Talk:24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

I have been told during editing comic 287 that the trivia should be below the transcript. But can see here that this is not always the case. As I have stated in the talk on that comic it would make so much more sense to have the interesting trivia above the (in most cases) uninteresting transcript. I only look into the last if I cannot easily read the text. But the trivia info is always interesting to me. And often the transcript is long enough that I would not notice a trivia entry below. I may now know better, but new users may overlook interesting bits of info. If there is a "rule" I would suggest it was changed to the format that this comic had when I wrote this entry. Trivia before transcript. (Written here only because it is todays Incomplete Explanation of the Day). Kynde (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The trivia section doesn't belong to any explanation. Like other wikis do, it's at the bottom of the page. If there is important content belonging to the explain section it has to be moved. Trivia means triviality and contains only some sidesteps to some similar issues or even more. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree but the trivia header makes that clear. The transcript is not a normal part of wikis so could have been at the bottom. That is just my opinion. I will not move any trivia sections! And I can see you have corrected the error here so the trivia is now at the bottom. Kynde (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
This layout isn't an invention by me. But I think that it's correct to show some remarks, but if it doesn't explain the comic it belongs to a special section at the bottom. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This comic is on the "incomplete explanation of the day" like twice a week these days. Is everyone just like me and literally helpless? Because we didn't have this problem when the two Online Communities were undergoing rewrites 18:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's sill to require a 'complete' explanation of a somewhat abstract comic. Any 'explanation' is only someone's interpretation. ~~Bob 14:34, 13 May 2014
There are so many elements of this to be explained. I hope there is some hope of recovering some lost details of the NSA lecture. What a masterpiece of using the medium for abstract expression. So, I'm so thankful for a loose interpretation for 'incomplete explanation of the day' that brought the strip back to my attention. Eternal golden booger (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I had a sudden and strong urge to s/Godel/Gödel/g when I loaded this page. Maybe I'll leave editing it to someone less tired than I am. lcarsos_a (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the zooming in section is a reference to Powers of Ten ( ) 09:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The last six blocks remind me of an illustration in the actual book by Hofstadter, it is a graphic -very in the xkcd way- where axioms, theorems and unreachable truths in a system are represented. It can be seen here. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Removed this comment from the 'Interpretations' section - preserving it here:

While I feel this article can't be improved with rational arguments, I believe a standalone section with different hypothesis is a great way to tackle the problem. If the goal here is not to go into subjective interpretations of the comic, then I think it's better tagged as closed, because you obviously can't go any further by ignoring the symbols. (You may want to edit meta-comments out, but I wanted to make my point first). Please add to or adapt my interpretation to whatever suits you or the community here. It would be very nice if we could have a subjective section for people to explain what they interpreted out of the strips. 14:47, 6 May 2014‎ 10:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a comment but not an explanation.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)