explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2313: Wrong Times Table

2020-06-01T21:28:58Z

141.101.69.135: A possible interpretation

Such an illogical table. Smaller numbers multiply to larger answers than larger numbers? Even numbers multiply to odd numbers?! How?!?! What sort of illiterate alien declared this to be the multiplication table?! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is easily one of the worst XKCD comics, period. Not funny, nor clever. Just seems like noise. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.183|172.69.68.183]] 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I suspect Randall may have just been feeling random, perhaps after several months of mostly Coronavirus-related comics. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::That's fair, I'm being a bit harsh, but this just comes across as exceptionally meaningless and contrived, so much so that I felt the need to come here and comment immediately for the first time ever [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.56|172.69.71.56]] 21:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I relate to certain mathematical facts not sounding right, like how 54 intuitively feels like it's divisible by 4. Nonsensical, but makes sense anyway. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.233|162.158.62.233]] 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like the multiplication equivalent of looking at a word and thinking it is spelled incorrectly. Sometimes I look at a simple word like "fish" and think: "That can't be right." Sometimes multiplication can feel that way, particularly 7's because those were tricky for some reason. The alt text confirms fishiness with 7's [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.173|108.162.246.173]] 21:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Is it weird that I ''don't'' get this? I have this sense of "that is obviously wrong" when it comes to multiplication of small numbers like these, even with sevens and eights. If I read that 7 * 8 = 54, my brain screams "NOOOOOOOOO IT IS 56 YOU IDIOT!". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's lucky for you! Careless errors [of all types] can be annoying, and sometimes difficult to locate... Some of us have ingrained this information better than others. (This comic seems less like a joke and more sharing a hindrance Randall suffers from when doing arithmetic. And speaking personally, I can certainly relate to that.)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.50|162.158.78.50]] 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, 2,2 that's actually 2^3=8. 2,3 is addition instead of multiplication. 1,2 is division instead of multiplication. 1,1 is subtraction. 10,10 seems to be a visual gag, though most of the 10s row is either multiplication by 11 or 12... There's some logic to some of these, but it's different for each row, column, or cell. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.167|162.158.74.167]] 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yeah, there is something going on. It looks like a lot of it is remembering the correct answer to a different problem. By my count 55 squares are the correct answer to a square next to it and 31 have a correct answer for somewhere else on the grid. Also, 2*2, 4*4 and 5*5 are double the correct answer.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.76|108.162.245.76]] 21:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's almost disappointing that he didn't hide one or two asymmetries in there just to throw us off! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I get the idea that this is the sort of table you'd get if you tried to train an Adversarial AI from scratch to determine x*y purely by stocastic guessing and comparing to a co-evolving 'scorer' that also starts off naively but supports each answer according to the 'rightness' it thinks it has ''except'' for the real answer which is always hard-coded to be down-scored. (Also noting that DA reportedly came by his choice of 42 by asking people which numbers were 'funnier' than others, which can be said to be a similar kind of process but without the arrayed "original multiplication" element.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.179|162.158.158.179]] 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who often confuses 7*8 as 54, I found the alt text very humorous. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.118|172.69.34.118]] 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that 6*9 isn't equal to 42. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 23:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is just a collection of equations with the wrong answers. I'm not sure who finds this funny. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.96|108.162.219.96]] 00:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1210:_I%27m_So_Random[[User:Overlord of oddities|Overlord of oddities]] ([[User talk:Overlord of oddities|talk]]) 01:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have asked [https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/205425/67157 a Code Golf Stack Exchange question] with the goal of producing the shortest program that computes this function. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 02:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @Aaron I had a similar thought, but was going to settle for the generator function for the main diagonal. If we can come up with one, we should submit it to https://oeis.org/ [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 13:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that 17 does not show up in any product cell, seeing as I've known since at least 1970 that 17 is the world's most random number. <-- a fact proved for a limited case here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JPSJL7Kvus [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 13:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I too was unimpressed with this... unitl I got to the alt text. I'm in my sixties now, and for some reason, 8*7 has ALWAYS been difficult for me. I find myself always doube-checking to make sure I did it right. And 6*7 gave me problems too, but I got over that a few decades ago. I wonder what it is about those that gave us trouble. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.75|162.158.62.75]] 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that the table was constructed rationally, but intuitively by Randall. He took the two factors (in both permutations) and thought, which resulting number he felt best about. It is more like a psychological experiment than a table constructed with a system or code in mind. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.193|162.158.89.193]] 16:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who reads the author's intention slightly differently? I don't think that he intended that these values feel more correct than the real multiplication table. Rather, I thought he meant that from all possible ''wrong'' values, these feel ''most'' correct to him. In this way, I at least could sympathise with many values given here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.216|162.158.238.216]] 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:Agreed--he doesn't feel that the answers are incorrect, but rather, if he were given the problem on a test, "True or False: One times two equals one half.", he'd have to think for a minute. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.50|162.158.78.50]] 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::I just edited that (first) bit, myself, before seeing your comments. I hope this version is better for you (might need further editing later in the paragraph, but stil considering this). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.201|162.158.158.201]] 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether I am reading too much into this, but couldn't it be an allusion to all contemporary anti-science and anti-rational movements? We hear a lot of times from this kind of people that they do not need big professors to tell them what is true, because they now what "feels right" to them. What feels right to them may be just as wrong as this multiplication table, but that does not stop them to keep believing it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.135|141.101.69.135]] 21:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2313: Wrong Times Table

2020-06-01T21:26:44Z

141.101.69.135:

I don't know whether I am reading too much into this, but couldn't it be an allusion to all contemporary anti-science and anti-rational movements? We hear a lot of times from this kind of people that they do not need big professors to tell them what is true, because they now what "feels right" to them. What feels right to them may be just as wrong as this multiplication table, but that does not stop them to keep believing it.

Such an illogical table. Smaller numbers multiply to larger answers than larger numbers? Even numbers multiply to odd numbers?! How?!?! What sort of illiterate alien declared this to be the multiplication table?! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is easily one of the worst XKCD comics, period. Not funny, nor clever. Just seems like noise. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.183|172.69.68.183]] 20:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I suspect Randall may have just been feeling random, perhaps after several months of mostly Coronavirus-related comics. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::That's fair, I'm being a bit harsh, but this just comes across as exceptionally meaningless and contrived, so much so that I felt the need to come here and comment immediately for the first time ever [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.56|172.69.71.56]] 21:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I relate to certain mathematical facts not sounding right, like how 54 intuitively feels like it's divisible by 4. Nonsensical, but makes sense anyway. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.233|162.158.62.233]] 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This seems like the multiplication equivalent of looking at a word and thinking it is spelled incorrectly. Sometimes I look at a simple word like "fish" and think: "That can't be right." Sometimes multiplication can feel that way, particularly 7's because those were tricky for some reason. The alt text confirms fishiness with 7's [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.173|108.162.246.173]] 21:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Is it weird that I ''don't'' get this? I have this sense of "that is obviously wrong" when it comes to multiplication of small numbers like these, even with sevens and eights. If I read that 7 * 8 = 54, my brain screams "NOOOOOOOOO IT IS 56 YOU IDIOT!". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.101|108.162.221.101]] 21:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::It's lucky for you! Careless errors [of all types] can be annoying, and sometimes difficult to locate... Some of us have ingrained this information better than others. (This comic seems less like a joke and more sharing a hindrance Randall suffers from when doing arithmetic. And speaking personally, I can certainly relate to that.)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.50|162.158.78.50]] 18:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, 2,2 that's actually 2^3=8. 2,3 is addition instead of multiplication. 1,2 is division instead of multiplication. 1,1 is subtraction. 10,10 seems to be a visual gag, though most of the 10s row is either multiplication by 11 or 12... There's some logic to some of these, but it's different for each row, column, or cell. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.167|162.158.74.167]] 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Yeah, there is something going on. It looks like a lot of it is remembering the correct answer to a different problem. By my count 55 squares are the correct answer to a square next to it and 31 have a correct answer for somewhere else on the grid. Also, 2*2, 4*4 and 5*5 are double the correct answer.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.76|108.162.245.76]] 21:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's almost disappointing that he didn't hide one or two asymmetries in there just to throw us off! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 22:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I get the idea that this is the sort of table you'd get if you tried to train an Adversarial AI from scratch to determine x*y purely by stocastic guessing and comparing to a co-evolving 'scorer' that also starts off naively but supports each answer according to the 'rightness' it thinks it has ''except'' for the real answer which is always hard-coded to be down-scored. (Also noting that DA reportedly came by his choice of 42 by asking people which numbers were 'funnier' than others, which can be said to be a similar kind of process but without the arrayed "original multiplication" element.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.179|162.158.158.179]] 22:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone who often confuses 7*8 as 54, I found the alt text very humorous. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.118|172.69.34.118]] 22:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that 6*9 isn't equal to 42. [[User:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|Probably not Douglas Hofstadter]] ([[User talk:Probably not Douglas Hofstadter|talk]]) 23:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is just a collection of equations with the wrong answers. I'm not sure who finds this funny. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.96|108.162.219.96]] 00:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1210:_I%27m_So_Random[[User:Overlord of oddities|Overlord of oddities]] ([[User talk:Overlord of oddities|talk]]) 01:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I have asked [https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/205425/67157 a Code Golf Stack Exchange question] with the goal of producing the shortest program that computes this function. [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 02:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC) @Aaron I had a similar thought, but was going to settle for the generator function for the main diagonal. If we can come up with one, we should submit it to https://oeis.org/ [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 13:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that 17 does not show up in any product cell, seeing as I've known since at least 1970 that 17 is the world's most random number. <-- a fact proved for a limited case here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JPSJL7Kvus [[User:Cellocgw|Cellocgw]] ([[User talk:Cellocgw|talk]]) 13:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I too was unimpressed with this... unitl I got to the alt text. I'm in my sixties now, and for some reason, 8*7 has ALWAYS been difficult for me. I find myself always doube-checking to make sure I did it right. And 6*7 gave me problems too, but I got over that a few decades ago. I wonder what it is about those that gave us trouble. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.75|162.158.62.75]] 14:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that the table was constructed rationally, but intuitively by Randall. He took the two factors (in both permutations) and thought, which resulting number he felt best about. It is more like a psychological experiment than a table constructed with a system or code in mind. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.193|162.158.89.193]] 16:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who reads the author's intention slightly differently? I don't think that he intended that these values feel more correct than the real multiplication table. Rather, I thought he meant that from all possible ''wrong'' values, these feel ''most'' correct to him. In this way, I at least could sympathise with many values given here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.216|162.158.238.216]] 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:Agreed--he doesn't feel that the answers are incorrect, but rather, if he were given the problem on a test, "True or False: One times two equals one half.", he'd have to think for a minute. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.50|162.158.78.50]] 18:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::I just edited that (first) bit, myself, before seeing your comments. I hope this version is better for you (might need further editing later in the paragraph, but stil considering this). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.201|162.158.158.201]] 19:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2144: Adjusting a Chair

2019-05-11T07:28:12Z

141.101.69.135:

I believe "degrees of freedom" is referring to the how the term is used in scientific theories, where degrees of freedom refers to how many variables exist in the theory to "tune" its predictions. A theory with many degrees of freedom is less constrained in what it can predict, like with the Big Bang theory of cosmology. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 15:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
:I stand by my definition on mechanical degrees of freedom, aka axes of rotation/extension/motion. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
::That's definitely the correct meaning for this. See {{w|Degrees of freedom (mechanics)}} and {{w|Six degrees of freedom}}. And maybe specifically number of degrees of freedom on robotic arms (which tends to be number between 3 and 14). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

This feels like it would have been a good concept for an April Fools comic if it were made to be interactive [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.13|108.162.242.13]] 16:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

So, English question, somebody corrected the explanation on this. Is it "maneuver" or "manoeuvre"? I think it's a matter of British or American English, and I'm not sure what the wiki prefers. [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 19:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly this chair is one of the products that [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Beret_Guy's_Business Beret Guy's Business] sells. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.195|162.158.62.195]] 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
:I was more surprised it was not [[Beret Guy]] producing this last chair. It would have been something that was possible for him to do with any old office chair. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the "Two hours later" caption a [https://www.google.com/search?q=two+hours+later+spongebob+meme reference] to SpongeBob?
: I'd say these type of time passing descriptions are more or less the same age as comic books. I didn't even know this is a meme, now... Example in the fourth panel at 2:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSKp8cjpEUo ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
: Yeah, I'd say it's not any more a reference to spongebob than to every other play, comic book, movie, tv series, or novel that skips over a time period in that way. [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 20:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
::Yes that is not a specific reference. It is a reference to time passing... As old as time itself ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
:::Just checked and Randall already used it back in [[309: Shopping Teams]] in 2007. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

But can it do [https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CookedThisChicken-mobile.jpg this]? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.186.22|172.69.186.22]] 13:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The chair in the last panel looks like something a GAN (generative adversarial neural network) would come up with. It has lots of very chair-ish parts, so it must be a chair, right? [[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 15:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The chair in the last panel also looks like one large chair made up of normal-ish size chair parts. [[User:Tait marconi|Tait marconi]] ([[User talk:Tait marconi|talk]]) 19:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
:Hmm yes as seen from the front maybe? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There's those school lunch tables - Google will show you - that fold away, and that have rows of seats built-in to the mechanism, so that all the seats are deployed as you open out the table. Robert Carnegie, gml. rja.carnegie. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.240|141.101.107.240]] 08:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I fought one of these chairs in Undertale [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.220|162.158.75.220]] 14:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

My office chair likes to randomly pop up on its own when I stand up. More often than not, the backrest cushion ends up smashing into the table behind me. [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 04:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The last picture looks like a reference to discworld, the elephants on a turtle supporting the world.