https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=141.101.104.17&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T12:50:23ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1991:_Research_Areas_by_Size_and_Countedness&diff=156821Talk:1991: Research Areas by Size and Countedness2018-05-09T15:37:35Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Spelling error? Etymology or Entomology? Randall wrote Entymology. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 15:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1960:_Code_Golf&diff=153224Talk:1960: Code Golf2018-02-28T15:49:08Z<p>141.101.104.17: Reverse golf out of bounds seems like a clever idea.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
What's the programming language? It seems to me like a special reverse golf variant of Python, where <code>def</code> is replaced by <code>define</code>, just to make it longer. Or is there a real language with that syntax? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.106|172.68.110.106]] 08:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
: Lisp/some derivatives (I'm most familiar with scheme) use <code>define<define></code> as does Slate, however both have a different syntax. Most likely, this is just pseudo-code. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Definitely going to have to include a link to the actual longest language: Unary, which is literally just a certain length of 1s. No one actually writes in it: you write in another language and then it gets converted. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
: You could make a longer programming language by representing "1" with some longer string; perhaps the entire text of Moby Dick. And now the file size can be arbitrarily big. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.100|198.41.230.100]] 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
:: Though this idea is still quite compressible. It might be better (?) to make a language where the file size cannot be easily significantly compressed.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.25.106|172.68.25.106]] 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This might be directed at a code golfing challenge currently taking place: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/152856/write-moby-dick-approximately. The goal is to write a program that outputs a text, that is as closly as possible to moby dick, while no containing it, and of course beeing as small as possible.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.150|141.101.105.150]] 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Not sure why JSFuck is included in the explanation. Not sure how it really has any relevance here as it is not mentioned in the text and is not the programming language being used by Randall in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: agreed, JSFuck is not relevant in the explanation. moved it to the discussion (see below) [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Instead of {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, one could use {{w|JSFuck}} though, which is valid {{w|JavaScript}} code - but written with only six different characters. Even mundane variable names like `LowestDenominator` will take up hundreds, if not thousands, of bytes in JSFuck. {{unsigned|Comment Police}}<br />
: I added it because JSFuck allows you to write you simple and useful tasks with zillions of bytes, each of which is needed for the programm to run correctly. It's the ultimate Reverse Coding Golf.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.178|172.68.50.178]] 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
Off Topic: I just realized that statistical thermodynamics is nothing else than reverse molecule golf: The entropy of a given system is equal to the maximum score you can achieve in reverse molecule golf. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Seems like Java programmers play this game all the time.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.100|162.158.234.100]] 20:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Someone made everyone's comments monospaced. Please fix this. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.100|198.41.230.100]] 14:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
:Fixed [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.26|162.158.155.26]] 15:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
:They just wanted to play reverse comments golf with the comments section by making the comments take as much space as possible. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 15:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is called Code Bowling.<br />
<br />
I would like to point out that there may be a ReCaptcha site shutdown? It will occur on the 1st of March (maybe). [[User:QATEKLYXM|QATEKLYXM]]<br />
<br />
Is the explanation thinking of miniature golf when it mentions a hedge or border and the need for a ramp? In actual golf you can easily hit the ball through the air with almost every single club...and just as easily hit it off of the golf course.<br />
[[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.64|172.69.62.64]] 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)]<br />
<br />
Curious Georges also likes Reverse Regular Golf! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.232|108.162.237.232]] 02:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I found this xkcd confusing because there appears to be no obvious limiting principal. The code in the panel is written verbosely, but it could easily be a word longer, a paragraph longer, a page longer, a chapter longer, an entire book longer. Nor is skill (or chance!) particularly required to do such a thing [I suppose in "blinded reverse code golf" the question might be to guess how much length your opponents would bother to express and then to top that]. The result is I feel confused. Maybe my standards for humor are too high, but maybe, also, I'm just missing something here? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 12:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
: +1 [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No mention of The International Obfuscated C Code Contest? It's about as close to reverse code golf as there is. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.255.158|172.68.255.158]] 14:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If Randall plays Reverse Golf while playing out-of-bounds, and that means he's getting at least one penalty stroke for every regular, out-of-bounds stroke, it seems to me he perfectly well understood the rules of both golf and reverse golf. He's gaining strokes at twice the regular speed. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1935:_2018&diff=149980Talk:1935: 20182017-12-29T22:48:11Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
This is easy! Don't factor it - just multiply by 25 and if that ends in two zeros, but not four zeros then it's a leap year, at least most of the time.....17:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.112}}<br />
<br />
This is easy! Don’t factor it - just convert it into a binary and look at the 2 least significant bits. If they are 00 the number is multiple of four. —[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.35|172.69.33.35]] 17:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This is easy! Don't factor it - just subtract 4 repeatedly. If you end up at 0, it's divisible. If you end up at 1, 2, or 3, it's not. -- 17:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC){{unsigned ip|172.68.58.167}}<br />
<br />
The calculation of Christmas is trivial{{Citation needed}} it's December 25th. Where as the calculation of Easter is complex ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computus]). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.18|172.68.133.18]] 18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Title text explanation mis-read<br />
Explanation of title text is incorrect: "The title text refers to calculating the date of Christmas; again, this is a trivial exercise, because Christmas is always December 25." Title text states 'day of Christmas', not 'date...'. The day changes each year and so does require calculation. {{unsigned ip|162.158.111.73}}<br />
<br />
Oops, my bad. Fixed. [[User:FlyingPiMonster|FlyingPiMonster]] ([[User talk:FlyingPiMonster|talk]]) 18:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
* I think you have it backwards. The title text is a reference to calculating the day (as in "date", not "day of week") of Easter. This is a non-trivial calculation (though one that modern computers can perform easily). On the other hand, the Christmas day is fixed. (There's no reason to believe that the joke was anything else.) - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] ([[User talk:Mike Rosoft|talk]]) 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't know who wrote the explanation, but... Are they having a bad day? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.205|162.158.111.205]] 18:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
:That was vandalism. I did a revert. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
::Ah, no, I was asking because the explanation sounds so angry. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Also, Megan understands that checking if a number divisible by 2 is easy [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.50|141.101.77.50]] 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Theory for possible explanation<br />
Didn't want to edit this in because I'm not sure- but the motivation for this uncharacteristic lack of mathematical rigor could have to do with the current trend of people being dismissive of science being able to predict things. Something that seems pretty obvious is made to look like a chance event that nobody can really predict ahead of time. {{unsigned|Sirpent}}<br />
<br />
::This is easy! Don't factor it - just subtract 2000. Is 18 divisible by 4? If so, you're an idiot. {{unsigned ip| 172.68.143.156}}<br />
<br />
::The nonsense does look to me like a political discussion where one person uses "alternative facts". But in real life people get leap years "amusingly" wrong. Computer system designers for instance... one software tool I used passed into the year 2000 working correctly, but then it broke 2 months later because it thought 2000 wasn't a Gregorian calendar leap year, I guess because every 4th year is but every 100th year isn't. Every 400th year is, but, if the programmer just stopped at "every 4th is a leap year" then they'd have been fine until 2100. Robert Carnegie rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.102|141.101.105.102]] 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The joke in this might be that it might take some time to brute-force the prime factorisation of 2018 with a calculator as it’s 2*1009. Same holds true for 2017 which is prime. Therefore on might come to the conclusion that factorisation is hard already at this scale. (flx) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.71|172.68.253.71]] 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1845:_State_Word_Map&diff=1407671845: State Word Map2017-06-05T14:38:07Z<p>141.101.104.17: So, twice have I invited you to explain your objections to my solution, and twice you ignored me, calling me a vandal. Numerical analyses, element traversal extensions, cross-article comparisons, what's that? Some kind of vandalism no doubt.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1845<br />
| date = June 2, 2017<br />
| title = State Word Map<br />
| image = state_word_map.png<br />
| titletext = The top search for every state is PORN, except Florida, where it's SEX PORN.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
This is another of the many comics where [[Randall]] used a map of the United States for his joke (see below for examples).<br />
<br />
Similar in spirit to [[1138: Heatmap]], this comic pokes fun at many maps that attempt to use data to discern unique characteristics about various sub-regions, in this case {{w|U.S. state|American states}}. This map may have been inspired by [https://twitter.com/GoogleTrends/status/869624196921303040 this map] posted on Twitter by Google Trends the day before the comic was posted. Many web companies use maps like this in viral marketing, but the methodology behind them is pretty weak. The random noise in the data will mean that there will be variations between states even if there is no underlying pattern - and this can be further boosted by statistical tricks. A common one is to show the "most characteristic" or "most distinctive" term for each state. For instance, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-common-causes-of-death-in-each-state-2014-6?IR=T the most common cause of death is heart disease or cancer] in every US state, but this makes for a boring map. Looking at the [https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2015/14_0395.htm most distinctive cause of death] produces a more interesting map, but it highlights very minor trends - Lousiana is marked as having syphilis as its most distinctive cause of death, even though [https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/pdf/louisiana_profile.pdf only 15 Louisianans in every 100,000 have the disease] and there were only 22 syphilis deaths in the state over a whole decade. These maps can give a misleading impression of huge variation between states that doesn't really exist.<br />
<br />
This map does not say anything real, but says: <br />
:You can make these maps say whatever you want by adjusting the methodology. Half of the time you're just amplifying random noise because the underlying data doesn't change that much from one state to another. But whatever. Nobody checks this stuff. Just pick whatever normalization lets you make fun of Florida.<br />
<br />
The primary joke is that the likelihood of these being the words used most often by the inhabitants of each state is low, rather than accurately representing the most used words Randall has just done exactly what he says he can do (make fun of Florida by putting whatever he wants). He also has not obtained the data from anywhere, just 'Something Something'. <br />
<br />
The joke about Florida is that the most used word in Florida is "Florida", which would make people in Florida very self-centered. <br />
<br />
The comic continues to make fun of Florida in the title text by saying that Florida searches for ''sex porn'' instead of ''porn'', which is not needed since porn means images and film of people having sex. This is also probably a reference to PornHub's [https://www.pornhub.com/insights/united-states-top-searches data-farming] exercises, where they have periodically released the most frequently searched term by state.<br />
<br />
{{w|Florida}} is often the butt of many jokes, including the {{w|Florida Man}} meme and many mocking jibes regarding its {{w|2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida|messy electoral history}}. {{tvtropes|OnlyInFlorida|"Only in Florida" phenomenon}}<br />
<br />
Randall previously used a map of the United States as the basis for his comics in [[1767: US State Names]], [[1653: United States Map]], [[1509: Scenery Cheat Sheet]] and in [[1079: United Shapes]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Caption above the map, with sub caption:]<br />
:<big>Most-Used Word in Each State</big><br />
:Based on Something Something Search Data<br />
<br />
:[Beneath the captions are a colorful map of the United States of America. Each state has one color, but the colors do not change from state to state, but rather between rows of states. The top "row" is purple, the second row is gray-blue, but only goes half across. Where it stops a pink row of states begins. Beneath this runs a yellow row, except it does not take California with it, since it belongs to the next purple line beneath this yellow line. Finally the two states not in the contiguous states as well as the southern states from Texas to Florida are again pink. Inside each state is written one, and only one word (or for small states the word is outside and if needed a line indicates which state it belongs to). The words size depends on the size of the state and the word. If it can fit inside the state it will be written in a font large enough to fill the entire state if possible (in one case a hyphen is used). So a short word, like "lets" in huge Texas becomes huge, but a word like "noise" which has been fitted inside small Massachusets becomes small.]<br />
:[The following table offers tooltips concerning states' names.]<br />
<br />
<table class='wikitable' style="text-align: center; cursor: help; empty-cells: hide;"><br />
<caption>Locational, dimensional and colour representation of a map that reads:<br />
<ol style='display: inline; font-style: italic; padding: 0; margin: 0;'><br />
<li style='display: inline; color: #639;'>You can make these maps say whatever you want <br />
<li style='display: inline; color: #369;'>by adjusting the methodology.<br />
<li style='display: inline; color: #C06;'>Half the time you're just amplifying random noise<br />
<li style='display: inline; color: #C96;'>because the underlying data doesn't vary that much from one state to another. <br />
<li style='display: inline; color: #639;'>But whatever. Nobody checks this stuff. Just pick <br />
<li style='display: inline; color: #C06;'>whatever normalization lets you make fun of Florida. <br />
</ol><br />
</caption><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 16pt;' title='Washington'>You</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="4" style='color: #369; font-size: 12pt;' title='Iowa'>adjusting</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 18pt;' title='Montana'>can</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="1" style='color: #639; font-size: 14pt;' title='North Dakota'>make</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='Minnesota'>these</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="3" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='Wisconsin'>maps</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='Michigan'>say</td><br />
<td colspan="5" rowspan="3" style='color: #C06; font-size: 8pt;' title='New York'>random</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='Vermont'>whatever</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt; border-right-style: dashed;' title='New Hampshire'>you</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #639; font-size: 10pt; border-left-style: dashed;' title='Maine'>want</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #369; font-size: 10pt;' title='South Dakota'>methodology<ins>.</ins></td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="1" style='color: #C06; font-size: 8pt;' title='Massachusetts'>noise</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #369; font-size: 16pt;' title='Oregon'>by</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #369; font-size: 16pt;' title='Wyoming'>the</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 14pt;' title='Iowa'>the</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='Connecticut'>to</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='Rhode Island'>another<ins>.</ins></td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 14pt;' title='Nebraska'>Half</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 10pt;' title='Illinois'>time</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 10pt;' title='Indiana'>you're</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 12pt;' title='Ohio'>just</td><br />
<td colspan="4" rowspan="1" style='color: #C06; font-size: 12pt;' title='Pennsylvania'>amplifying</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='New Jersey'>state</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="4" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='California'>But</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='Nevada'>because</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3" style='color: #C96; font-size: 14pt;' title='Utah'>the</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="3" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='Colorado'>underlying</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="4" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='Missouri'>doesn't</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 10pt;' title='West Virginia'>that</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 8pt;' title='Maryland'>from</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 8pt;' title='Delaware'>one</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #C96; font-size: 16pt;' title='Kansas'>data</td><br />
<td colspan="4" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='Kentucky'>vary</td><br />
<td colspan="4" rowspan="1" style='color: #C96; font-size: 12pt;' title='Virginia'>much</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="4" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 14pt;' title='Tennessee'>stuff<ins>.</ins></td><br />
<td colspan="4" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 14pt;' title='North Carolina'>Just</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="4" rowspan="1" style='color: #639; font-size: 10pt;' title='Arizona'>whatever<ins>.</ins></td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='New Mexico'>Nobody</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 14pt;' title='Oklahoma'>checks</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="5" rowspan="2"><br />
<table class='wikitable' style="text-align: center; float: left; margin: .5em;; empty-cells: hide;"><tr><td title='Hawaii' style='color: #C06; font-size: 12pt;'>whatever</td></tr></table><br />
<table class='wikitable' style="text-align: center; float: left; margin: .5em;; empty-cells: hide;"><tr><td title='Alaska' style='color: #C06; font-size: 10pt;'>normalization</td></tr></table><br />
</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="1" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='Arkansas'>this</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 10pt;' title='Mississippi'>make</td><br />
<td colspan="1" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 14pt;' title='Alabama'>fun</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="2" style='color: #C06; font-size: 14pt;' title='Georgia'>of</td><br />
<td colspan="3" rowspan="2" style='color: #639; font-size: 12pt;' title='South Carolina'>pick</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="3" rowspan="1" style='color: #C06; font-size: 18pt;' title='Texas'>lets</td><br />
<td colspan="2" rowspan="1" style='color: #C06; font-size: 10pt;' title='Louisiana'>you</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td colspan="11" rowspan="1"></td><br />
<td colspan="3" rowspan="1" style='color: #C06; font-size: 10pt;' title='Florida'>Florida<ins>.</ins></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*The comic lacks the border line dividing {{w|New Hampshire}} and {{w|Maine}} while both states have distinct words attributed to them ("you" for NH and "want" for ME).<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Maps]]<br />
[[Category:Geography]]<br />
[[Category:Charts]]</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1828:_ISS_Solar_Transit&diff=139225Talk:1828: ISS Solar Transit2017-04-25T10:39:15Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~--><br />
The staging of this comic is really confusing... Top to bottom, right to left is just a weird order. It took me a little while to figure out that the solid white space in the top row is actually a double high, and not a solid white beat panel. I was thinking that the picture was completely whited out. [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 15:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The comic reads left-to-right, not right-to-left... [[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I disagree with the description that's posted. The joke is that Cueball is not trying to take a picture of the sun - he is trying to take a picture of the ISS while it passes in front of the sun. So it is true that the object being photographed (the ISS) is in direct sunlight, just as the label says. The problem with the label is that it's incomplete: in context, it really means something like, "The object being photographed is in lighting equivalent to direct sunlight falling on the surface of the planet Earth with no intervening filters." The ISS (and the moon, as mentioned in the title text) are being directly struck by sunlight but do not fit the rest of the implied context of the label.<br />
: So shouldn't it then use the 'Shade' option for the ISS? ;) -- Denny<br />
:Technically, he's trying to take a picture of the shadow of the ISS, since he's not looking for the reflected sunlight. Since the Sun is incandescent, that filter would also apply, but only for the background, not the object in question. Also, isn't that kind of the joke, here?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.51|162.158.74.51]] 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
: The side of the ISS that he is photographing is not being struck by sunlight. The other side of the ISS (the side facing toward the sun and away from earth) is being struck by sunlight. He is photographing the side facing away from the sun and toward the earth.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.45|162.158.69.45]] 02:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have a strong suspicion that no matter HOW you try to white-balance image like this it wouldn't be correct. The idea behind white balance is to show how the photographed object would REFLECT white light, and Sun certainly doesn't reflect enough for it to be visible over the light it radiates. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Isn't the joke that that a solar filter is really a physical piece of hardware while Cueball is incorrectly using a software filter? Yeah, you might need to use a software filter to color correct the picture in reality, but this being Cueball he is probably trying to do it in software alone. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 10:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:78:_Garfield&diff=81300Talk:78: Garfield2014-12-23T14:40:57Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div>I disagree with the original author of the article, I don't think Garfield is poorly written. However, to avoid any greater conflict, I decided to keep it as it is. Does everyone else think it is "poorly written"? --[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:There was certainly controversy sparked within the comic writing community when Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, quit early because he felt that cartoonists targeted their comics at too wide a market to be meaningful and funny. This was at the gestation of the internet, when the only funding that a cartoonist could find was from newspapers looking for something to fill the back page, and had to follow the newspaper's guidelines for neutrality to avoid offending anyone. Watterson called other cartoonists "sell-outs" for dumbing down their work for the mass-market, and he quit in disgust at his own newspaper's attempts to cull the philosophical speeches that were ever-so-common in Calvin and Hobbes. Since then, widespread corporate culture has made Dilbert a hit, and we ourselves are discussing XKCD here. Watterson would be smiling right now. '''[[User:Davidy22|<span title="I want you."><u><font color="purple" size="2px">David</font><font color="green" size="3px">y</font></u><sup><font color="indigo" size="1px">22</font></sup></span>]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 00:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::Wow, that was incredibly instructive. I'm actually very excited about this discussion. While I do agree "dumbing down" something that was originally intended for a specific niche is what ruins a lot of media (besides comic strips, I feel it commonly ruins TV shows, Movie adaptations etc), I think it would be unfair to call it "poorly written". I think a better word would be "unexciting", "lacking passion" or "having lost it's first love". Making a strip appeal to a wide range of people is not always as easy as it seems, especially without making it come down to bathroom/sexual jokes. While I do feel that Randall sometimes gets very close to the border of "distasteful", I think xkcd still maintains its roots and it is pretty funny and smart. --[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 02:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Hi there, I'm the original author of the page in question. I do not mind if it is changed or even removed. [[Special:Contributions/98.162.150.124|98.162.150.124]] 02:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I definitely agree that Garfield isn't poorly written, but it is basically lacking in creativity at this point. The underlying point remains however, and that is that the 'mainstream' all suffers from that same mass appeal sickness, which is rather outmoded in the modern era.{{unsigned|Crazedhatter}}<br />
<br />
I don't have a particular opinion on whether this page says Garfield is "poorly written" or not, but I do think that most of the people arguing against it are undermining their own points. Pnariyoshi: If a piece of writing is unexciting and passionless, is this not grounds on which one could say it is "poor?" Crazedhatter: If a piece of writing lacks creativity and is outmoded for its own era, is that not also grounds on which one could say it is "poor?" If we all agree that there are serious artistic flaws with Garfield's writing, then why are we quibbling about synonyms? Call it "poor." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 15:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is this appeal possibly made with the 'Death of Garfield' plot-arc in mind (which, while not a great series of strips, was moderately interesting for its as Garfield not written for mass appeal)? I only ask because it would seem a relatively futile challenge were it not for the fact that Jim has actually strayed this way before; also, both xkcd's parody Garfield and the Death of Garfield series are horror-themed. [[Special:Contributions/143.92.1.32|143.92.1.32]] 01:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
What is happening in the last picture of Garfield? I mean the line across its face. As if there were two different photos on top of eah other, where the upper one was half removed. Maybe a suggestion from Randall that it is time to reveal the true Garfield...<br />
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.221|141.101.96.221]] 16:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Davis did this once, a long time ago. You can read it [http://popzeuscomic.blogspot.com/2007/03/disturbing-garfield-comic-strips-from.html here]. Of course, they kept the series running after that, though Davis has stated multiple times he's indifferent about Garfield and only made it as a way of making money. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 14:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=925:_Cell_Phones&diff=80872925: Cell Phones2014-12-16T19:08:05Z<p>141.101.104.17: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 925<br />
| date = July 15, 2011<br />
| title = Cell Phones<br />
| image = cell_phones.png<br />
| titletext = He holds the laptop like that on purpose, to make you cringe.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
After hearing about the "Cell Phones Don't Cause Cancer" study, which refutes a claim made by the World Health Organization (just Google the debate, the comic doesn't focus much on it), [[Black Hat]] plots "Total Cancer Incidence" per 100,000 and "Cell Phone Users" per 100 on the same graph. The graph in frame 3 shows that the number of cell phone users rises after the number of cancer incidence, which makes Black Hat comically come to the conclusion that cancer causes cell phones.<br />
<br />
The comic highlights a well-known fallacy known as ''{{w|post hoc ergo propter hoc}}'', often shortened to simply ''post hoc.'' The Latin translates to "after this, therefore because of this," referring to the common mistake that because two events happen in chronological order, the former event must have caused the latter event. The fallacy is often the root cause of many superstitions (e.g., a person noticing he/she wore a special bracelet before getting a good test score thinks the bracelet was the source of his/her good fortune), but it often crosses into more serious areas of thinking. In this case, the scientific research community, which often prides itself on its intellectual aptitude, is gently mocked for being nonetheless prone to such poor reasoning all too often.<br />
<br />
The title text refers to the way Black Hat holds the laptop in panel 2. Being that Cueball (and Randall, for that matter) are quite into computers, the potential damage to a laptop screen either from the weight of its lower body or the pressure of the user's fingers on the LCD screen is enough to make him squirm in discomfort.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball holds a cellphone. Black Hat is sitting at a desk with a laptop.]<br />
:Cueball: Another huge study found no evidence that cell phones cause cancer. What was the W.H.O. thinking?<br />
:Black Hat: I think they just got it backward.<br />
<br />
:[Black Hat turns towards Cueball, holding the laptop with one hand by the upper edge of the screen.]<br />
:Cueball: Huh?<br />
:Black Hat: Well, take a look.<br />
<br />
:[There is a plot of total cancer incidence and cell phone users. Cancer rises from 1970 to 1990, then stays relatively steady. Cell phone use rises from roughly 1984, and steeply after 1990, to the present.]<br />
<br />
:Cueball: You're not... There are ''so'' many problems with that.<br />
:Black Hat: Just to be safe, until I see more data I'm going to assume cancer causes cell phones.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Charts]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Statistics]]<br />
[[Category:Cancer]]</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:925:_Cell_Phones&diff=80871Talk:925: Cell Phones2014-12-16T19:05:42Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div>On first read I thought the joke is that the cell phone graph shape (somewhat) closely mimics the shape of the cancer graph, including the part where it begins to level off - implying that one linearly correlates with the other, with a 20 year delay (a typical time it takes for cancer to manifest, except in this case it's backwards). ultramage 14:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
That and the fact the graph is out by a scale factor of 1000 is always a fun way to screw over how the statistics look.{{unsigned ip|82.16.27.115}}<br />
<br />
Nah b', it's 2000.{{unsigned ip|76.67.97.246}}<br />
<br />
::The real problem with the graph is that it makes it look like cancer rates have increased from near-zero levels to way higher since 1970, until you actually read the Y axis and see that it's gone from about 400 (per 100,000) to about 475. This is an increase of only 18.75%, as opposed to the visual appearance of a 300% increase. Hats off to Black Hat!! [[Special:Contributions/108.28.72.186|108.28.72.186]] 01:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought the laptop joke was that some people believe not to put it on your lap because it messes with your reproductive organs! ~JFreund<br />
:But you know now you are wrong, correct? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 06:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
:If your laptop starts messing with your reproductive organs, you may want to either tell an adult, or stop taking drugs (or possibly take more drugs). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 06:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I originally thought that the graph was supposed to show that an increase in cellphone use caused a decrease in cancer. I'm not sure why Randell didn't go with that conclusion, as it seems way more obvious to make when you look at tha graph, and it's humorously the opposite of what people are saying. Still very silly, of course :p [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 08:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why does the title text explanation refer to panel 2? From what I can see the title text either refers to a) you should not hold your laptop by its screen as it may damage it (in panel 2) or b) you should not not rest your laptop on your lap as it may overheat and damage you (in panel 4). I think a) makes more sense since the comic refers to how black hat "holds" the laptop, but I can also see that b) references the subject of the comic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.177|141.101.98.177]] 10:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
*Seconded. I'm changing it. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1159:_Countdown&diff=80606Talk:1159: Countdown2014-12-11T23:00:30Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div>If you assume (with nothing else known), that large numbers have a probability about reciprocal to themselves to ensure a sum/integral of 1, the digits not being zeroes is extremely unlikely.<br />
<br />
Whether black hat guy thinks a supervolcanoe eruption is a favourable event or being spared from one is not made entirely clear. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 08:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I warmly recommend the article {{w|harmonic series (mathematics)}}. ;-) --[[Special:Contributions/131.152.41.173|131.152.41.173]] 13:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::You are right, the harmonic series is divergent. However, the maximal number of digits - which can be possibly displayed - is finite. Which distribution would you suggest? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 19:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Sebastian, do you know the specific name of the statistical principle you're invoking? I agree, but [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] does not, and he has a quick tendency to remove things. One part of it is that you don't know the magnitude of a number, exponential distribution is a more appropriate model than linear. Another part is about the unlikelihood of the middle digits being zero. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::{{w|Benford's law}} is about the probability of certain first digit(s). Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 22:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::Hmm... "Benford's law also concerns the expected distribution for digits beyond the first, which approach a uniform distribution". I missed that the first time I read the article. Okay, that covers the essential parts of the argument. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 19:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::Come on now Frankie, I'm doing my best. I was just too quick to think that the claim was just another of these casual confusions about probability that non-math people have from time to time. (You know, I haven't rolled a 6 for some time, so now the chances must be pretty high...) I hadn't heard about this very counter-intuitive Benson-principle before, but found [http://plus.maths.org/content/looking-out-number-one this page] helpfylly explanatory. <br />
::::So, I trust you on this. What I don't understand is, how do we know that Benfords law can be applied to this particular 14 digit number? The time left to an eruption? Also, how could a calculation of the actual probabiliy of the preciding digits being zero or anything else be made? – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::What is more important for this comic than the Benford's law itself, is its underlying condition that many naturally existing numbers are lognormally distributed. And not uniformally distributed. Under that premise we can try do hypothesize about the odds of leading zeroes. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 00:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::The initial timer is a physical quantity, therefore scale invariant, and created by a lognormal distribution (first random experiment). Now there are two possibilities: -- a) BHG specifically got a 14-digit display for the countdown (with the first digit according to Benford's law of course) and the initial timer 14 digits wide. b) The initial timer value possibly was much smaller and it could have been any number which fit on the display. -- Cueball comes in. The shown timer is uniformally distributed within the range below the initial timer (second random experiment). Because of the visible zeroes a) does not seem to be likely and b) would be true, specifically b) with the hidden digits being zero, as the shown zeroes are very unprobable with all large timer values, and the short timer actually is quite probable (lognormal distribution). Is this a valid way to argue for probabilities? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
::::::It seems legit, but I can't tell, really. But we have no concrete estimation yet (maybe that's too hard). Do you ''really'' think that this phenomenon is so strong so that (from the 1 in 30000) it makes the probability for four zeroes ''higher'' than for all the other 29999 possibilities together? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 08:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Another effect is that if the initial counter was small to begin with, it is quite unprobable (with only one supervolcanoe eruption) that Cueball comes in during the run of the counter. I will try to do a calculation example to compare the possibilities with reasonable assumptions. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 08:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC) <br />
::::::::I restructured the last part somewhat. Hope that I didn't screw anything up, and if so, fix it! And it would be very nice if you could also add some more explanation of the math involved! –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 19:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC) <br />
::This is a wholly inappropriate accusation to make here. If you have a problem, please put it through appropriate channels. No editor has a perfect score, we all slip up because we're all human. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
: Assuming that the middle digits are random, the expected value is 1.53 million years. But: If the display is off-the-shelf, it is probably larger than the largest number actually displayed. Maybe the counter started at 1e8, and the next smaller display had only 8 digits. Maybe we should have a look at the statistical distribution of digits in commercially available LED displays ... [[Special:Contributions/77.88.71.157|77.88.71.157]] 08:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I don't think there are displays with that many digits. You have to buy several one digit (perhaps four digits) displays and multiplex them together. 23:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"I forget which one" may be a reference to the 7 known supervolcanoes, or it might be to a list published by the Guardian in 2005 of the top 10 existential threats to life on Earth, which went briefly viral. It included a supervolcano eruption, as well as viral pandemic, meteorite strike, greenhouse gases, superintelligent robots, nuclear war, cosmic rays, terrorism, black holes, and telomere erosion [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/14/research.science2]<br />
<br />
I understand how the hidden numbers could mean that a volcano could either erupt very soon or a very long time. But I don't get why this is a joke. Is there something funnny that I am missing? {{unsigned|72.38.90.50}}<br />
<br />
:It's a joke, because a supervolcano eruption would have a major impact on the earth, and Black Hat has a timer that will tell him when one will occur, but he is too lazy to see whether it will happen soon. {{unsigned|76.14.25.84}}<br />
<br />
The title-text may be a reference to the line "May the odds be ever in your favor!" in ''The Hunger Games''. I wonder if this might also be a commentary on the foolishness of assuming that a rare event won't happen anytime soon. [[User:gijobarts|gijobarts]] ([[User Talk:gijobarts|talk]]) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The picture could be somewhat symbolic. It could be a sunset or sunrise, like the would could be about to end or not. [[Special:Contributions/67.194.183.127|67.194.183.127]] 06:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Benford's Law has no bearing on what any of the covered digits are except the first, and even then it only weakly applies; it only applies to the FIRST digit of natural numbers, and since we can have leading 0's is really doesn't apply. Furthermore, even if it applied to all the digits, the probability distribution on the covered digits is not affected by the shown digits; that's not how probability works. If I flip a coin 10 times and it's heads all ten times, the probability that the 11th flip is still 50/50. -Mike Powers<br />
:Benford's Law shows that with real-life (physical) numbers you cannot just use a 10% probability for each digit. These numbers are not uniformally, but lognormally distributed. That means, there is a smaller tendency to greater numbers than their possible number space would allow. Benford's Law with its relevancy to the first n digits is not directly applicable here, but its general validity contradicts some of the assumptions normally often made. As you see many zeroes in the middle part, the probability is quite high that also the first digits are zero. Here the length of the number has a normal distribution and a short number is about as probable as a long one. And long ones with zeroes in the middle are seldom so it is probably a short number. This would not be the case, if each digit is randomly selected from 0-9. Then the greater probability of longer numbers would cancel out this effect. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 10:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Regarding the independence of the digits: That is conditional probability. We have a probability distribution for the complete number. In nature this is a lognormal distribution (with suitable parameters regarding the scale; that is why the intention to buy a display with certain width is important). That means zero digits are quite common, as short numbers have much weight. With just creating the digits independently you do not get a lognormal distribution. With four zeroes shown only 1/10.000 of the longer numbers are possible any longer, making them much rarer. To begin with they would need a probability of at least 10.000 as high to counter this effect, but they do not have it (with a uniformal distribution they would have it). Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 10:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
:If we have initially the same probability for numbers of digit length 1-14 (about 7%): After looking we (partly) know that digits 1 till 4 are non-zero and digits 5-8 are zero. Then numbers of digit length 1-3 have 0% probability, numbers with digit length 5-8 have 0% probability. Numbers with digit length 9-14 have a probability of 0.01% each and numbers with length 4 have a probability of 99.94%. The results differ with the logarithmic distribution of number length. E.g. with mu=11 digits and sigma=2 digits, the probability of 4 digits is 85%. With mu=12 digits and sigma=3 digits, the probability of 4 digits is 98.3%. With mu=7.5 digits and sigma=4 digits the probability of 4 digits is 99.95%. With mu=12 digits and sigma=2 digits, the probability of 4 digits is 47.64%. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 11:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
The 11:59 subtle joke is slightly reinforced as the countdown steps over 2400. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.121.97|178.26.121.97]] 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could "the odds are in our favour" be a reference to the hunger games? {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.240}}<br />
<br />
:If you had read all the comments, you would have seen that someone else already thought the same, and nesting your comment below his/hers would make more sense. But that's just me grammar naziing around. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.18|108.162.212.18]] 00:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think that it should be mentioned that there is no reliable way to accurately predict volcanic eruptions in the long-term; the best we can do is check current seismic activity to get an idea if it might happen "soon". A countdown clock would either be based on misconceptions that volcanoes follow statistical patterns and therefore based on gambler's fallacy, or would have to be based on future data or magic. That it is mentioned as an "oracle countdown" alludes to this, but I don't think it adequately explains the futility of predicting seismic activity. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&diff=80593Talk:1292: Pi vs. Tau2014-12-11T16:46:28Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div>I started an explanation. Hopefully others will help improve it, as I don't think it's quite adequate. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.174|199.27.130.174]] 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The comic currently shows the symbol π (pi) in all three cases, but it should have the symbol τ (tau) in the rightmost case. I'm sure there is a compromise symbol "pau" too. Maybe with a deformed left leg? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.4|141.101.97.4]] 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
WolframAlpha gives <br />
<pre><br />
4.5545743763144164456766617143366171162404440766665105335330776311513504520604364524762740226212061363100001776216741750712622557020442741544760057441760026766230424023460366047331305225241275347777145543054127636365666430221066167347236617261603127725745513663702031155234027041040155322217227723576660045156156303357534162372112340027743775672417274565277274565735325624457113522164166560115654407251403563246444122664066521461311773474046032763760765740133706761276420415672577471077133607673035331070364705651055376634161405567176532346433567731715723623721267302576735154761375545411215522177775706407470673020025353246535120744232706060324711633457720155013202527060250466252665661576165164140301645132275526153126363575631176312270212441433434206352313125326760006365710744276056412434626534152021052065172556442150110056601034116570607064550553636566432544260105637423220411372664024454234201642615033200331506013362432026775605543212342336511350621361642654426372425415023071413764173735461042064323757413414533013..._8</pre> which does indeed have four 666 sequences. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.254|141.101.99.254]] 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
This number contains 7777, 000 and 444 twice, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.11|141.101.93.11]] 09:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wrote the transcript, not sure if I explained the visual well enough, so I left the incomplete tag if someone else has a better idea. Should suffice for understanding however, considering the content [[Special:Contributions/108.162.248.18|108.162.248.18]] 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
(The discussion about different results was trimmed)<br />
<br />
Wolfram gives the result with 666<br />
<br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.5+pi+octal<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022<br />
</pre><br />
The Unix arbitrary precision calculator gives the result without<br />
<br />
$ echo "scale=200; obase=8; 6*a(1)" | bc -l<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257<br />
</pre><br />
Any suggestions how we can check them?<br />
<br />
"Randall says so" is probably correct, but insufficient :-) {{unsigned|Mike}}<br />
<br />
:Please use the <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tag for this long numbers.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Testing Wolfram Alpha with <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8 in decimal</pre> and <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000_8 in decimal</pre> both indicate the approximation is only accurate to a limited degree.<br />
<pre><br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal<br />
</pre><br />
<pre><br />
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
The method I used to get the value I put in the text was; I used the following command to generate my approximation:<br />
<pre>echo 'scale=200; obase=8; a(1) * 6' | bc -l | tr -d ' \\\n' ; echo</pre> which outputs<pre><br />
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257<br />
</pre><br />
In 'bc'', a(1) is arctangent of 1 (i.e. 45 degrees, or pi/4); (pi/4 * 6) should be equal to 'pau'. I additionally checked the result using base 2 encoding, and converted each three bit binary value into an octal value. The decimal value of pi (using a(1) * 4) matches with the value of pi to at lease 1000 digits. <br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.86|173.245.54.86]] 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Both Maxima and the GNU Emacs calculator output as the first 1000 octal digits:<br />
<pre><br />
4.5545743763144164432362345144750501224254715730156503147633545270030431677126116550546747570313312523403514716576464333172731124310201076447270723624573721640220437652155065544220143116155742515634462136362517441011077702611156024117447125224176203716336742057353303216470257662666744627534325504334506002730517102547504145216661211250027531716641276765735563341721214013553453654106045245066401141437740626707757305450703606440651111775270032710035521352101513622062164457304326450524432531652666626042202562202550566425643040556365710250031642467447605663240661743600041052212627767073277600402572027316222345356036301002572541750000114422036312122341474267232761775450071652613627306745074150251171507720277250030270442257106542456441722455345340370205646442156334125564557520336340223313312556634450170626417234376702443117031135045420165467426237454754566012204316130023063506430063362203021262434464410604275224606523356702572610031171344411766505734615256121034660773306140032365326415773227551<br />
</pre><br />
This also agrees with the first 220 digits of the previous result (last two digits above are 57 vs 61 here, maybe due to rounding when converting to octal). Again, no 666 within the first 200 digits. The Wolfram result deviates from this at the 18th digit already. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Also e+2 does not contain the substring '666':<br />
<pre>echo "scale=200; obase=8; e(1) + 2" | bc -l</pre><br />
<pre>4.55760521305053551246527734254200471723636166134705407470551551265170233101050620637674622347347044466373713722774330661414353543664033100253542141365517370755272577262541110317650765740633550205306625</pre>--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: A sudden flash of realization: are we getting nerd-sniped here?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.168|108.162.254.168]] 11:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Not unlikely. Have posted this as a trivia. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The claim is clearly about e+2, making Dgbrt's comment closest to the right direction. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
When I take Wolfram alpha's octal(pi*1.5) I get the first 303 (base 10) characters as this:<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022106616734723661726160312772574551366370203115523402704104015532221722772357666<br />
</pre><br />
200(base 10) is 310(base 8) so in the fist '200' characters, 666 shows up 4 times (5 if you count 6666 as twice?) [[User:Xami|Xami]] ([[User talk:Xami|talk]]) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The Wolfram result is what you get when you calculate pi*3/2 in decimal, round to 14 digits after the decimal point and then convert to octal. That is, 4.71238898038469<sub>10</sub> converted to octal. Definitely, this won't give you 200 digits precision. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
:: It lines up too perfectly to be a coincidence. It fits all the requirements: has 666 four times within 200<sub>8</sub> digits, and although 0000, 222, 444, and 7777 appear, they only appear once as a run. You can't double count 7777 as two 777's because it is a single run. If WolframAlpha doesn't give the correct precision, it is likely that Randall made the same error. --[[User:RainbowDash|RainbowDash]] ([[User talk:RainbowDash|talk]]) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Being &tau;, tau, is already being expressed in terms of &pi;, pi, it shows bias. (Though I think Pau would lead to some interesting spherical geometry equations. ~~Drifter {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.214}}<br />
<br />
The bias is worse than that: From the perspective of π, the discussion is about multiples of π, so (3/2)π (that is 3π/2 = 3τ/4) is indeed the compromise between π and 2π. But from the perspective of τ, the discussion is about fractions of τ, so the compromise between τ and τ/2 is τ/(3/2) (that is 2τ/3 = 4π/3). Maybe we can call this ‘ti’ (or ‘tie’, pace 173.245.53.184 below). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Actually, both compromises are wrong. (3/2)π is the arithmetic mean of π and τ, while τ/(3/2) is their harmonic mean. But for geometric ratios (which these are), the appropriate mean is generally the geometric mean (hence the name). You can see how even-handed this is: it's (√2)π = τ/(√2). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
I am in favour of just calling it ti(e). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.184|173.245.53.184]] 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
There are real world uses to both Tau and Pi: Pi is the number that relates to what you get when you measure a circle (the distanced around divided by the distance across); and Tau is get when you draw a circle (the distance around divided by the distance from the center). It is the difference between a mic (aka "micrometer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer ) and a protractor. Tau might have some mathematical advantages in both 2D and 3D in that it has no integer attached to it to find either circumference (2D) or surface area (3D) which makes radians and solid angles simpler. However, that advantage is lost in other dimensions and for the area of a circle. <br />
<br />
Pau, of course, has a 61% chance of going to the dribbling spheroid hall of fame. (ref: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gasolpa01.html ), to which neither Tau nor Pi can hold a candle.~~Remo ( [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.183|199.27.128.183]] 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) )<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
The differences between Wolfram and BC really bothered me since I have used both for precision calculation in the past. The long and short of the matter, having done most of the maths 'long hand', BC is correct, Wolfram is wrong, and sadly, Randall was also wrong. It seems as tho Wolfram is rounding pi*1.5 to around 15 decimals but leaving the 9 repeating before converting to Octal.<br />
<br />
If you take the output of octal(pi * 1.5) and paste it back into the input like so:<br />
<pre><br />
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777_8<br />
</pre><br />
Wolfram gives you back (converted to decimal):<br />
<pre><br />
4.71238898038468999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999<br />
</pre><br />
If you give that same input to BC and ask it to convert to decimal you get:<br />
<pre><br />
4.712388980384689999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999992894219160392567888<br />
</pre><br />
If you do the math long hand out to 55 decimal places, pi * 1.5 equals:<br />
<pre><br />
4.712388980384689857693965074919254326295754099062658731462416...<br />
</pre><br />
Converting that by hand into octal is a bit of a pain, but if you do, at the 18th decimal place where BC and Wolfram differ you end up with the following:<br />
<pre><br />
0.000000000000000183697019872102976583909889841150158731462416... is your remainder to be converted so far<br />
0.000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 = 8 ^ -18<br />
</pre><br />
Wolfram gives the 18th decimal as 5, BC as 3. I can't see 5 going into 18 5 times, but 3 times fits nicely.<br />
--[[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks like Wolfram is simply using floating-point mathematics, presumably the IEEE "double precision". Interestingly, this is not the first time floating-point maths has been a problem; in [[287]], a similar problem caused an unintended trivial solution. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
* On second thoughts, there's no indication that he used Wolfram Alpha; as with [[287]], it simply could have been a Perl script (or Python or pretty much any programming language). [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
How can 200 be octal and then mean 310 decimal???<br />
If 200 were octal, that would be 128 decimal, so we would end up writing 128 decimals.<br />
Of course 310 octal is 200 decimal, but taking 200<sub>8</sub> to mean 310<sub>10</sub> is plain crazy, even if it's the only way to make it fit the "four times 666" constraint!<br />
What am I missing here? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.149|173.245.53.149]] 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This Mathematica code searches for the pattern 666 in the octal expansion of 1.5 pi:<br />
<pre>digits = RealDigits[3*Pi/2, 8, 10000][[1]]; Select[Range[10000 - 2], Take[digits, {#, # + 2}] == {6, 6, 6} &]<br />
{279, 326, 495, 496, 3430, 3728, 4153, 6040, 7031, 7195, 7647, 7732, 8353, 8435, 8436, 8575, 8768, 9008}</pre><br />
These positions start counting with the leading "4" as position 1. It does not occur in the first 200 digits, but occurs 18 times in the first 10,000 digits. Many other digit combinations occur more times in the first 10,000 digits, including "123" (23 times), "222" (21 times), and "555" (26 times). Note that "xkcd" converted to numbers (a=1, b=2, etc.) is 24, 11, 3, 4. The combination 241134 first occurs in 1.5 pi at digit number 250,745. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|talk]]) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wow, this filled up fast. Is it time to remove the Incomplete tag yet? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Please do your adds at the bottom. Otherwise it looks like as the first discussion here and everybody will ignore your comment.<br />
:My answer is: NO. We still have to figure out if Randall is wrong or just using an algorithm nobody does understand right now.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Someone said there's no indication that Randall used Wolfram, and that double-precision IEEE numbers in mostly any language would cause the same error.<br />
This is not true: IEEE double precision numbers (binary64) are stored internally in binary.<br />
Converting them to octal would give at most 18 nonzero significant (octal) digits, and from that point on all additional digits would be zeros (remember that an octal digit is equivalent to three bits).<br />
What Wolfram does is rounding to a decimal number, which is not round in octal.<br />
<br />
I think the previous is an indication that Randall did indeed use Wolfram.<br />
Added to that, he used Wolfram in several what-if's, and in one case he used it so heavily that his IP got temporarily banned from Wolfram.<br />
This leaves little or no doubts in me that Wolfram is the source of Randall's mistake.<br />
<br />
Also, I still would like to know why everybody is interpreting "200 digits" as "200<sub>8</sub> digits" and pretending that's equal to "310<sub>10</sub> digits" instead of "128<sub>10</sub> digits".<br />
<br />
And out of curiosity, what happened with [[287]] and floating point numbers?<br />
The explainxkcd for 287 says nothing about floating point.<br />
<br />
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
* With [[287]], there was only meant to be one solution, the other solution was unintended. It's mentioned in the discussion only, not in the body of the explanation, but there's a link to an interview where he indicates that it was indeed unintentional. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 07:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;What is the period of the wolfram answer?<br />
What is the repeat period of the octal answer with the 666's, (the length of the repetend) i.e. the one that comes from Wolfram, that is converting 4.71238898038469 decimal to octal? And how many 666's are in the full repetend? Oooh - I like that new word - thanks to {{w|repeating decimal}}! [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Dunno, either Randall uses WolframAlpha whithout further checks, so he has to check his sources, or we all are just dumb.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: The period is 4882812500. Yes, what I mean is that it repeats every 4882812500<sub>10</sub> digits. Not sure I want to count the number of 666's in there. Oh, and thanks for the answer about [[287]], I've seen it now. -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.139|173.245.53.139]] 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
I hardly dare to ask now... ;)<br />
*What is an octal expansion? <br />
*This explanation cannot be complete before someone explains what this actually means, to someone who have never herd of octal expansion before (like me) <br />
[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
:You are absolutely right, the incomplete tag is back. It seems only math geeks were working here but it should also be explained for people with less knowledge on math.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:*The wikipedia page for {{w|Octal}} contains a complete explanation. I wrote a plainer one but mine is still very long, so instead of posting it here I uploaded it [http://www.jojonete.com/00/20131121_Octal/ there]. It's very crappily formatted and not thoroughly checked as I don't have time for more at the moment, but I might improve it some other day. Please note that the only reason for not posting it here is its length, and in particular it has nothing to do with copyright issues. I mean, everybody feel free to copy, rewrite, summarize, expand, correct, destroy or do whatever to that text with no attribution, just as if it had been posted here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::The explain for non math people should be much more simple. Randall likes simple English, I like simple Math. Not everything is covered but more people will understand the essentials. While I like all that details many people don't. We still do need an simple Math explain here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I know and I agree, that's why I kept my explanation out of this discussion. My summarizing skills are just not good enough. I used the time I didn't have to reformat my explanation, but that just means it's now a bit longer than it was. I hope someone else will write a much shorter and simple one, as I just seem to be unable to do so. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for a great explanation. I knew about this system but only for integers. However, still need a word on how to get pi in Octal. Until anyone does better a link could be posted for your explanation! [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC) <br />
<br />
::::I added the conversion part to the explanation, it's in the same link. Still way too long to post here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.117|173.245.53.117]] 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note that pau is Catalan for peace, which is a good solution for the pi/tau dispute. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.150|173.245.53.150]] 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Has posted this as a trivia item. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
The trivia that states that e here represents Euler's Constant, and not Euler's Number, seems to be false, is it not? e+2 being ~4.71, not ~2.58. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.11|108.162.237.11]] 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
:I have removed that sentence. It was simply wrong. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
4/3*Pau=Tau, 2/3*Pau=Pi, therefore, It can have a practical use.--[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Dear DgBrt, Please leave the explain as it is. It's "way too complex" for a reason. And the Title Text does in fact need its own header (it's not the only title text to have earned it) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 19:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Hello 199.27.128.65, please post new comments to the bottom. I did revert your revert because you didn't solve any of the remarks by me. And the title text EXPLAIN could be done easy: Explain that comparing e and and pi is nonsense and explain the mistake done by Randall when using Wolfram Alpha. Everything else belongs to the trivia section. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::OK, we need to get the admins in here before we end up in a revert war. We already explained the intentional error from Randall, which is why it's in the explanation and not the trivia section. It CAN'T go in the trivia section because we're EXPLAINING what the error is. You don't put long explanations in the trivia section, you put them in the explanation section. THAT'S why the title text is getting its own header. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::All right, I've submitted a request for the admins to help up. No idea when they'll get here, but it should help smooth this big mess out. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::: [[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests#Potential_Edit_War.3B_we_want_to_resolve_it_before_it_starts Here's what they've said so far]]. What do you think Dgbrt? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::After a week I haven't been here I still can say: calm down. My reasons are still at the incomplete tag — just read it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Let's run through your arguments:<br />
:"non Math people should also be able to understand this." I'd say the other editors did a pretty good job of that; that's the ENTIRE REASON we have an explain. <br />
:"Randalls mistake has to be emphasised" They were. Read the explaination again.<br />
:"everything else here is still too much, it even doesn't belong to a trivia section" But should the explanation not be as complete as possible? You underestimate just how nerdy we can get here.<br />
:I have to side with the mods. I think this explanation was done and you're holding out for an impossible edit that will never come. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I will work on this, but it needs some time because I don't want to remove any of the great findings here. Non math people DON'T read all that number talks. They don't know what wolfram alpha is and that this site is sometimes WRONG. That has to be clearly explained. <br />
::Furthermore this is NOT a nerd sniping by Randall; it's a nerd sniping ON Randall. He did use the result by wolfram alpha by error, he did figure out all that wrong "666" appearances, while he otherwise is very accurate on math.<br />
::My idea is: Extract the essentials for the title text and add a paragraph like "Math details", "Background", or however to the bottom of the explain. In effect non math people would not read this paragraph but they can understand the essentials, other people would be happy about the deeper explain.<br />
::I don't want to delete content, I'm just looking for a better presentation to the public. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::The amount of research Randal does, it's far more likely he made the mistakes on purpose in order to nerd snipe, as opposed to "he just made the mistakes on accident."<br />
:::I agree with you on the wolfram alpha part, though, and I like your idea to summarize the errors before exploring them in full detail<br />
:::Sorry for being so antagonizing before. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
:Just a comment here, as a non-math person, I understood all of this perfectly well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.72|108.162.221.72]] 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
;Tone of "Title text" section<br />
The [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&oldid=66351 current] tone of the title text section is inconsistent with the rest of this site. Where else does this wiki say, "Math is hard! It's not worth your time trying to understand the concepts here."?<br />
<br />
''It consists of some of advanced trigonometry and other assorted college-level concepts that will in all likelihood just bore you if you don't care about them already.'' Really? There is not even any elementary trigonometry involved here, other than the value of PI itself. And since when is advanced trig a college level course? What is involved is the concept of bases other than base 10, specifically octal, but that is also a secondary school subject, both in mathematics and computer science.<br />
<br />
I propose the following outline of the section:<br />
*State that the property given in the title text does not actually hold for 1.5 * PI, but that due to an early rounding error, it might look as if it holds when shown via Wolfram Alpha. Further state that it is not clear if Randall, in relying on Wolfram Alpha, made a mistake, or if he is partaking in nerd sniping.<br />
*Show how close Pau is to e+2.<br />
*Explain octal -- base 8 -- first for integers, then for fractions.<br />
*Present the actual octal expansion and show that the property does not hold.<br />
*Explain why the Wolfram Alpha answer is different.<br />
*Present the Wolfram Alpha answer, and show how the property [almost?] holds with that value.<br />
*Depending on how self-referential we wish to be, explain how it might have been a plausible mistake for Randall to have relied on Wolfram Alpha, but that if it was a case of nerd sniping, then it was highly successful.<br />
*Mention the similarity to the Feynman point.<br />
This wiki is about explanations. We shouldn't bemoan a subject as being more difficult than it is; we should explain. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.43|108.162.219.43]] 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:We should have two different paragraphs here:<br />
:*The standard explain, containing the essentials like shown by 108.162.219.43 just before.<br />
:*A "Deeper into math" one, going into more depth.<br />
:*The "Title text" header is wrong!<br />
:My 2 cents --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
::I tried to fix my old "Title Text" header, what do you think? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.204|199.27.130.204]] 03:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I did my first attempt on a simple explain. Please do not revert this, but I would be happy about any enhancements. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
::::That is actually way better. Sorry for not giving you a chance before. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.204|199.27.130.204]] 05:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:::::Thanks! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;ATM cell size?<br />
<br />
Is it possible that this is also a reference to the compromise ATM cell size? Americans wanted 32 bytes of data per cell, to support DS0 data rates, IIRC. Europeans wanted 64 bytes to support their smallest telecom data rate (I don't remember the designation) and to reduce "cell tax" inefficiency. Neither side would capitulate, so they went with 48 bytes, which is worse than either for both sides. Diplomacy in communications standards at work! One step above "I'll take my ball and go home!" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.41|108.162.218.41]] 21:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is it worth mentioning that while Tau simplifies circumference calculations from 2*pi*r to tau*r, that it complicates area calculations from pi*r^2 to tau/2*r^2? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 16:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:899:_Number_Line&diff=80494Talk:899: Number Line2014-12-09T22:01:04Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div>Where does sqrt(-1) go? [[Special:Contributions/67.78.183.206|67.78.183.206]] 19:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:It goes up (literally above 0). A number line can be extended to a complex plane with sqrt(-1) as the unit of measurement in the vertical direction. Or at least, that's where it actually goes. I don't know where Randall would put it. [[Special:Contributions/75.69.96.225|75.69.96.225]] 01:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm sorry...are you indicating the ACTUAL location for an IMAGINARY number? {{unsigned|74.213.186.41}}<br />
<br />
Yes, that's exactly where it is (up to switching clockwise for counterclockwise). There is nothing strange about providing a location for imaginary or complex numbers, the location described is logical, and the adjective 'imaginary' is an artifact of nomenclature and nothing more.[[Special:Contributions/173.48.140.216|173.48.140.216]] 20:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In fact, complex numbers are nearly more real than real ones! Complex analysis really opened my eyes to how much "stepping out" can help in solving problems. The complex notion of analyticity yields fruit in real analysis. Extensions to hypercomplex numbers are weirder, however. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 20:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Analyticity must be an imaginary word, and therefore would be found one unit directly above any dictionary. [[Special:Contributions/50.203.89.169|50.203.89.169]] 14:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)<br />
:Oh my god, I can't believe how hard I laughed at that. Would an imaginary friend actually be above you then? I'm going to use that sometime. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.61|108.162.219.61]] 21:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is unexplored a map reference? [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note that the digits 5 and 6 do not show up on any of the numbers in the comic, reinforcing the fact that the integers 5 and 6 are unexplored. [[User:Blitzer|Blitzer]] ([[User talk:Blitzer|talk]]) 02:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:So the 5th digit of pi can not be known either? [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 03:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thank God (or someone else, I'm not choosy) that the SCP link here still works. The rest of the site's gone private. {{unsigned ip|108.162.250.223}}<br />
<br />
It appears that Wikipedia had noticed the implications of the title text here. The message now says that it might never be complete, but can be expanded with reliably sourced articles. I'm not 100% sure it's due to Randall's involvement, but I like to think so. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 22:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:450:_The_Sea&diff=77036Talk:450: The Sea2014-10-12T08:07:34Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div>Umm...before changing the page shouldn't there be some discussion here? There was a bunch of other stuff that got deleted. [[Special:Contributions/69.122.106.29|69.122.106.29]] 03:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Justification of "male enhancement" theory<br />
<br />
DGBert wrote that there's no justification for the idea of the first pump being a penis-enlarging pump. What other theory do you have about (a) a pump, that (b) makes someone larger and (c) improves their self-image?<br />
:If you have any hints not only coming from your own brain you are welcome. This wiki is "Explain" and not "Speculate". --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
(Do we have Word Of God about this or many other 'Explanations'? An awful lot of this Wiki is speculation, without it.) Personally, while the first pump could be either kind of pump, the title text asking for ''another'' in order to drain the sea means that the first (regardless of which way one's mind snaps, on reading) was not intended to be a sea-draining pump. Randall also often does something akin to "one-lead-element Markov Chaining", and "how small I am" leading to a penis pump fits his sense of absurdist humour. Even if it isn't initially that, it's still akin to being a {{w|Garden path sentence}} (only more of a disfluent paragraph version) when parsing. All IMO. YMMV. HTH. HAND. <br />
''[[Special:Contributions/178.107.249.215|178.107.249.215]] 13:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)''<br />
<br />
;Totally agree with "male enhancement" explanation<br />
<br />
The previous explanation (last edited by [[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]]) was:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
In this comic, Cueball compares himself to a very large sea and realizes how small he is. The initial implication is that this causes him to be humble and realize his small place on the planet -- a common sentiment expressed in poetry and blogs.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
The punchline "I should get one of those pumps" induces humor by reversing the expectation: as he thinks about how small he is compared to the sea, he starts wanting to buy a pump, presumably take out the sea water so the sea could be smaller and not so much a threat to his self-image anymore. It shows that he really hasn't learned anything and is still egotistical.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<blockquote><br />
The title text creates additional humor by reversing the expectation yet again, by saying that he wanted another pump to drain the sea, meaning that the purpose of the first pump was not to drain the sea. This leads the reader to ponder what possible use the first pump was to have, and how it was going to make him bigger. <br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
This, to me, felt weak, was overly complex, and ignored what seems a painfully obvious point. The number of "male enhancement" products being marketed by junk-mail at the time was a frequent source of humour, and something that anyone with an e-mail account (and a poor junk-mail filter) dealt with on a frequent basis. Ref: [http://www.google.ca/trends/explore?q=penis%20pump#q=penis%20pump%2Cmale%20enhancement&cmpt=q|Google Trends on Male Enhancement]<br />
<br />
Note, the line is: "... one of '''those''' pumps." This wording indicates that Randall is referring to something that he expects the reader to realize is topical. If he meant a generic pump, he would NOT have used the keyword "those". People ignorant of the junk mail of the day, and the function of penis pumps, would understandably not get the joke.<br />
''[[User:MisterSpike|MisterSpike]] ([[User talk:MisterSpike|talk]]) 10:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)''<br />
<br />
;Totally agree with previous explanation. [[User:Undee|Undee]] ([[User talk:Undee|talk]]) <nowiki>12:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)</nowiki><br />
<br />
; A question for Dgbrt<br />
Did you know that in English the sentences ''I'm small'' and ''I'm big'' sometimes mean ''my penis is small''[http://im-small.tumblr.com/] and ''my penis is big''?[http://es.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=big&defid=3086531][http://wtfcontent.com/wtf-2500.htmlhttp://wtfcontent.com/wtf-2500.html] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I seriously take issue with that statement as well - I suggest using "can also mean" rather than "mean" or "sometimes mean" [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;A question to me (Dgbrt)<br />
This explain should be discussed with [[Randall]]. This comic doesn't belong to SEX, most man don't use a "Penis Pump" because it's nonsense. If Randall did joke about this item we would get a better claim on this. This explain still does not cover the meanings by the author. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I was asking because if you didn't know the meaning of "I'm small" then you obviously didn't think about a penis pump until you came here. People who knew in advance the meaning of "I'm small"" immediately thought of a penis pump. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 13:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
First, I agree that without the tagline, the first thought is about the ocean. I am reminded of the Norse myth about Thor being tricked by the giants to "drink the ocean" in what he thought was a beer (or mead or ale) drinking contest. The phrase to drink the ocean does appear in colloquial english (american).<br />
<br />
There are at least two popular cultural allusions here that north american readers would be familiar with. One is the Austin Powers movies. When Austin is unfrozen there is an elaborate scene where they are returning his personal effects and one of them is a swedish penis pump. The scene goes on and on as he tries to deny it. The second thought is an episode from Seinfeld where George goes into the ocean, his bathing trunks fall off and his male member is reduced to the point that his date laughs. The rest of the episode goes includes George trying to convince everyone that he is actually reasonably endowed. His explanation is "shrinkage". I think this second argument might be more compelling if cueball were walking out of the ocean where it is obvious that he is a victim of shrinkage. Without that visual we would have to imagine he is thinking back to a past event. For those readers unfamiliar with the ocean, or male member(s), the effect, I believe is based on cold so would last until core body temperature returned to normal. Your mileage may vary. {{unsigned|Mcjoker|01:13, 19 February 2014}}<br />
<br />
The links that direct to tumblr should be labelled NSFW. I do regularly follow the wiki and a select discussions, even at work during breaks(or while the code compiles). They do carry no warning as of now. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.67|173.245.55.67]] 21:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)BK201<br />
:No good reason to link to a generic porn tumblr, even if it's below-average-penis-size-themed. The Urban Dictionary link, I think, suffices. --[[User:Alex|Alex]] ([[User talk:Alex|talk]]) 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
;Some statements<br />
*Thanks for removing tumblr links.<br />
*This explain is still the worst here, the urbandictionary link doesn't explain a penis relationship as well<br />
*The urbandictionary page links to penis but the hell there a millions of other objects could be small and big<br />
When I'm standing at night alone at a shore of a sea I'm thinking about the vastness of all beyond me, but not about pumping up my penis. Furthermore I'm pretty sure most people all over the world think the same. So, if US or American male citizens have a major problem with their own pee-pee it has to be explained in a much better way. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)<br />
:I came here without thinking about penis pumps. But after reading the explain it was so obvious to me that it is about a penis pump. It would only be a funny comic becuase of this. And Randall use infantile humor all the time. I think the only reason Dgbrt is against this is that he hoped it was one of the beautiful comics that Randall also does from time to time and then also that he did not get the joke himsefl :-) Explain is perfect, although I have now changed layot to explain in the order that you could get the joke before reading title text and after. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 05:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
::See also the discussion page of this penis joke comic: [[532: Piano]] :-) {{unsigned|Kynde}}<br />
<br />
This explanation is ridiculous - I'm quite sure that the "pumps" reference shoes of the same name (just do an image search for pumps) which are high heeled and therefore adressing directly the problem of being too small. No penis needed for the joke IMO. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 08:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1386:_People_are_Stupid&diff=70355Talk:1386: People are Stupid2014-06-25T09:18:30Z<p>141.101.104.17: </p>
<hr />
<div>Isn't that a reference to the Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence? [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.119|103.22.200.119]] 04:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)krayZpaving<br />
<br />
White Hat being burned? This certainly will not end here.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.102.208|141.101.102.208]] 04:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''''Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.''''' This wiki is founded on the very principle that people are stupid. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.223.29|108.162.223.29]] 05:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
This comment is one that makes me scratch my head and wonder... surely Randall is able to see that intelligence is not a relative but rather an absolute thing (if one were to kill the 10% most intelligent people the rest wouldn't get dumber, nor smarter). Surely intelligence is not to be measured in units of the common denominator. Surely it is obvious that 2nd panel is a pure strawman. Sigh...<br />
Oh and btw an IQ of 100 is the median, not the average. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 09:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=556:_Alternative_Energy_Revolution&diff=69392556: Alternative Energy Revolution2014-06-12T08:54:51Z<p>141.101.104.17: /* Explanation */ fixing grammar and wording</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 556<br />
| date = March 16, 2009<br />
| title = Alternative Energy Revolution<br />
| image = alternative_energy_revolution.jpg<br />
| titletext = The moment their arms spun freely in our air, they were doomed -- for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] are looking at modern "{{w|windmills}}" (known as {{w|wind turbines}}) harnessing wind energy into electrical energy. They comment that there's something creepy about the windmills. They allude to the book ''{{w|The War of the Worlds}}'' by {{w|H. G. Wells}}. ( The Jeff Wayne Musical version of {{w|Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds|The War of the Worlds}} has paintings of the martian tripods somewhat like these turbines) and also to "The Tripods" from {{w|John Christopher|John Christopher's}} {{w|The Tripods|tripods trilogy}} a children's series of books about aliens who ride in walking tripods.<br />
<br />
Suddenly the windmills' pylons split into three legs, becoming the tripods suggested.<br />
<br />
They exclaim that {{w|Al Gore}} has doomed us all. He is a former Vice President of the United States, known for his environmental activism and promotion of green energy sources, relevant because wind turbines like the ones here are one of the alternative energy sources he supports.<br />
<br />
In the final frame, the 16th century literary figure {{w|Don Quixote}} arrives ([[Randall|Randall's]] depiction seems to be inspired by {{w|Don Quixote (Picasso)|the drawing}} by {{w|Pablo Picasso}}). In the original story, Don Quixote is a wandering knight of ''very'' questionable sanity who fights windmills, which he believes to be giants. Hence, he is the appropriate person to deal with this threat.<br />
<br />
The title text is another reference to The War of the Worlds: "But there are no bacteria in Mars... when I watched them they were irrevocably doomed... By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers." <br />
<br />
Of course this time we are only saved because we - in spite of having evolved - still produce somewhat insane members of our species.<br />
<br />
Wind turbines also appear in later comics. In [[1119: Undoing]] Randall still seems to dislike them. And in [[1378: Turbine]] the Turbine is also alive and talks with [[Megan]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A field of windmills is silhouetted against dusk sky.]<br />
<br />
:[Cueball and Megan are standing and sitting on the ground overlooking the windmills.]<br />
:Cueball: I'm all for green energy, but those turbines creep me out. They remind me of War of the Worlds, or the Tripod books.<br />
<br />
:Megan: They -are- unnerving.<br />
:Cueball: I can't shake the feeling that at any moment they'll— <br />
:''RUMBLE''<br />
<br />
:[A leg begins to split off one windmill.]<br />
:''crack''<br />
<br />
:[The leg separates from the body of the windmill.]<br />
<br />
:[The new leg lands on the ground.]<br />
:''BOOM''<br />
<br />
:[Another leg begins to split off the other side of the windmill's body.]<br />
:''crack''<br />
<br />
:[The new leg hits the ground, forming a tripod base.]<br />
:''BOOM''<br />
<br />
:[Smoke rises from destroyed buildings as the windmills rampage across the field.]<br />
<br />
:[Cueball and Megan are now standing.]<br />
:Megan: Oh no.<br />
:Cueball: Al Gore, you've doomed us all.<br />
:Megan: It's coming this way!<br />
:Cueball: Run!<br />
<br />
:[One of the enormous tripod windmill feet lands right behind the running couple, sending debris flying.]<br />
:''BOOM''<br />
<br />
:[Cueball and Megan run.]<br />
:Megan: What now?<br />
:Cueball: Someone has to stop them.<br />
:Megan: But who could-<br />
:Voice from next panel: Stand aside!<br />
<br />
:[Don Quixote sits mounted at the top of a hill, lance at the ready.]<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*The windmills also look like the fictional plants {{w|Triffid}}s from {{w|John Wyndham}}'s book "{{w|The Day of the Triffids}}" or the 1962 {{w|The Day of the Triffids (film)|film version}}.<br />
<br />
*There is a fan-created [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRuqPKcxMZY animation of this comic.]<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Windmills]]</div>141.101.104.17https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1378:_Turbine&diff=693911378: Turbine2014-06-12T08:50:02Z<p>141.101.104.17: /* Explanation */ changing wording to specify that this is a colloquial expression</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 1378<br />
| date = June 6, 2014<br />
| title = Turbine<br />
| image = turbine.png<br />
| titletext = Ok, plan B: Fly a kite into the blades, with a rock in a sling dangling below it, and create the world's largest trebuchet.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
[[Megan]] is speaking to a {{w|wind turbine}} which in real life would have no ability to respond to her, so this is an example of {{w|anthropomorphism}} — attributing the qualities of human beings to animals or objects.<br />
<br />
A wind turbine is a mechanical device that generates power via the mechanical {{w|Work (physics)|work}} produced from the turning of its blades by the wind, and converts it into electricity. A wind turbine is visually very similar to a {{w|mechanical fan|fan}}, whose fan blades spin via electrical or other power in order to move air and create wind. In this way, a fan is essentially the opposite of a wind turbine.<br />
<br />
The punchline of this comic is a {{w|pun}} which plays on a second meaning of the word "{{w|Fan (person)|fan}}" as a colloquial short form for "fanatic" — someone who is a supporter of something (e.g. a football team, a band, an idea etc.)<br />
<br />
Megan suggests that the wind turbine blows air at her so that she can use a {{w|kite}} to lift off the ground. When Megan asks what the turbine thinks of the idea, the turbine's response is both — literal because it's a turbine and not a huge fan, a colloquial way of saying that it ''doesn't like'' this idea.<br />
<br />
The title text contains an alternative suggestion of building a makeshift {{w|trebuchet}}, a type of catapult. The idea is that when the kite's string gets tangled in the turbine's blades, the kite will be spun around and it will fling the attached rock. The setup seems similar to a {{w|Trebuchet#Traction_trebuchet|traction trebuchet}}, rather than the more common counterweight trebuchet.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan is talking to a wind turbine.]<br />
:Megan: I'll hold up a big kite, and you blow air at me until I lift off!<br />
:Megan: What do you think of that idea?<br />
:Wind turbine: I'm not a huge fan.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
*Wind turbines have been used in earlier comics: <br />
*In [[556: Alternative Energy Revolution]] the wind turbines are also alive, but somewhat more dangerous than just being ironic. <br />
*In [[1119: Undoing]], Cueball highlights the differences between a wind turbine and a fan.<br />
<br />
*Trebuchets has been the subject of the comics [[382: Trebuchet]] and [[1160: Drop Those Pounds]], and they were also part of the story in [[1190: Time]].<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Trebuchet]]<br />
[[Category:Windmills]]</div>141.101.104.17