that someone will live that long and pass on that day.
So, since the person described is somewhat likely to actually exist, do our own culture of inclusion a favor and don't presume gender.
How hard can this be?
I feel myself becoming frustrated at my inability to convey the point, so I'll opt out. I regret I couldn't bring you around.
I regret not using “their,” so the reader could infer whatever gender they want, but I don’t think your argument that this isn’t a fictional person carries weight.
I'm skeptical that the specificity of events in the story matters much. For example, if I were to write a fictionalized novel about the 2016 US presidential election involving killer robot dinosaurs, would the specificity of the events involving killer robot dinosaurs mean that none of the people described in the book "exist" in the sense of corresponding to real-world people?
If I were to misgender a minor character named Caitlyn Jenner would that be ok because it's all fictional? There isn't anybody named Caitlyn Jenner who actually exists in a world with killer robot dinosaurs, after all.
This is obviously a contrived example, but we run into the problem in historical fiction all the time. A historical fiction novel might describe the main character visiting a friend and interacting with a servant, say. The main character and their friend might both clearly correspond to known historical figures, and the visit might be a real event recorded in the history books, but the servant is probably a construction of the author's mind, since servants generally don't get much space in recorded histories. If the servant is not described in too much detail, there is a high probability that the description corresponds to a real person. Is it inappropriate to gender the servant? Does it matter how closely the novel hews to what really happened?
Just to be clear, if the author of the joke decides not to gender the subject of his joke that's perfectly fine, quite possibly preferable. But I think your position--that gendering the subject of the joke is inappropriate and should be corrected--is untenable when you start interrogating what the principled basis for that position might be and what implications there are for other situations (for example, characters in novels).
Doing that interrogation is not a straw man argument. It's the principled way to investigate ethical questions.
I see you've already decided not to continue the discussion, so I guess we'll leave it there.
Potentially more than zero, certainly fewer than the (large) number of births
today, and the argument is that one pronoun is (in)accurate for an individual...what we need here is “they” because there will as likely be a group of “them” as one alone.