explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:628: Psychic

2015-05-15T08:57:51Z

141.101.88.219:

Tip: No one picks 50. [[Special:Contributions/75.69.96.225|75.69.96.225]] 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
:The '''Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything''' is 42. This comic is wrong ;) --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, it appears Megan was trying to trip Cueball up. The obvious choice would have been "42", a number with very geeky connotations, {{w|42_(number)#Popular_culture|to say the least}}. Megan may have thought of it immediately, known Cueball would suspect, and gone for the next higher number, 43. Of course, Cueball was smart enough to realize this simple trick, and knew Megan was, too. So he won anyway. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.91}}

I seems that 37 (or 73) would be most not-random random. Though I cannot say, that sources are 100% reliable: [http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/random.html]
[http://catb.org/jargon/html/R/random-numbers.html]
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.219|141.101.88.219]] 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Koovert

Talk:1208: Footnote Labyrinths

2014-09-26T13:58:24Z

141.101.88.219: Another way of interpreting cartoon

Way to nerd-snipe me, Randall. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In the nested-footnotes interpretation, 5 has to be ignored: The 6 must be true, and the 6 says that it’s “actually a 1”, but with footnote 2+2 which says “ibid.” and thus equals footnote 3, which is true. So 6 really ''does mean'' actually a 1, which leaves 5 to be ignored. --[[Special:Contributions/77.186.8.191|77.186.8.191]] 10:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The footnote for 6 is actually 1 to the 2 to the 2 [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaination is wrong : abc = a(bc) = ab^c (confer the definition of a gogol = 10^100 = 10102, and a gogolplex = 10^gogol = 10(10100), not 10^110. So since 1^2= 1, No12 really means No1. {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:Yes, so "no1" means to ignore the "no" and the answer for the second explanation is "we found evidence for the data." By the way, it's spelled "googol." [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

;Question, alternative explination

I wasn't really satisfied with the whole discarding of the infinite loop, so I worked through the problem seperately using the nested footnotes. Then, when we hit the infinite loop I split between the two possible answers (either the infinite loop ends on true or false). As I read it, they both get the same answer:

no (3)

no (not true (5))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < 3))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < (not true))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true 3 < 2)))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true (5)))))

Split!

If 6 is false (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 2)

no (not true (7)) - meaningless, so discard

no (not true)

If 6 is true (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 2 < 2)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 4)

no (3 < 5 < 1)

no (3)

no (not true)

Both lead to the answer "... experiments to observe this and we found evidence for it in our data". {{unsigned|‎Urah}}

:Yes, but at each stage you may "''toggle between interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes and interpreting them as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1).''" That is, a23 may ''either'' be read as "apply note 8 (=2mod6) to text ''a''", or as "apply note 3 to text "2", then the result to text ''a''". {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:There are differences in interpretation here. If we write "foo36", is it equal to "foo112" or "foo3112"? I assumed the former and you assumed the latter. My reasoning is that footnotes modify their arguments and not themselves. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 5 be true (because 6 is actually 13; therefore 5 is true2133; so the 2 is ignored regardless the truth of 3) and 3 is not true? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.118.249|178.26.118.249]] 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

'''Yet another alternative solution:''' Footnotes should be evaluated from top to bottom, so "no12" = "no1 + 2" = "no3". We turn to the definition of 3, which is "not true32" = "not true3 + 2" = "not true5".

Now 5 is "true263". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 122 = 1(4. ibid.) = 13, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true5", getting us into an infinite loop. However, 263 must evaluate to 1, because otherwise we're incrementing "true" by 2, which is meaningless. This means that 3 must be equal "not true". 63 = "actually a 1"33 = "actually a 1". 5 becomes true1 which just says to ignore this footnote altogether and we can confirm that 3 is indeed not true (not true5 = not true). So the answer is that the "no" is not true, and the correct statement is "we found ''some'' evidence for it in our data." Phew. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discouraging anyone from coming up with more alternate solutions, but would it be fair to say that part of the point is that there are multiple equally legit ways to run this labyrinth, and that some exit where you ignore the 'no', others exit on the other side where you don't ignore it. and then there's those who won't exit because they're busy making a map. - [[Special:Contributions/70.72.16.171|70.72.16.171]] 23:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the proof from ''This means that 3 = "true"''. Why do you assume that footnote has to be either "true" or "false? I think it could be "ignore this", "increment by three before following", "leave the whole calculation and assume we have two pieces of evidence" etc. as well. [[Special:Contributions/178.56.1.144|178.56.1.144]] 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:Given the footnotes' definitions I don't think it's possible to ever come up with "increment by three before following" ;)
:Actually the solution I gave may be not strictly formal, but it gives some intuition why it seems to be the only valid one.
:The fact that the definitions are recursive doesn't imply that the ultimate answer cannot be resolved. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing is this, "No means No.", yes?[[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 19:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a real strange logic, but "No = No" means "Yes" --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

;Footnote logic:

So... I did some footnote logic, and came up with this:

This explanation will treat footnotes as footnotes, with the order of operations from top-down, with footnotes acting on only the object they are attached to, including other footnotes.

1. no^1^2

2. no^3

3. no(not true^3^2)

4. no(not (true^5))

5. no(not (true^2^6^3))

The ^6 says the ^2 is actually a 1^2^2, but the ^3 says that the ^6 is "not true^3^2". This leads us to an infinite loop, as the "not true^3^2" in step 3 led to the addition of the additional "not true^3^2".

I assume that the loop can be reduced down to either "true" or "not true", for the purposes of following this path. I will explore both options.

if infinite loop is true:

6a. no(not true^1^2^2) (replacing 2 with 1^2^2 as per 6)

7a. no(not true^1^4)

8a. no(not true(ignore(not true^3^2))) (infinite loop again)

I guess we'll split once more.

if second loop is true:

9aa. no(not (true(ignore(not true)))) (as the second loop reduced to true, we have no more footnotes)

10aa. no(not true) (since the "ignore" this exponent was not true, we can remove it)

And we finally have something simple. No is not true, so evidence was actually found.

if second loop is false:

9ab. no(not (true(ignore(not (not true))))) (again, with the second loop reduced to "not true", we have no more footnotes)

10ab. no(not (true(ignore)))

11ab. no(not)

This is a bit more confusing, as we're ignoring the true as per step 10ab, and are just left with no^not. I'm going to take this to mean true, as in, again, evidence was found.

if first loop is false:

6b. no(not (true^2)) (the ^6 which said that the ^2 was actually a 1^2^2 was negated by the ^3 (which we declared as false for this leg), therefore both the ^3 and the ^6 can be reduced to nothing.)

No idea how to proceed here, as true is not a footnote, and can't be followed or incremented.

If we just ignore the ^2, we're left with the same as 10aa. That is, evidence was again found.

Alternatively, we can say that because ^5==false led us to a nonsensical result, then ^5 must always reduce to true, meaning that the only acceptable answer is to follow the path to 10aa.

Any way you slice it, evidence was certainly found.

[[User:Kalzekdor|Kalzekdor]] ([[User talk:Kalzekdor|talk]]) 22:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

;Read the title text
The title text says that you have to toggle between interpreting footnotes and calculating them (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). And all calculations using the plus sign for exponents are wrong. 32 is 3*3 and not 3+2.

:Interpreting footnotes:
:no12 - 1ignore this
:no2 - 2increment by 2
:no4 - 4IBID -> footnote before
:no3 - 3not true32
:yes32

:Calculation:
:32 = 9 -> 9-1 = 8 -> 8 modulo 6 = 2 -> 2 plus 1 = 3
:yes3

:Interpreting footnotes is again the same as before:
:yes3
:no32

So I am also on an infinite loop and footnotes 5 and 6 are never used.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

you are all wrong and I would presume there is no solution as title popup says '''every time''' you read it you should toggle... so I'm afraid everyone could arrive to different solution.
[[Special:Contributions/87.239.45.58|87.239.45.58]] 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Cyp

(A) I don't follow the last comment. You toggle only when you read the mouseover. For most people, only once: i.e., try it the other way.
(B) Should 1 be interpreted as a message to the reader or a comment on the footnoted phrase? If the latter, then as exponents, it is 1x1=1, or ignore the "no". If the former, then as exponents, move on to footnote 2, then 4, then 3 and stop there--"not true 3x3" cannot be evaluated. When interpreting as footnotes, then the footnote on No1 also cannot be evaluated as footnote 3 is an endless loop of 3-2-4-3-2-4... There is no opportunity to arbitrarily stop at "true" or "not true" as one commenter suggests because one never reaches the point of evaluating the self-referential 3 on the third footnote. Or it so it seems to me. [[Special:Contributions/114.171.110.105|114.171.110.105]] 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

;Where is the EDIT WAR here???
There is an update here today to the latest update on November 17. 2013; where is the actual WAR??? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 01:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:I am the anonymous editor who made the last edit before the page was protected. I suspect my frustrated summaries made the administrators believe there was a war. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it in a a different way.
no ^ 1 ^ 2 means footnote 1) to the word "no" and footnote 2) to footnote 1. Thus we got:
No (ignore this) (2)
no (ignore this) (increment by 2 before following) - so use 4) instead of 2)
no (ignore this) (4)
no (ignore this (ibid) - so use 3) instead of 3)
no (ignore this) (3)
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(2)
As 2) take us to 3) via 4) we got
no (ignore this) (not true) (3)(3)
Now we can replace both (3)'s with '(not true) (3)(2)', but... they are the same. It does not matter if they are true or not, because we can A) apply 'not true' to the phrase 'not true', which results in 'true', or B) apply 'true' to the 'true' phrase, which results in the same answer, so:
no (ignore this) (not true)
Not true makes us ignoring footnote 1, and in consequence, footnoted 'no' from the very beginning stays the same.
I could alt, but It's 4p.m. and I'm heading home from office. 8-)
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.219|141.101.88.219]] 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Koovert

Talk:1413: Suddenly Popular

2014-08-28T19:25:29Z

141.101.88.219:

N.b. The phrase "Tsunami" is clearly located after 2005 so cannot be referring to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.4|141.101.98.4]] 10:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

While the actual tsunami did occur in 2004, it was late December, and I would argue that it was by far the most prominent tsunami at that time. Widespread use of the word would have spanned into 2005.
See {{w|List of historical tsunamis|List of Historical Tsunamis}}
--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.233|141.101.99.233]] 10:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:You know, you shouldn't argue: BOTH tsunamis obviously took part in the word becoming popular. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

:: I agree, but I also believe that the 2004 tsunami has to be listed in the explanation.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.233|141.101.99.233]] 11:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone disagrees and convinces me, I think that something like "Social Engineers" (or perhaps hackers) should be added to the list of people who were aware of and who used metadata prior to the popularization of the term, so I'll add it if I remember next time I come here, or someone else can feel free to do so in my stead -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Drone Desertion... {{w|Skynet_(Terminator)|Skynet}}? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Given that Paradoxical Reaction comes before Drone Desertion, could we assume that because of something done to the AI of drones, presumably to make them "smarter", it has actually led to them deserting on their own? ;) -- I could see how Randall could string a few of the future phrases together to form some logical sequence of events. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Amplexus refers to a copulation behavior in frogs. I can only assume Randall chose this word without a hypothetical event in mind. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.198|108.162.219.198]] 13:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:Given the theme, I feel there has to be some event that Randall had in mind that would cause humans to adopt this copulation method. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
::Agreed, consider the title text: "Are Your Teens Practicing Amplexus? Learn These Six Telltale Signs!" --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.84|108.162.216.84]] 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rapid hair growth: Global temps drop, prompting the human body to grow thicker body hair? [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 13:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anyonr else feel "May be a reference to The God-Empress of Ponykind - a My Little Pony / Warhammer 40,000 fanfic." is a bit of a stretch? [[User:Spaceside|Spaceside]] ([[User talk:Spaceside|talk]]) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:I personally think it's a reference to Homestuck, especially since this page's number is "1413", while "413" is an important number in that webcomic. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.219|141.101.88.219]] 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thermohaline circulation-changes predicted due to increased freshwater runoff in the arctic with climate change (melting glaciers and permafrost) and decreased sea ice cover. Whatever the cause, some evidence and speculation that this could lead to the onset of an ice age, possibly explaining "snow blindness". {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.125}}

I think hydroplaning is not the same as aquaplaning... {{unsigned ip|108.162.231.208}}

If we are going so far as to say that 2038 has to do with the 2038 problem, you may notice that each year uses 12 pixels, and therefore the sentence "I Swear Allegiance To The God-Empress In Life And In Death" can be shown to be on April 2038, not on January 19, 2038. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 14:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Assuming no major mutations, wouldn't human amplexus be "spooning"? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.140|199.27.128.140]] 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1400: D.B. Cooper

2014-08-02T17:10:48Z

141.101.88.219:

Feels like a conspiracy(?) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.227.35|108.162.227.35]] 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it a reference to the Malaysia Airlines conspiracy theory? http://humansarefree.com/2014/07/busted-mh-17-was-in-fact-lost-flight-mh.html?m=0
- Renee [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.75|108.162.245.75]] 00:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

:No.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.12|141.101.98.12]] 10:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this is a hilarious comic! --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain what "the Citizen Kane of ____" is all about? --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 17:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

: "Citizen Kane" is regarded as a masterpiece landmark film, and other films are often compared to it as a highly favorable compliment. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.211|173.245.52.211]] 18:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

: "Citizen Kane" as a reference point here is more meaningful that that. Apart from being a landmark film, "Citizen Kane" was also made by a movie-newbie at that day, namely Orson Welles, who not only played the title role, but also directed, co-wrote and co-produced the movie, very much like Wiseau did with his landmark film; the only significant difference thus being "Citizen Kane" the best and "The Room" the worst movie ever made. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.223|141.101.88.223]] 13:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is really just a curiosity, but what is unusual about the phrasing "You are tearing me apart"? (I'm obviously not a native speaker) [[User:Ly mar|Ly mar]] ([[User talk:Ly mar|talk]]) 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
* Beyond using "You are" instead of "You're", not much. The oddness of the line is mostly through the delivery in the film, not the grammar. [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 17:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

;photograph

Is this the first xkcd to feature a full color photograph of a person? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.52|108.162.216.52]] 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

;con·tem·po·rar·y

adjective: contemporary

1.
living or occurring at the same time.
"the event was recorded by a contemporary historian"
dating from the same time.
"this series of paintings is contemporary with other works in an early style"
synonyms: of the time, of the day, contemporaneous, concurrent, coeval, coexisting, coexistent More
"contemporary sources"
2.
belonging to or occurring in the present.
"the tension and complexities of our contemporary society"

"In 1971, a man referred to by the media as D. B. Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 and escaped with the '''contemporary''' equivalent of over $1 million in ransom money."

So that can be either 1971 dollars (contemporary to D. B. Cooper's time) or 2014 dollars (contemporary to the present time).

(A lot of people think definition no. 2 is the only definition, but it isn't.)

--[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 00:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

:I appreciate your work to improve the explanations here. But, such theatrics over a one word edit are unnecessary. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 02:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

::I've changed it now so it's clearer anyway[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.12|141.101.98.12]] 10:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I created an account solely so I could remove the anomalous use of "beg the question". [http://begthequestion.info/] [[User:Gidklio|Gidklio]] ([[User talk:Gidklio|talk]]) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What is a "European accent"? Any accent that is not Indian, Chinese, or Japanese? --[[User:Frerin|Frerin]] ([[User talk:Frerin|talk]]) 10:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
: Yeah - or Australian, or Inuit, or African, or South American or any other accent that's not from a cultural/language group primary to Europe (and definitely not North American [clear from the context of the sentence]), but more specifically, not any European form of English (so, perhaps, Icelandic, Polish, Czech, Bulgarian, and many other possibilities) which might be hard for an untrained listener to specifically identify as anything but "European". Many languages have commonalities due to geographic proximity, not only in terms of accent, but also syntax and vocabulary, which would modify the learners' ability to accurately acquire and render a foreign language in the same ways. That is, someone who natively speaks Portuguese and someone who natively speaks French will have similar troubles in learning subtleties of American English but which would contrast from those troubles encountered by someone who's native language is Hindi, Tagalog, or Yoruba. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

According to one reddit user, Tommy Wiseau is from Poland, and his last name was "Wieczór" [meaning "Evening"] or variation of it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.219|141.101.88.219]] 17:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)