Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
|| This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Diagram is not analysed at all - does it match the stated problem?|
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.
There is an intricate kind of strategy and logical thinking required for going out with friends. As the third panel illustrates, there are three people who have yet to get to the bar that these four are at already. That whole group, after having imbibed will be splitting up, some going to a dinner party and others going to a non-descript kind of party. After dinner, everyone is moving on to the other party, and from there people are going to head home, or off to the bar. The enormous complexities of planning who car pools with whom, from where to where, and when make an excellent logic puzzle.
Speaking of logic puzzles, Randall alludes to the classic logic puzzle, in the last panel with the man with the goat saying he can't be in the car with the wolf. In terms of xkcd, Randall brings this up again in 1134: Logic Boat.
- [Four people are outside a bar.]
- Man #1: Wait, who's driving?
- Man #2: Why?
- Man #2: Tom, right?
- Man #1: Yes, but we have to leave in two groups. One of which will need at least two drivers.
- [There is a complicated flowchart with arrows between a group of people and 3 locations, labeled 'bar', 'dinner', and 'party'. Lines point from the group of people to the bar, then to the party or dinner, then from dinner to the party and vice versa, as well as leaving the panel or entering the panel in several other directions.]
- Someone has to get Paul, and Julia and Emily have to leave by 10:00.
- The logistics of who can get drunk are nontrivial.
- [The third man has an animal on a string behind him, which was previously not visible.]
- Man #3: Yeah, and I can't ride in a car with the wolf because he'll eat my goat.
- Man #1: Dammit, guys.
add a comment! ⋅ refresh comments!
I think I read a reference to the goat/wolf puzzle in an older comic. 18.104.22.168 18:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Why no explanation of the third panel? Is it because it doesn't make sense? That seems unlike Randall, so I'll have a go.
Proposed Order of Events:
- On the diagram, we see three figures entering the bar, and three lines entering dinner (probably Paul, and Emily and Julie). That makes six people altogether.
- Of the three at the bar, two go to dinner and one goes straight to the party
- All five people leave the dinner and go to the party, joining the sixth.
- Two of the six leave the party together (Julie and Emily at 10pm)
- One of the six leaves the party and goes back to the dinner venue, and from there goes home.
- One of the six leaves the party and goes back to the bar
- The last two leave the party and on their way home, appear to join up with the one who went back to the bar
Because there are no times or identities assigned to the paths, other interpretations are possible.
- The diagram as a whole has six entries and six exits, as does each venue. There are definitely six people who all enter from the outside, and eventually leave.
- Why are there four people visible in the first panel, but only three people start at the bar? That part makes no sense. To match the diagram to the comic, we have to pretend that there are only three people in the first panel.
- Who is Tom? He must be one of the people visible in the first panel, even though he is spoken about as though he wasn't there.
Ignoring the goat for now, how many drivers do we need?
- Most cars can take five people at a pinch, so sheer numbers don't seem to be the issue.
- You need two drivers (and two cars) if people were leaving at different times, or heading in entirely different directions.
- Presumably, Julie and Emily arrive in their own car and also leave in it. Ignore them for now..
- Someone drives back from the party to the dinner, and then home. This must be one of the people from the first panel, and they must have their own car.
- There are only three people at the bar, Tom, Megan and (I'll say) David. They each have their own car.
- David drives to the party. Tom and Megan drive separately to the dinner, one of them collecting Paul on the way.
- Tom and Megan drive from the dinner to the party; Paul rides with one of them.
- Megan later drives back to the dinner venue, then home.
- Paul later drives Tom's car back to the bar, and proceeds to get drunk.
- David drives Tom a ride to the bar, to collect his car and drive Paul home.
Note that this scenario implies that everybody who is initially at the bar has to be a designated driver.
And I have still not considered the goat.
Any other interpretations would be welcome! I am not really satisfied with this but got tired of thinking about it.22.214.171.124 18:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- tl;dr or Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Please calm down just to the essentials. And please try to keep an explain just straight forward. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
<sigh> everyone forgets the cabbage... Brettpeirce (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- For those unfamiliar, the goat/wolf reference is an old logic puzzle. You have a goat, wolf and head of cabbage. Using a rowboat, how can you get them all safely across a lake? Sometimes the assumptions are given: Goat eats cabbage, Wolf eats goat. Sometimes only 1 item at a time in rowboat, sometimes two. Solve. (Goat, empty, ...)
- BTW, I think the diagram description above is ok, shows how lots of interpretations possible. If it is inaccurate, well, has the artist already been to the bar? Arranging outings with friends, sometimes it's just a hassle, eh? And people will try to solve problems with the tools they know, hence a flow-diagram from the head XKCD geek. Just needs a state table with optimizations to make it complete! (-: 126.96.36.199
18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)