explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1162: Log Scale

2015-08-10T10:44:36Z

141.101.104.186:

The fictional notation MAY BE a parody of Knuth's up-arrow notation - and uranium MAY BE an effective energy source. By the way, labeling the energy sources just with material name is insufficient: how good energy source is hydrogen? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:It has a calorific value of about 150 kJ/gm(much higher when compared to coal,etc.) but is too explosive[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 14:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:That is for burning it I assume? But what if you use it as fuel in a fusion reactor? Or an H-Bomb for that matter?
The calorie standard is defined by burning. So comparison doesn't fit with the graph as written. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
:is it really a parody? (well, probably arrow notation grows much more, here there is just a log log log etc) --[[User:.mau,|.mau.]] ([[User talk:.mau,|talk]]) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It's true that uranium has an extremely high energy density, which is of great importance for mobile power plants; however, nuclear fission has a lot of safety issues, especially for mobile power, which is why it is used only for stationary power plants and large military vessels, such as aircraft carriers and subs.

Hydrogen is pretty good when highly compressed so as to get high energy volume density as well, but that leads to problems too. Also, hydrogen leaks more easily than almost anything else. That is especially a problem for an extremely flammable gas. On the plus side for hydrogen, nothing burns more cleanly.

:"The log scale can also be abused to make data look more uniform than it really is, so on a log scale sugar and other materials would look largely equal energy density when they clearly are not."
I think this is missing the point, which I take to be that displaying the data on a log scale would understate the vast difference between ''uranium'' and the hydrocarbons/carbohydrates:
E/m log(E/m)
sugar 19 1.3 *
coal 24 1.4 *
fat 39 1.6 **
gas 46 1.7 **
uranium 76e6 7.9 ****.***
Uranium is clearly larger than the others, but only by a factor of 4, so the real magnitude of the difference may not be appreciated.
With the stack of paper, he's proposing a way to show linear values for the data without having the uranium column simply shooting off the top of the page, with an arrow and the number. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 17:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
: or, he could just print at a scale that allows 76,000,000 to fit on the page, with the other values shown as near-infinitesimally thin lines. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 18:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A googolplex in Knuth's paper stack notation (based upon 3818 chr per page, and 25,824 pages to fill up a typical 8ft tall room), would be:
96.41816408 with a 2 pinned on it.

The algorithim is:

KnuthPaperStack(N):

y = log10(N)/3818

If y >= 25824
Z = Z + 1
z = KnuthPaperStack(y)
Return z,Z
Else
Return y,Z
End if

--[[User:Markozeta|Markozeta]] ([[User talk:Markozeta|talk]]) 15:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the name "Knuth paper-stack notation" sounds like "'Nuff paper-stack notation", meaning that it is a notation in which you need "enough paper" to stack up.

--[[User:NiccoloM|NiccoloM]] ([[User talk:NiccoloM|talk]]) 00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a pun on Log which is itself an energy source as well as being the source of any reams of paper used to record values.
[[Special:Contributions/192.11.175.219|192.11.175.219]] 06:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one not seeing the glaring mistake on the comic? First thing I thought was "that stack of paper is not high enough!". Please someone double check my math: If the height has to be 6.6e6cm (stated above) at 29.7 cm each A4 (vertical), that would mean 222,222 sheets of paper one on top of another. Each stack of 100 pages is aprox 1cm high. That would represent the stack to be 2222cm high, ergo 22m, roughly a 7 story building. Unless there is the equivalent of 6 stories in the waving paper, or the length of the folding 7x that of an A4, or the stick figure is 7 times closer to the camera than the stack of paper is... '''THE HEIGHT OF THE PILE IS OH SO WRONG'''!!!!!! Please prove me wrong!

[[Special:Contributions/87.238.84.65|87.238.84.65]] 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Guest, 2nd time posting :)

Assumption #1) the graph is drawn on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of ordinary paper in landscape orientation.

Assumption #2) the graph is drawn in normal (linear) scale.

Assumption #3) Cueball is 6 feet tall.

Trusting MSPaint with the conversions, I read the first four bars to have about 5 units (megajoules per kg) per pixel. 76 million units divided by 5 units per pixel is a 15.2 million pixel tall bar.

Looking again to MSPaint, I read the 8.5" dimension of the paper to be about 193 pixels. 15.2 million pixels of graph bar divided by 193 pixels per page is 78756 pages.

Looking above, I read that 100 pages is 1cm, so our stack is going to be 787.56cm tall.

On this side of the pond, that's 310 inches, or about 25 feet.

So, the stack Cueball is looking at is too short to house an accurately long enough bar....

...IF the stack's footprint's longer dimension is only 8.5 inches. While the original graph paper appears to be 8.5x11, the ribbon of paper continuing the bar does not appear to be segmented. Again looking at MSPaint, it would seem the ribbon is about 4.75" wide. The stack is clearly much longer than it is wide. If the stack is 30" long and 4.75" wide, the stack would be whittled down to just over 6 feet tall.

So, making a gang load of assumptions, and scaling from an drawn image, it's reasonable to say the stack in the image could be accurate enough.

The explanation's assumption above that the gasoline bar is 4cm tall makes the piece of paper 96.5cm (38") tall, and that's just not practical. Using the scale I've based my statements on makes the gasoline bar just about 9mm.

-psychoboy[[Special:Contributions/70.164.66.64|70.164.66.64]] 19:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the energy density of gasoline if it undergoes nuclear fusion? {{unsigned ip|173.245.48.91}}

This is similar to the iterated logarithm function, right? --[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.192|199.27.128.192]] 21:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually had to present this chart when I was ten years old, but I needed to use a split level to save paper due to the theme of environmentalism.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.186|141.101.104.186]]

Talk:195: Map of the Internet

2015-07-27T08:20:27Z

141.101.104.186:

Why am I in various registrars?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.186|141.101.104.186]]

Talk:195: Map of the Internet

2015-07-27T08:17:31Z

141.101.104.186: Created page with "Why am I in unused Europe?~~~"

Why am I in unused Europe?[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.186|141.101.104.186]]

1529: Bracket

2015-05-25T11:38:10Z

141.101.104.186: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1529
| date = May 25, 2015
| title = Bracket
| image = bracket.png
| titletext = I'm staring at the "doctor" section, and I can't help but feel like I've forgotten someone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|New comic}}
A {{w|Bracket (tournament)|Tournament bracket}} shows the planned series of games in a tournament. In this comic Randall has shown a plan for a tournament between a wide range of cultural icons, both real and fictional, based mostly on similarities in their names. Various internet groups have speculated on who would win in a fight between characters from different films. It may be relevant that the film {{w|Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice}} is soon to be released.

The [[title text]] is likely a reference to {{w|Dr. Dre}}, particularly as a reference to his 2001 song "{{w|Forgot About Dre}}". Additionally, the title text could be talking about Mr. Spock's friend {{w|Leonard McCoy}} or simply be a reference to the large number of pop culture references that include the word "Doctor" to include {{w|Julius Erving|Dr. J}}, {{w|Dr Pepper}}, and {{w|Doctor Doom}}, among others. Another possibility is that the [[title text]] is supposed to make the readers ask themselves "{{w|Doctor who}}?" then realize that {{w|The Doctor} is already listed, still making them feel they forgot someone.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript}}

:{{w|Louis Armstrong}}
:{{w|Neil Armstrong}}
:{{w|Lance Armstrong}}
:{{w|Stretch Armstrong}}

:{{w|Jeff Gordan}}
:{{w|Jeff Bridges}}

:{{w|Jeff Daniels}}
:{{w|Jack Daniels}}

:{{w|Orson Welles}}
:{{w|H.G. Wells}}

:{{w|Geroge Orwell}}
:{{w|Wells Fargo}}

:{{w|Kurt Russell}}
:{{w|Russell Brand}}
:{{w|Russell Crowe}}
:{{w|Russell Simmons}}

:{{w|Richard Simmons}}
:{{w|Gene Simmons}}

:{{w|Gene Hackman}}
:{{w|Hugh Jackman}}
:{{w|Alan Rickman}}

:{{w|Alan Parsons}}
:{{w|Alan Partridge}}

:{{w|Jenny McCarthy}}
:{{w|Joseph McCarthy}}
:{{w|Eugene McCarthy}}
:{{w|Eugene V. Debs}}

:{{w|Gene Wilder}}
:{{w|Olivia Wilde}}
:{{w|Oscar Wilde}}

:{{w|Oscar De La Renta}}
:{{w|Oscar De La Hoya}}

:{{w|Jack Nicklaus}}
:{{w|Jack Nicholson}}

:{{w|Phil Mickelson}}
:{{w|Nicholas Nickelby}}

:{{w|Ryan Adams}}
:{{w|Bryan Adams}}

:{{w|Chubby Checker}}
:{{w|Fats Domino}}

:{{w|Colin Firth}}
:{{w|Colin Farrell}}

:{{w|Will Ferrell}}
:{{w|The Farrelly Brothers}}

:{{w|Joseph Gordon-Levitt}}
:{{w|Jennifer Love Hewitt}}

:{{w|Danny Glover}}
:{{w|Donald Glover}}

:{{w|Donnie Wahlberg}}
:{{w|Mark Wahlberg}}

:{{w|Mark Ruffalo}}
:{{w|Mark Shuttleworth}}

:{{w|Philip Pullman}}
:{{w|Bill Pullman}}
:{{w|Bill Paxton}}

:{{w|Bill Murray}}
:{{w|Dan Aykroyd}}

:{{w|Ginger Rogers}}
:{{w|Mister/Fred Astaire/Rogers}}

:{{w|Mister Spock}}
:{{w|Doctor Spock}}
:{{w|Doctor Octopus}}

:{{w|Doctor Manhatten}}
:{{w|Doctor Strangelove}}
:{{w|Doctor Strange}}

:{{w|Dr. No}}
:{{w|The Doctor}}
:{{w|Cory Doctorow}}

:{{w|Jerry Lee Lewis}}
:{{w|Jerry Lewis}}

:{{w|Jenny Lewis}}
:{{w|Xeni Jardin}}

:{{w|Chris Evans}}
:{{w|Chris Hemsworth}}

:{{w|Chris Pine}}
:{{w|Chris Pratt}}

:{{w|Shallots}}
:{{w|Scallops}}
:{{w|Scallions}}

:{{w|Siouxie Sioux}}
:{{w|Suzanne Vega}}

:{{w|Tom Arnold}}
:{{w|Arnold Palmer}}
:{{w|Amanda Palmer}}

:{{w|Wes Craven}}
:{{w|Wes Anderson}}

:{{w|Paul Thomas Anderson}}
:{{w|Poul Anderson}}

:{{w|Sir Walter Scott}}
:{{w|Sir Walter Raleigh}}

:{{w|Sir Francis Drake}}
:{{w|Frank Drake}}

:{{w|Van Halen}}
:{{w|Van Morrison}}
:{{w|Van Wilder}}

:{{w|Robert Van Winkle}}
:{{w|Rip Van Winkle}}

:{{w|Rip Torn}}
:{{w|Natalie Imbruglia}}

:{{w|The Body Shop}}
:{{w|Bath and Body Works}}

:{{w|Bed Bath and Beyond}}
:{{w|Beyond Thunderdome}}

:{{w|Beyoncé}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]