On May 12, 7:49 pm, singhals <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard Smith wrote: > > Ian Goddard wrote: > >> Richard Smith wrote: > >>> RIF allows us to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then he > >>> or she was born within the previous year", but as genealogists we > >>> don't want rules like that.  Our rules are much more fuzzy.  We want > >>> to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then, in the absence of > >>> evidence to the contrary, he or she was probably born within the > >>> previous year". > > >> Hmm.  I think I'd go for something along the lines of "If the statement > >> that a person was baptised on some date is true then that person was > >> born on or before that date". > Other parts the posted suggestion can be misleading if you > have (as I did) four brothers (A B C and D) who each had a > son named A1-4 B1-4 C1-4 and D1-4; AND by some quirk, all > the boys named A were born within a 16 month period around > 1752 OS/NS, all those named B were born about 20-26 months > later, etc.  I needed the Will of the grandfather to sort > them out. I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing what this example is supposed to illustrate. Yes, if you have four brothers called Tom, Dick, Harry and George, each of whom had, at similar times, four sons called Tom, Dick, Harry and George, then resolving it is going to be at best complicated, and perhaps impossible. But how is this to do with the suggestion that (effectively) baptism dates are normally a good proxy for birth dates? I think I must be missing the point of your argument. Richard

On 2011-05-13 01:33, Richard Smith wrote: > On May 12, 7:49 pm, singhals<[email protected]> wrote: >> Richard Smith wrote: >>> Ian Goddard wrote: >>>> Richard Smith wrote: >>>>> RIF allows us to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then he >>>>> or she was born within the previous year", but as genealogists we >>>>> don't want rules like that. Our rules are much more fuzzy. We want >>>>> to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then, in the absence of >>>>> evidence to the contrary, he or she was probably born within the >>>>> previous year". >> >>>> Hmm. I think I'd go for something along the lines of "If the statement >>>> that a person was baptised on some date is true then that person was >>>> born on or before that date". > >> Other parts the posted suggestion can be misleading if you >> have (as I did) four brothers (A B C and D) who each had a >> son named A1-4 B1-4 C1-4 and D1-4; AND by some quirk, all >> the boys named A were born within a 16 month period around >> 1752 OS/NS, all those named B were born about 20-26 months >> later, etc. I needed the Will of the grandfather to sort >> them out. > > I'm sorry, but I'm really not seeing what this example is supposed to > illustrate. Yes, if you have four brothers called Tom, Dick, Harry > and George, each of whom had, at similar times, four sons called Tom, > Dick, Harry and George, then resolving it is going to be at best > complicated, and perhaps impossible. But how is this to do with the > suggestion that (effectively) baptism dates are normally a good proxy > for birth dates? I think I must be missing the point of your > argument. > > Richard I have been following this thread and honestly don´t think a computer program can replace the human brain. It must be superstition to believe that any automated rules can relieve anyone from a proper deep research. Instead of AI, I prefer HI (Human Intelligence). Kurt F