@futurist

Hey futurist I did some math crunching and this is what I came up with for possible future SCs. Let me know what you think. I hope this is helpful.

Men:

119: 1

118: 2

117: 3

116: 5

115: 10

114: 20

113: 40

112: 80

111: 160

110: 320

Women:

124: 1

123: 2

122: 3

121: 5

120: 10

119: 20

118: 40

117: 80

116: 160

115: 320

114: 640

113: 1,280

So in order to see a 119 year old man or a 124 year old woman these are the "likely" number of SCs we'll reach before we get there.

Posted by: @aq

↑

@futurist

Hey futurist I did some math crunching and this is what I came up with for possible future SCs. Let me know what you think. I hope this is helpful.

Men:

119: 1

118: 2

117: 3

116: 5

115: 10

114: 20

113: 40

112: 80

111: 160

110: 320

Including unverified but likely true and likely verifiable cases, we should already have almost 320 male SCs (or maybe a little bit less) in total throughout history:

https://gerontology.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Validated_Male_Supercentenarians

Yet we haven't seen a 117-year-old, a 118-year-old, or a 119-year-old male yet. A 116.5-year-old male is possible if Anisio's case will end up becoming verified in the future, though.

I do think that the odds of a 119 year-old man and someone surpassing Jeanne Calment's record are roughly equal, FWIW. As in, there are about 50% odds that either of these two things will happen first, before the other thing here.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

I suppose that there's another question that I'm curious about: Just how badly did World War I affect extreme male longevity? If a male's odds of becoming a SC were 1 in 500,000, and 10 million men perished in WWI, then it seems like we missed out on around 20 male SCs as a result of WWI, with such ages:

110: 10

111: 5

112: 3

113: 2

114: 1

But maybe a male's odds of becoming a SC were a bit lower, such as 1 in 750,000 or 1 in 1 million. In which case, we would have likely lost out on these male SCs:

1 in 750,000 odds of a male becoming a SC:

110: 8

111: 4

112: 2

113: 1

1 in 1 million odds of a male becoming a SC:

110: 5

111: 3

112: 2

113: 1

Since this is the number of projected additional SC men who would have died at each age, we can look at all additional SC men who would have reached particular ages in total without WWI for each of these scenarios:

Scenario #1:

110: 20

111: 10

112: 5

113: 2

114: 1

115: 0

Scenario #2:

110: 15

111: 7

112: 3

113: 1

114: 0

Scenario #3:

110: 11

111: 6

112: 3

113: 1

114: 0

So I'm just curious if someone were to reach 130...

130: 1

129: 2

128: 3

127: 5

126: 10

125: 20

124: 40

123: 80

122: 160

121: 320

120: 640

119: 1,280

118: 2,560

117: 5,120

116: 10,240

115: 20,480

114: 40,960

113: 81,920

112: 163,840

111: 327,680

110: 655,360

That means we would need a pool of more than half a million 110 year olds!!!???

Posted by: @aq

↑

So I'm just curious if someone were to reach 130...

130: 1

129: 2

128: 3

127: 5

126: 10

125: 20

124: 40

123: 80

122: 160

121: 320

120: 640

119: 1,280

118: 2,560

117: 5,120

116: 10,240

115: 20,480

114: 40,960

113: 81,920

112: 163,840

111: 327,680

110: 655,360

That means we would need a pool of more than half a million 110 year olds!!!???

Worth noting that the annual mortality rate above age 110 isn't guaranteed to remain as low as 50%. It could be higher, such as for men who want to jump from 111 to 112 or for women who want to jump from 114 to 115 or, for that matter, from 117 to 118.

So, we would in all likelihood require more than a million 110-year-olds for this!

@Futurist You mentioned James M. King in the LQ validations thread. Since that's off-topic, I'll put my reply here:

I forget if I've posted this already, but could this be James King's 1860 census match?

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

@Futurist You mentioned James M. King in the LQ validations thread. Since that's off-topic, I'll put my reply here:

I forget if I've posted this already, but could this be James King's 1860 census match?

Name	James King
Age	6
Birth Year	1854
Gender	Male
Race	White
Birth Place	Arkansas
Home in 1860	Cane Hill, Washington, Arkansas
Post Office	Boonsboro
Dwelling Number	663
Family Number	91

Household members

Name	Age
Eveline King	38
Wesly King	35
Joseph King	30
Willise King	20
Eards King	17
Allen King	12
Sarah King	10
Mary King	8
James King	6
Emily King	1
Hiram King
Benjamin King

The names of his siblings don't appear to match. He had an older brother named William, apparently another older brother named John, a younger brother named Edward Early McCullough "Mack" King, and a sister (not sure if older or younger) named Annie. He might have also had some other sisters but he never mentioned their names, unfortunately. His father's name was William Edward King and his mother's name was Annie (or Ann) Slaughter.

Ok... this changes everything. Now I understand how unlikely it is to have a person reach 130. Before I thought the odds were like 1 person in ½ a trillion. Reachable, but only in an extremely unlikely event. 

NOW, however I see the odds of a person reaching 130 are WAYYYYY slimmer than I previously guessed. The odds are like 1 person in a number so large it'd be off the page! 

I'm not good at this kind of stuff but I think we would need like way more than a trillion people on the planet to have over a million SCs and get one 130 year old. And I doubt that will ever occur. 

Assuming the lower odds of a person reaching every birthday after their 110th is 50% or 1 in 2, that means...

111: 1 in 2 SCs

112: 1 in 4 SCs

113: 1 in 8 SCs

114: 1 in 16 SCs

115: 1 in 32 SCs

116: 1 in 64 SCs

117: 1 in 128 SCs

118: 1 in 256 SCs

119: 1 in 512 SCs

120: 1 in 1,024 SCs

121: 1 in 2,048 SCs

122: 1 in 4,096 SCs

(Now I understand why Calment was so rare!)

123: 1 in 8,192 SCs

124: 1 in 16,384 SCs

125: 1 in 32,768 SCs

126: 1 in 65,536 SCs

127: 1 in 131,072 SCs

128: 1 in 262,144 SCs

129: 1 in 524,288 SCs

130: 1 in 1,048,576 SCs

So the lower bound of an SC reaching 130 is 1 person in 1.05 Million!!!???

I officially retract all my statements about how I thought there were many people older than Calment. I still have good faith in Mrs. Garcia and Mrs. Lamichhane but I don't think anyone made it above 122. 

@Mendocino It's worth noting that his elder brother William's (1852-1916) death record lists him as being born in Crothersville, Arkansas. I don't know where in Arkansas that is.

Interestingly enough, I could not find a death record for his elder brother John (c.1843-1910 or later).

@Aquanaut_Chalk Your research here also shows why the total (all-time) male SC population would need to be increased by at least several times before a 120+ year-old man would actually become anywhere near reasonably likely to occur.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Mendocino It's worth noting that his elder brother William's (1852-1916) death record lists him as being born in Crothersville, Arkansas. I don't know where in Arkansas that is.

Interestingly enough, I could not find a death record for his elder brother John (c.1843-1910 or later).

Worth noting that since 50 years have already passed since James Monroe King's death, his death record should already be capable of being ordered from the Louisiana state government. But that costs money, so it's probably more prudent to just wait for it to get added onto FamilySearch.org within a few years or so.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

@Futurist You mentioned James M. King in the LQ validations thread. Since that's off-topic, I'll put my reply here:

I forget if I've posted this already, but could this be James King's 1860 census match?

Name	James King
Age	6
Birth Year	1854
Gender	Male
Race	White
Birth Place	Arkansas
Home in 1860	Cane Hill, Washington, Arkansas
Post Office	Boonsboro
Dwelling Number	663
Family Number	91

Household members

Name	Age
Eveline King	38
Wesly King	35
Joseph King	30
Willise King	20
Eards King	17
Allen King	12
Sarah King	10
Mary King	8
James King	6
Emily King	1
Hiram King
Benjamin King

The names of his siblings don't appear to match. He had an older brother named William, apparently another older brother named John, a younger brother named Edward Early McCullough "Mack" King, and a sister (not sure if older or younger) named Annie. He might have also had some other sisters but he never mentioned their names, unfortunately. His father's name was William Edward King and his mother's name was Annie (or Ann) Slaughter.

 

That's why I was wondering if he could have been living with some other family members, such as aunts/uncles/cousins. 

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

That's why I was wondering if he could have been living with some other family members, such as aunts/uncles/cousins. 

Very possible. The thing is, though, that we don't actually know who his aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, et cetera were. We don't have a very good genealogical profile of his past ancestors, so to speak. We've got enough to verify him as per the 20-year-window rule, but we don't have a detailed family tree for him other than his brothers and their own families. Perhaps this could pose a problem; I don't know.

The thing is, though, that even if he was living with other family members in 1860, due to our own lack of knowledge about them, we wouldn't be able to confirm this. We could only make guesses and take stabs in the dark, so to speak. That's no way to verify a case. His 1870 US Census entry and subsequent US Census entries are considerably more certain, thankfully. But the lack of a definitive 1860 US Census entry for him, along with the general lack of a family tree of his ancestors, does make his case somewhat less solid than that of, say, Robert Early (1849-1960), for whom we know a lot of information about his ancestors.

I can't find any realistic 1860 US Census entries/matches for James's younger brother Early Edward McCullo(u)gh "Mack" King, for instance, even though he should have already existed by then, being born sometime between 1855 and 1857 according to his later US Census entries and death record.

It's possible, though by no means guaranteed, that the King family simply wasn't enumerated back in 1860. Charles Edward Graves's family, for instance, very likely wasn't enumerated in 1900, so there is precedent for this.

If it was up to me, I'd still verify the King case, but wouldn't have quite the same level of confidence in it as in some other cases. I do believe that Mr. King was 112 or around there when he died, FWIW, but the lack of a definitive 1860 US Census entry for him or his family along with a lack of knowledge about his ancestors, aunts, and uncles (we only know his parents' names, not even when and where they were born) means that his case won't be verified to quite the same level of certainty as some other cases.

You’re making some really good conclusions Aquanaut chalk and forming some solid perspectives.

These will assist you if you ever choose to go more heavily into SC research.

Keep forming and refining those views my friend.😀

In addition, the evidence is far stronger for 35% to 40% annual survival rates from 114, rather than 50%.

Applying those rates will give notably higher odds than what you’ve calculated above.

Also worth noting that your calculations are saying 1 SUPERCENTENARIAN in every 1.05 million SUPERCENTENARIANS.

As you’ll know the chances of getting to 110 in the first place are astronomically low.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

In addition, the evidence is far stronger for 35% to 40% annual survival rates from 114, rather than 50%.

Applying those rates will give notably higher odds than what you’ve calculated above.

Also worth noting that your calculations are saying 1 SUPERCENTENARIAN in every 1.05 million SUPERCENTENARIANS.

As you’ll know the chances of getting to 110 in the first place are astronomically low.

The odds of a 100-year-old making it to age 110 are around 1 in 1,000, no? That's roughly what you'd get with 50% annual mortality rates at each age from 100 to 110. But the odds of a 100-year-old making it to age 120 might be 1 in 1 million or even a bit less than that.

Have over a million people already become centenarians throughout all of human history? I suspect that it's likely since there have already been over 1,000 verified and verifiable supercentenarians in total. Quite amazing--over one million people throughout history have already managed to reach age 100! While a small fraction of humanity, this fraction should grow, possibly considerably, over time. Compare that to the pre-industrial era, when centenarians were *almost* non-existent!

Posted by: @mendocino

↑

Another 1888-born male SC who's likely the age claimed is Manoel Alves Teixeira (25 Dec 1888-1 Sep 1999) of Brazil, who was recognized by GWR in the late 90s for being in the longest-lasting marriage in the world (82 years). His wife, Filomena Maria De Oliveira (12 Jun 1890-27 Sep 1998), died less than a year before her husband at the age of 108, which would've almost certainly been an all-time world record for the highest-combined age of a married couple in 1999. Their claimed ages are supported by their marriage record, but we'd obviously need their baptismal records to fully verify their ages. The only issue is that they were both born in the state of Bahia, which has basically no records online. 

-- attachment is not available --
-- attachment is not available --

Despite being included in the 1998 edition of Guinness World Records, it seems like they were completely forgotten about by longevity researchers, since there's no mention of either of them on any forums that I can find. It's possible someone posted about them in the WOP group, but there's obviously no way of knowing anymore. 

 

 

You do know if anyone at LAS ever tried verifying him? If his marriage record can be accessed, his case can at least be made pending on LAS, no?

As a side note, I find it interesting that the Fullingim marriage lasted for around 84.5 years (late 1879 to early 1964):

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/60184950/william-archer-fullingim

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/60185001/nancy-ellen-fullingim

Both of them even managed to outlive their 82-year-old son!

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/60186535/james-william-fullingim

Posted by: @ale76

↑

GRG has validated Ms. Tamara Krutikov (UKR/SRB) (Mar. 27, 1912 – July 6, 2022, 110).

Interesting! One of the few verified SCs who spent the overwhelming majority of their lives in Communist countries.

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @ale76

↑

GRG has validated Ms. Tamara Krutikov (UKR/SRB) (Mar. 27, 1912 – July 6, 2022, 110).

Interesting! One of the few verified SCs who spent the overwhelming majority of their lives in Communist countries.

Indeed. Makes it quite impressive she's lived so long.

Posted by: @jef

↑

Posted by: @futurist

↑

Posted by: @ale76

↑

GRG has validated Ms. Tamara Krutikov (UKR/SRB) (Mar. 27, 1912 – July 6, 2022, 110).

Interesting! One of the few verified SCs who spent the overwhelming majority of their lives in Communist countries.

Indeed. Makes it quite impressive she's lived so long.

Yep. Of course, Tekla Juniewicz lived even longer, but she "only" spent about 45 years of her life in a Communist country. 45/116 is slightly less than 40%. So, not a majority of her life.

@Admin Would it be OK for me to post Jimmy's Microsoft Word file on Delphia Welford in this thread?

[Edit: removed link.]

In such a case, it wouldn't be me doing revalidation research but rather me posting someone else's revalidation research, one that has already been publicly posted on the 110 Club.

Is there any meaningful difference between doing this and posting the professional revalidation research for, say, Jiroemon Kimura here?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556517301821?via%3Dihub

Looking for guidance from you on this issue, please.

Posted by: @charlesm09

↑

Mrs. Élisabelle Lallemand - of Ruoms, Ardeche, Auvergne-Rhone-Alpes, France - turned 111 years old on Tuesday. She was born on 14 February 1912. Happy 111th birthday!

https://www.ledauphine.com/social/2023/02/14/elisabelle-lallemand-fete-ses-111-ans

Interesting fact about her is that her last name literally means "The German" -> "L'Allemand".

Posted by: @024tomi

↑

This is probably the most sorrowful supercentenarian death for me in 2022... Stanisław was very, very dear to my heart, for numerous reasons. He became the oldest competitor in athletics, the sport I love so much. He became the first verified man to reach 110 in Poland, a country I admire a lot. His outstanding fitness and immaculate appearance made it clear he was a supercentenarian one of its kind. A true gentleman.

Rarely do I have reasonable hopes for a male to reach 114, i.e. their respective validated top 10 ever. With Stanisław, this was the case. And who knows what would have happened, if her daughter hadn't died a week prior to him.

Rest in peace, Stanisław Kowalski, Doyen of Poland, Doyen of Europe, Doyen of Athletes. You will be missed.🖤

Are you sure (or at least is it reasonably likely) that his daughter's death accelerated Stanislaw Kowalski's death? Or was the timing of his death so soon after his daughter's death simply likely to be a coincidence?

Losing one's child while still alive is obviously tragic, but one would think that if one lives to an extremely high age, one should be prepared for this risk. Dying of grief as a result of losing one's child is rather rare, no? Plenty of SCs have outlasted at least one of their children, after all.

I don’t think anyone could be prepared for the loss of a child. It’s supposedly the greates loss for one to bear.

Posted by: @chrisr

↑

I don’t think anyone could be prepared for the loss of a child. It’s supposedly the greates loss for one to bear.

[Edit by Admin: original content removed - at one warning for inappropriate behaviour.]

I really have no idea why you would have written that Futurist.

And please don’t reply just to boost your posting numbers.

Futurist, I agree with Chris, perhaps post a little bit less and only when you have something valuable to contribute. That post was quite insensitive. 

Posted by: @futurist

↑

@Admin Would it be OK for me to post Jimmy's Microsoft Word file on Delphia Welford in this thread?

(...)

Looking for guidance from you on this issue, please.

With all due respect, Futurist, but what is the point of you asking me a question when you immediately post the link to Jimmy's research without awaiting any answer? What lessons in life have you missed here?

I can't believe I am genuinely going to give you advice here, but the guidance is as follows:

1. Don't post before anyone else has had the chance to answer.

2. If it's Jimmy's research, then why ask me if it is okay to post someone else's research? Ask Jimmy instead.

3. The most important piece of advice: observe and learn from other members here. Look at what Hoopy is asking/telling you in the post above me. Look at ChrisR's reply above that one, and realise some things are better left unsaid. Look at the trail of unnecessary off-topic posts you've already left in these last couple of days and the attempt at guidance you've already received for that. Filter yourself. What is absolutely necessary to know or ask, and what is tangential and mostly a detailed aspect of something which you obsessively need to know about, but which is not necessary to survive life?

Done ranting.

To be fair, calling our Futurist was for what was an inappropriate post at any time.

It was even worse right now given the very very sad event we have read concerning FEW and his family. In the mists of his own grief, his first posts were thoughts of what his mum was going through:

Anyway, let’s move on and I apologise to FEW on behalf of Futirist if the post was even more offensive at this time.