Ahnentafel numbering problem
Felice
Surely someone has either come up with a solution to this problem or
has determined that there is no solution. I fear it is the latter, but
I would like to know for certain!
In an ahnentafel going back 30-some generations, the ancestor numbers
become seven digits in the 17th generation. This now becomes unwieldy,
not to mention easily subject to typos, when entering later numbers.
In addition, if one hopes to print an FTM-generated ahnentafel, the
numbers become so long that the names obliterate part of the numbers.
Has any genealogist or mathematician come up with a kind of
sub-numbering system that can be used after one reaches seven digits?
Hopefully,
Felice
J Cook
> Has any genealogist or mathematician come up with a kind of
> sub-numbering system that can be used after one reaches seven digits?
>
> Hopefully,
>
> Felice
There defintely are "solutions", but any "solution" really becomes a
new numbering scheme, with new rules, right?
The one problem is that, say for the numbers between 2^30 and 2^31,
there are about 1 billion possible names to fill those slots, so you
need 1 billion different symbols (ahnantafel numbers) to represent
each one uniquely. Any "sub" numbering scheme would require just as
many symbol representations. You can't get away from that. You
could use a numbering system with more symbols to reduce the number of
digits in each number. (For example, 1,000,000 in hex is just
'F4240'). A Base 36 system would have even less 'digits' for the same
number.
Of course, in reality, there is probably some generation in the mid or
early 1500s that is extremely lean. (A few gateway ancestors sneaking
through), so you know in advance you will never need all those numbers
and there will be tons of gaps.
You could choose this "lean" generation and start every ahnantafel
over again as so:
1000000. / A1 Frank Smith
1000001. / B1 Mary Walters
1100022 ./ C1 Sam the Sham
A2. Samuel Smith, father of A1
A3. Samantha Bee, mother of A1
B2. Robert Walters
C2. Sham Wow Smith, father of Sam the Sham.
C3. Barbara Bush, mother of Sam the Sham.
And go from there with ahnantafels for "A1,B1, and C1". The savings
comes in because hopefully you won't need 1 million "letters" for all
the people in this particular "lean" generation.
Joe Cook
John
You might consider using the ancestor numbering methodology used by
some British authors - notably Gerald Paget in his 1977 book on the
ancestry of Prince Charles. Each generation is assigned a separate
letter (A for parents, B for grandparents, C for great-grandparents,
etc), and the numbers restart with 1 for each generation. You can
still easily compute the number of a parent from that of a child and
vice versa - the number of the mother is twice that of the child and
the father is one less than that of the mother. The numbers are more
manageable and only get into 7 digits at the extreme ends of the 17th
and later generations. The system also has the advantage of quickly
identifying what generation a person is in - which is far less than
obvious in the standard ahnentafel system (except for a math wizard,
perhaps). I have no idea, however, whether any of the available
genealogy software packages support this numbering system.
Felice
news:0e5943b9-11ab-47dd...@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
Thanks so much, Joe. I think I'll steer clear of things like a Base 36
system (I have enough trouble with Base 10) but I do like the idea of
switching systems after a lean generation, since my Gen 20 has only
four entries and since I would not have to renumber the previous 19
generations (including, of course, all of Sam the Sham's descendants).
Thanks again.
Felice
Felice
news:c1787f43-178d-4f61...@u28g2000prm.googlegroups.com
Thanks, John. I hadn't come across this system, and can't even find
anythng relevant on Google, but it does seem the answer to my prayers.
I'm surprised more people with multiple generations to deal with
haven't taken it up. It just could be worth the task of renumbering
umpteen generations!
Felice
Tim Forsythe
Not sure why large numbers should present a problem. Are you saying
that FTM cannot handle numbers larger than 7 digits? If so, there are
probably other programs that would better serve your needs. As an
example, here is an ancestor list going back 49 generations with 14
digit numbers that displays correctly as a webpage. It is generated
automatically from a GEDCOM file.
http://www.timforsythe.com/ancestors/alist_I3.php
Tim Forsythe
http://www.timforsythe.com/ancestors
Wjhonson
I'd say Tim it's not a case of whether software can solve the problem, but how do you solve the problem in wetware.
When I write articles, I write longhand, the software is only a tool to assist me, but it doesn't create the numbering for me, I type in each number individually. So I can appreciate the OP's request for a simpler process.
I would also point out that when reading, the mind warps on large odd numbers. EX: If so-and-so is 1769, who is their child in this list? Um... 8 uh... 8 uh....5 ? 4?
A system like D14 is the parent of C7 is just so much easier to comprehend.
I think I'll be switching to that in my long articles on Diana and Sarah's ancestors, when I get the time to rework those.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Forsythe <tjfor...@gmail.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 25, 2011 10:29 am
Subject: Re: Ahnentafel numbering problem
On 7/24/2011 4:53 PM, Felice wrote:
Hopefully,
Felice
elice,
Not sure why large numbers should present a problem. Are you saying
hat FTM cannot handle numbers larger than 7 digits? If so, there are
robably other programs that would better serve your needs. As an
xample, here is an ancestor list going back 49 generations with 14
igit numbers that displays correctly as a webpage. It is generated
utomatically from a GEDCOM file.
http://www.timforsythe.com/ancestors/alist_I3.php
Tim Forsythe
ttp://www.timforsythe.com/ancestors
------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
J Cook
This method above of course it formally called the "Cook Numbering
System".
--JC
lostcopper
What happens when you get past generation "Z"? I've been waffling
back and forth between lumping and splitting for some time, now
leaning toward color-coding.
melanie chesnel
if you use lowercase after uppercase you can go for another 26
generations
regards melanie
Felice
news:mailman.5.131161495...@rootsweb.com
Thanks, Tim. You're right -- I might just need a different program. I
do like the format of your ancestor list. How did you come up with
that?
Felice
Felice
news:mailman.6.131161663...@rootsweb.com
> I'd say Tim it's not a case of whether software can solve the
> problem, but how do you solve the problem in wetware.
>
> When I write articles, I write longhand, the software is only a tool
> to assist me, but it doesn't create the numbering for me, I type in
> each number individually. So I can appreciate the OP's request for
> a
> simpler process.
>
> I would also point out that when reading, the mind warps on large
> odd
> numbers. EX: If so-and-so is 1769, who is their child in this list?
> Um... 8 uh... 8 uh....5 ? 4?
>
> A system like D14 is the parent of C7 is just so much easier to
> comprehend.
> I think I'll be switching to that in my long articles on Diana and
> Sarah's ancestors, when I get the time to rework those.
You got it, Will: I do the numbering on my own records, and my mind
does indeed warp when I hit the millions! I'm seriously considering
the ABC system.
Felice
John
I haven't seen a published work that has gone as far as generation
"Z". Paget, for example, stops with generation "Q". One solution
would be to use double letters after Z (AA, AB, AC, etc.) which would
give you more than enough room to accommodate any conceivable ancestor
list.
Wjhonson
I like the idea of going from the "Z" generation to double letters, but I prefer the ZA - ZZ sequence as to me. To my primitive mind, it's more "obvious" if you will that ZA is the generation after Z, rather than that AA is the generation after Z.
Of course my method would really only allow you to go to 52 generations in total.
That would hopefully, provided your female ancestors were not ALL having children at age 14, allow you to go back to say the year 500
Which brings to mind a new contest.
The Longest Shallowest Ascent.
That is, who has an ascent where the have the MOST generations packed into the shortest time frame ?
I would assume it would be best to focus on matrilineal ascents but those often peter-out.
>From myself to my great-grandmother is only 59 years.
John
You can exhaust 52 generations long before you reach the year 500.
The Emperor Charlemagne (714-814) appears in the 55th generation on
the ancestry of Prince William, the new Duke of Cambridge. Of course,
he also appears in each of generations 33 through 54 of William's
ancestry, so he would obviously first appear before Will's 52
generations ran out of letters. But it's indicative that 52
generations may not necessarily carry you back to the year 500.
William appears to have roughly 1 1/2 billion (yes, with a "b")
descents from Big Chuck - in case anyone is counting....and that's
probably an under-count.
J Cook
>
> The Longest Shallowest Ascent.
>
> That is, who has an ascent where the have the MOST generations packed into the shortest time frame ?
> I would assume it would be best to focus on matrilineal ascents but those often peter-out.
>
> >From myself to my great-grandmother is only 59 years.
One interesting length of time to look at is the human lifetime. How
many generations could be crammed in a theoretical human lifetime of
say, 100 years. Probably 6 generation families like this would be easy
to find. In such a case, if the originating person had lived to 100
years, they would have met their g-g-g-g-g-grandchildren.
Prince Phillip's sister Margarita to Queen VIctoria's mother-in-law
Luise is 104 years from birth to birth in 6 generations. I can't seem
to find any better, but there must be some.
Renia
I know of 5 generations spanning 99 years, one male, all still living:
V born 1914
S born 1935
D born 1954
R born 1979
C born 2011
In the other extreme, in my own family I have 5 generations spanning 149
years:
W born 1830
H born 1879
M born 1932
R born 1952
L born 1979
Tim Forsythe
The list is automatically generated by my home grown website generator. As
far as the format, it is pretty standard. I did add several unique features
like the migration paths along the right column, approx birth dates using my
nifty configurable birthdate estimator, immigrants in italics, persons w/o
parents in bold, uncertain ancestors in highlight, and persons with
uncertain ancestors #'d. I added these extra features because I use them to
determine where to focus my research.
To understand how the certainty of ancestors are determined, read "The Power
of Association" in my blog (from menu along top of webpage). Basically it
requires the use of the GEDCOM ASSO tag. The program can also be configured
to set the certainty assessment threshold, which uses the GEDCOM QUAY tag
values of 'biased', 'uncertain', 'secondary' and 'primary'. It can also be
configured to, rather than highlight uncertain ancestors, omit them. This
gives great flexibility in generating accurate lists, but requires children
to be ASSOciated with parents, which unfortunately most databases do not
have - pity. You can for instance click on any of the persons on my webpage
and see the sources and certainty assessment for their associated parents
(as well as all their other claims). Uncertain associations and claims will
say [unproved], and disproved claims will say [disproved] and give the
reason. My ancestors lists are currently configured to display all
certainty assessments and highlight those whom are uncertain.
Given all that, there is a bug in the "same as" feature that I plan on
fixing in new software I am presently writing to present the pages
dynamically, that will also allow user configurations, additions and
certainty assessment level VOTING ... but that's a long way off.
I hope this answers your "how did you come up with that" question.
Tim Forsythe
http://www.timforsythe.com/ancestors
David Teague
> From: re...@otenet.gr
> Subject: Re: Longest Shallowist Descent
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:42:50 +0300
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
<snip>
> I know of 5 generations spanning 99 years, one male, all still living:
> V born 1914
> S born 1935
> D born 1954
> R born 1979
> C born 2011
�<snip>
I can do better than that -- 5 generations (birth to birth), 4 of them female, in 89 years, 33 days:
1872 (16 June)1893191019471961 (18 July)
On the other hand, the last remaining sibling of any of my great grandparents died this past Sunday�at the age of 101. The earliest-born sibling on any of my great grandparents�(through the same parent - my mother - but through a completely different line)�was born in May of 1866, a span of just over 145 years and two months.
David Teague
taf
> In the other extreme, in my own family I have 5 generations spanning 149
> years:
> W born 1830
> H born 1879
> M born 1932
> R born 1952
> L born 1979
I can beat that:
J 1737
M 1773
J 1801*
I 1866
R 1913
176 yrs - the guy with the star had a son b 1869, and a great-grandson
b 1876, which sure plays tricks with the generational chronology.
taf
Renia
>
> I know of 5 generations spanning 99 years, one male, all still living:
> V born 1914
> S born 1935
> D born 1954
> R born 1979
> C born 2011
Make that 97 years for 5 generations, all still living.
> In the other extreme, in my own family I have 5 generations spanning 149
> years:
> W born 1830
> H born 1879
> M born 1932
> R born 1952
> L born 1979
If I'd counted by youngest son, born 1982, then it's 153 years. If one
of my sons has a child within the next year or so, then it's 185 years
for 6 generations.
KLBWagner
May I offer an alternative to just numbers? I developed what I call a
Branch Family Code or BFC. Each ancestor has a BFC based on their
surname and their generation. The surname is designated by three
letters, for example, Fiske is FSK. In my database, Ann Fiske is the
first person with that surname I come to going back in time. Her BFC
is FSK-1, the 1st Fiske in my anhentafel. Her father, John Fiske, is
FSK-2, her grandfather, William Fiske is FSK-3. Like most people, I
have ancestors who were siblings. The Fiske line is one example. The
father of FSK-3 is Robert Fiske, but I am also descended from Robert's
brother, William Fiske. In this case I add a lower case letter to the
generation number. Robert Fiske is FSK-4a, his brother William Fiske
is FSK-4b. There is no limit to how many generations you can add and
you will still be dealing with three letters and a number. I have
7500+ ancestors in my database and in two instances I have had to use
four letters for a branch family, still better than 14 digits. Those
persons who don't have a surname or other identifier are given the BFC
OOO. My database has an field for User ID and that is were I place the
BFC. Each person is designated by a code that means something, not
just a string of numbers I have to multiply or divide. You can view an
example of the Fiske BFCs on my website at http://www.ancestor-circles.com/linked/acm153.pdf.
Kathleen
Renia
Too complicated, particularly in a pedigree where multiple instances of
the same surname among unrelated people would require an amendment to
this numbering system. Both my husband and I have ancestors called
Smith, for example, who were not related. My husband has two separate
ancestresses called Jane Payne from different parts of the country in
different centuries. How would you address this?
When I first started genealogy more than 30 years ago, I used to use an
identical system to yours, btw, but it grew ever more complex, so I
abandoned it.
Denis Beauregard
�crivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
So you may have the series
A-Z Generations 1-26, reaching about 1500
ZA-ZZ Generations 27-52, reaching about 800
ZZA-ZZZ Generations 53-78, reaching about 100
ZZZA-ZZZZ Generations 79-104, reaching about -700
all it could sort (perhaps not with Windows 7 which is sorting
2007 then 2011 then 20091231...)
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - g�n�alogiste �m�rite (FQSG)
Les Fran�ais d'Am�rique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur c�d�rom � 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780
Tim Forsythe
trying out my website generator can email me for a direct link to a
dedicated webpage explaining in detail how to use and download the software
(WIN32 only). I am no longer supporting it so don't want to publish the
link.
KLBWagner
>
> > Kathleen
>
> Too complicated, particularly in a pedigree where multiple instances of
> the same surname among unrelated people would require an amendment to
> this numbering system. Both my husband and I have ancestors called
> Smith, for example, who were not related. My husband has two separate
> ancestresses called Jane Payne from different parts of the country in
> different centuries. How would you address this?
>
> When I first started genealogy more than 30 years ago, I used to use an
> identical system to yours, btw, but it grew ever more complex, so I
> abandoned it.
I have unrelated families with the same surname. The three letter code
is different for different families: SMI, STH, SIH, all Smiths. There
isn't a master list somewhere that says each surname has to have a
certain letter sequence, you decide what you want to use. I didn't
mention that this system works for ancestors only, since the original
question was about ahnentafel numbering. I have used this system for
30 years and still find it very useful.
Kathleen
Felice
news:51cf0644-f844-4d4b...@cq10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com<snip>
>> Has any genealogist or mathematician come up with a kind of
>> sub-numbering system that can be used after one reaches seven
>> digits?
>>
Oh, my compliments to you and to anyone who comes up with a new
system. Since I'm just about through with my numbering, though, I
think I'll stick with the classic numbers. Thanks anyhow, Kathleen.
I'm sure someone will find your idea useful.
Felice
KLBWagner
>
> > Kathleen
>
> Too complicated, particularly in a pedigree where multiple instances of
> the same surname among unrelated people would require an amendment to
> this numbering system. Both my husband and I have ancestors called
> Smith, for example, who were not related. My husband has two separate
> ancestresses called Jane Payne from different parts of the country in
> different centuries. How would you address this?
>
> When I first started genealogy more than 30 years ago, I used to use an
> identical system to yours, btw, but it grew ever more complex, so I
> abandoned it.
The reply I posted 48 hrs ago has not appeared, so I will repeat it
and add to it:
I have unrelated families with the same surname. My three Smith
families are designated by SMI, STH and SIH. You decide what three
letters to use for each branch family. For each person without a
surname or other identifier I use OOO.
I've used my system for 30 yrs and still find it very useful - every
ancestor has a unique identifier that is three letters, a number
(sometimes two digits, but never more than that) and sometimes a lower
case letter.
Here's an example; Mary Bullock's paternal line from my ahnentafel:
BCK-1 Mary Bullock
BCK-2 Richard Bullock
BCK-3 Edward Bullock
BCK-4 John Bullock
BCK-5 William Bullock
BCK-6 Thomas Bullock
BCK-7 Gilbert Bullock
BCK-8 Robert Bullock
BCK-9 Thomas Bullock
BCK-10 Robert Bullock
BCK-11 Gilbert Bullock
BCK-12 Robert Bullock
BCK-13 Gilbert Bullock
BCK-14 Richard Bullock
Compare the above to:
843 Mary Bullock
1686 Richard Bullock
3379 Edward Bullock
6744 John Bullock
13488 William Bullock
26979 Thomas Bullock
53952 Gilbert Bullock
107904 Robert Bullock
215808 Thomas Bullock
431616 Robert Bullock
863232 Gilbert Bullock
1726464 Robert Bullock
3452928 Gilbert Bullock
6905856 Richard Bullock
If I'm searching my complete ahnentafel and want to find the father of
BCK-11, I know his father will be BCK-12. Not person no. 863232 will
have a father no.1726464. I don't need a calculator every time I want
to find someone.
Kathleen
lostcopper
>
> > Kathleen
>
> Too complicated, particularly in a pedigree where multiple instances of
> the same surname among unrelated people would require an amendment to
> this numbering system. Both my husband and I have ancestors called
> Smith, for example, who were not related. My husband has two separate
> ancestresses called Jane Payne from different parts of the country in
> different centuries. How would you address this?
>
> When I first started genealogy more than 30 years ago, I used to use an
> identical system to yours, btw, but it grew ever more complex, so I
> abandoned it.
When an official search was done by the British government in the
mid-20th century for the legitimate heir to a
fortune that belonged to an ancestor who had died intestate almost a
century before that, this was the system used to
create the family tree. An heir was found in Canada after he saw an
advertisement for "descendants of...." in
a farming magazine posted by attorneys in England.
Tim Forsythe
http://ancestorsnow.blogspot.com/2010/05/adam-8.html
Tim Forsythe
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Tim Forsythe <tjfor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since it might interest a small number of you, anyone who is interested in
> trying out my website generator can email me for a direct link to a
> dedicated webpage explaining in detail how to use and download the software
> (WIN32 only). I am no longer supporting it so don't want to publish the
> link.
>
>