explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2671: Rotation

2024-03-05T09:10:31Z

162.158.33.130: /* Explanation */ tv tropes link fixed

{{comic
| number = 2671
| date = September 12, 2022
| title = Rotation
| image = rotation.png
| titletext = It's okay, we can just feed the one-pixel image into an AI upscaler and recover the original image, or at least one that's just as cool.
}}

==Explanation==
This is another one of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a phone tip. This tip claims that rotating a phone and taking a screenshot too many times will cause an image to disappear into nothingness and warns the user against doing so. The camera and the display both have limited resolutions, so the detail of the original screenshot at the center of the image will be reduced as it approaches the range of a few pixels, hence the original image will be lost before it reaches the sub-pixel range. This is funny because the default resolution of contemporary camera phones can be too large to meet size requirements for e.g. mobile phone {{w|Multimedia Messaging Service}}, web file uploads, or email attachments, so one or two steps of this awkward procedure are sometimes necessary. Other comics such as [[878: Model Rail]] also use recursion as limits.

[[Image:World lines and world sheet.svg|thumb|200px|{{w|String theory}} describes the {{w|worldline}}s of point-like particles as {{w|worldsheet}}s of "closed strings," forming a topological foam.]]

For a fuller explanation of the concepts involved, including {{w|Planck units}}, often associated with the topological {{w|quantum foam}} of {{w|string theory}}, please see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUF5esTscZI this CGP Grey video.] For an explanation of topological string theory, see [[2658: Coffee Cup Holes]]. Please see also [[1683: Digital Data]] for an analogous image processing concept.

The title text refers to producing photographically likely higher resolution images from lower resolutions, an active area of current research.[https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/ICCV2021/papers/Liang_Hierarchical_Conditional_Flow_A_Unified_Framework_for_Image_Super-Resolution_and_ICCV_2021_paper.pdf] Because reducing the resolution of an image is a lossy process, results obtained through such processes will not be able to perfectly recreate the original. Machine learning can be used to calculate how images of known photographic subjects (or e.g. anime-style art, in the case of {{w|waifu2x}}) behave under certain types of noise or reduction in size, so that images ''of those kinds'' can be upscaled in a way that, if not perfectly recreating the original, at least is a faithful representation, but when the image is scaled all the way down to one pixel, everything except a small amount of data about the image's overall color is lost, making reconstructing the original image impossible. Randall disclaims that, because the AI upscaling is based on ingesting a large corpus of human-made art (with subjects that we find 'interesting' or at least meaningful being predominantly represented), the AI will produce an image that is at least as cool as the original image was, and in fact some image generation AIs actually work on a similar principle — for example, "reverse diffusion" AIs are trained by teaching them to reconstruct images from noise, at which they can produce entirely new images by being fed ''actual'' noise. He could also be making a pun on {{w|color temperature}}, which the upscaler will be able to match to the original image. The "{{tvtropes|EnhanceButton|enhance button}}" for upscaling images is a common trope in movies and television, especially in crime and science fiction stories.

=== Mathematical corner ===

The scale reduction caused by a rotation can be approximated. If ''a'' is the width of the picture and ''b'' its height, the reduction is ''x=a/b'', the aspect ratio of the picture rectangle. As can be seen in the comic, the first rotation leaves two gray areas on each side of the picture that are roughly square. The width of the reduced picture is ''x*a'' = ''a''²/''b''. Each gray area is ''a'' (high) by (''b-x*a'')/2 (wide). This is roughly square, but will not be exactly square unless
: ''b'' = 2''a'' + ''x*a'' and since ''x=a/b'', dividing by ''b'' we obtain 1 = 2''x'' + x².
This is a quadratic equation, whose only positive solution is √2-1 ≈ 0.414

Returning to the general problem: the reduction is geometric, so that after nine rotations, the picture will be reduced by a factor of ''x''⁹. Since this is "smaller than a pixel", the original screen resolution is fewer than (1/''x'')⁹ pixels. It is not stated whether it is the width, height, or area of the original picture that have been reduced to "smaller than a pixel".

25 rotations reduces a lot further and logarithms are useful to compute that. Let ''L'' be log(''a''/''b''), a negative number since ''a''/''b'' is less than 1. If the original screen is 10cm wide, its reduced picture will be ''x''^25 times smaller in width. The comic tells us that the picture is now "smaller than an atom" (typically 10^-10m). If referring to the width, then 25''L'' is less than about -9.0 using base-10 logarithms.

After 101 rotations, the reduction will be ''x''^101, and the picture is now "smaller than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length Planck length]". The log of the Planck length is about -34.8, so 101''L'' is less than -33.8.

Significantly we know that 100 rotations was ''not'' enough, so 100''L'' is greater than -33.8. If we split the difference and say that 100.5''L'' is equal to -33.8, we get an aspect ratio ''a''/''b'' just about 0.461. Multiple popular phone sizes are within the range, including the iPhone X or XS both with an aspect ratio of 1125/2436 ~ 0.4618.

==Transcript==
:[A phone in portrait orientation shows an image of Cueball standing. It is then rotated, showing the image smaller with bars in landscape orientation, then the next phone is in portrait showing the entire screen of the previous rotated sideways, shrinking it every time. An arrow points from each phone to the phone with the next smaller image, until the last one. The labels, at the 9th, 25th, and 101st rotation, show the decreasing size of the original image as it goes through successive rotations.]

:[Labels:]
:9 rotations: original image is smaller than a pixel.

:25 rotations: original image is smaller than an atom.

:101 rotations: original image is smaller than the Planck length, at which the concept of distance may break down.

:[Bottom caption:]
:Phone tip: don't rotate and screenshot an image too many times or it will become lost in the quantum foam of the universe.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]

2671: Rotation

2024-03-05T09:10:11Z

162.158.33.130: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2671
| date = September 12, 2022
| title = Rotation
| image = rotation.png
| titletext = It's okay, we can just feed the one-pixel image into an AI upscaler and recover the original image, or at least one that's just as cool.
}}

==Explanation==
This is another one of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a phone tip. This tip claims that rotating a phone and taking a screenshot too many times will cause an image to disappear into nothingness and warns the user against doing so. The camera and the display both have limited resolutions, so the detail of the original screenshot at the center of the image will be reduced as it approaches the range of a few pixels, hence the original image will be lost before it reaches the sub-pixel range. This is funny because the default resolution of contemporary camera phones can be too large to meet size requirements for e.g. mobile phone {{w|Multimedia Messaging Service}}, web file uploads, or email attachments, so one or two steps of this awkward procedure are sometimes necessary. Other comics such as [[878: Model Rail]] also use recursion as limits.

[[Image:World lines and world sheet.svg|thumb|200px|{{w|String theory}} describes the {{w|worldline}}s of point-like particles as {{w|worldsheet}}s of "closed strings," forming a topological foam.]]

For a fuller explanation of the concepts involved, including {{w|Planck units}}, often associated with the topological {{w|quantum foam}} of {{w|string theory}}, please see [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUF5esTscZI this CGP Grey video.] For an explanation of topological string theory, see [[2658: Coffee Cup Holes]]. Please see also [[1683: Digital Data]] for an analogous image processing concept.

The title text refers to producing photographically likely higher resolution images from lower resolutions, an active area of current research.[https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/ICCV2021/papers/Liang_Hierarchical_Conditional_Flow_A_Unified_Framework_for_Image_Super-Resolution_and_ICCV_2021_paper.pdf] Because reducing the resolution of an image is a lossy process, results obtained through such processes will not be able to perfectly recreate the original. Machine learning can be used to calculate how images of known photographic subjects (or e.g. anime-style art, in the case of {{w|waifu2x}}) behave under certain types of noise or reduction in size, so that images ''of those kinds'' can be upscaled in a way that, if not perfectly recreating the original, at least is a faithful representation, but when the image is scaled all the way down to one pixel, everything except a small amount of data about the image's overall color is lost, making reconstructing the original image impossible. Randall disclaims that, because the AI upscaling is based on ingesting a large corpus of human-made art (with subjects that we find 'interesting' or at least meaningful being predominantly represented), the AI will produce an image that is at least as cool as the original image was, and in fact some image generation AIs actually work on a similar principle — for example, "reverse diffusion" AIs are trained by teaching them to reconstruct images from noise, at which they can produce entirely new images by being fed ''actual'' noise. He could also be making a pun on {{w|color temperature}}, which the upscaler will be able to match to the original image. The "{{tvtropes|EnhanceButton|enhance button]" for upscaling images is a common trope in movies and television, especially in crime and science fiction stories.

=== Mathematical corner ===

The scale reduction caused by a rotation can be approximated. If ''a'' is the width of the picture and ''b'' its height, the reduction is ''x=a/b'', the aspect ratio of the picture rectangle. As can be seen in the comic, the first rotation leaves two gray areas on each side of the picture that are roughly square. The width of the reduced picture is ''x*a'' = ''a''²/''b''. Each gray area is ''a'' (high) by (''b-x*a'')/2 (wide). This is roughly square, but will not be exactly square unless
: ''b'' = 2''a'' + ''x*a'' and since ''x=a/b'', dividing by ''b'' we obtain 1 = 2''x'' + x².
This is a quadratic equation, whose only positive solution is √2-1 ≈ 0.414

Returning to the general problem: the reduction is geometric, so that after nine rotations, the picture will be reduced by a factor of ''x''⁹. Since this is "smaller than a pixel", the original screen resolution is fewer than (1/''x'')⁹ pixels. It is not stated whether it is the width, height, or area of the original picture that have been reduced to "smaller than a pixel".

25 rotations reduces a lot further and logarithms are useful to compute that. Let ''L'' be log(''a''/''b''), a negative number since ''a''/''b'' is less than 1. If the original screen is 10cm wide, its reduced picture will be ''x''^25 times smaller in width. The comic tells us that the picture is now "smaller than an atom" (typically 10^-10m). If referring to the width, then 25''L'' is less than about -9.0 using base-10 logarithms.

After 101 rotations, the reduction will be ''x''^101, and the picture is now "smaller than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length Planck length]". The log of the Planck length is about -34.8, so 101''L'' is less than -33.8.

Significantly we know that 100 rotations was ''not'' enough, so 100''L'' is greater than -33.8. If we split the difference and say that 100.5''L'' is equal to -33.8, we get an aspect ratio ''a''/''b'' just about 0.461. Multiple popular phone sizes are within the range, including the iPhone X or XS both with an aspect ratio of 1125/2436 ~ 0.4618.

==Transcript==
:[A phone in portrait orientation shows an image of Cueball standing. It is then rotated, showing the image smaller with bars in landscape orientation, then the next phone is in portrait showing the entire screen of the previous rotated sideways, shrinking it every time. An arrow points from each phone to the phone with the next smaller image, until the last one. The labels, at the 9th, 25th, and 101st rotation, show the decreasing size of the original image as it goes through successive rotations.]

:[Labels:]
:9 rotations: original image is smaller than a pixel.

:25 rotations: original image is smaller than an atom.

:101 rotations: original image is smaller than the Planck length, at which the concept of distance may break down.

:[Bottom caption:]
:Phone tip: don't rotate and screenshot an image too many times or it will become lost in the quantum foam of the universe.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:1732: Earth Temperature Timeline

2024-02-25T23:32:13Z

162.158.33.130: Don't do that.

{{notice|As this is a controversial topic, there may be several {{rw|climate_change|denialist}} trolls lurking below. Beware of feeding them.|image=Troll.png}}

Well, never mind then. Oh well. -- [[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 1:02, 12 September 2016
:I acknowledge that the picture is WAY too long, so I added a "skip to explanation" bar, to speed things up. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 17:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

Is it just me or does the picture not render all the way down in full resolution on firefox? I found it worked on Chrome and explorer... And Wauw, just after I had created the new [[:Category:Climate change]]... Was also just watched a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8 QandA program] yesterday where [[1644: Stargazing|Brian Cox]] tried to convince some Australian politician about global warming, but the other one just cried conspiracy... Will take some time to make this one complete I guess? Great ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
:That's the thing with this kind of stuff. It takes a LONG time to make it just right. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 19:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please delete the ridiculous trivia
*The colors used to represent temperature vary from blue (the perceived hue of a black body at 20000K) to pale red (perceived at 2200K).
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.139|108.162.221.139]] 19:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course you can pretty much ignore the part of the diagram that is in dotted line, you can't rely on that data. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
:Note that even if we ignore the extrapolated future, the warming in the past century is already a vastly more abrupt climate shift than anything that happened in the preceding 219 centuries. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
::Actually we don't know what the shifts were on that scale in the past. The dotted line before modern measurement is a very limited estimate. We have no idea what the year to year changes were in the past, at best we can work out an average. I am reminded of a house mouse(life span of about 1 year) looking at the leaves fall from the tress and saying "Surely this is the end of the world". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:::Randall explicitly addresses your specious complaint at 15900 BCE. Year-to-year fluctuations are not the same as the current century-long surge. Either show scientific evidence or go away, Mr Troll from Seattle Cloudflare. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::::I should have known better to enter into a religious debate on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::No it is not that which is the problem, but that you try to disqualify the data without even bothering to look through them. Aa mentioned Randall tries to let us know that such a high fluctuation as we have in these last 100 years would not be hidden in the old data. As mentioned by Fankie this is explained between 16000 and 15500 BCE... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::I refuse to debate a matter of faith with you. Note that 15500-16000 is 500 years, perhaps when we have 500 years of accurate temperature measurements we will know more. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.119|108.162.246.119]] 03:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not surprised that you can't even read a chart. 16000-15500 BCE is where the explanation is placed on the chart. The fluctuations he shows that would not register are small fluctuations over a decade or two. A fluctuation of a century would "unlikely" be smoothed out. The examples are even drawn to scale... 3rd grade level stuff here. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.145|108.162.221.145]] 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Why even bring your faith into this? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92|108.162.212.92]] 16:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I call Troll. Talking about the significance of where the subchart/Legend/footnote lies? Like what years it's next to actually has any significance? Either he's too dim to actually look, or he's trolling. The standard recommendation is "Don't feed the trolls". :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. (Heh, seems I was right, looks like the troll stopped after I called him out) :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
::::[[User:Frankie|Frankie]], funny how the nonaveraged plots [and even the averaged plot] [[#wikimedia|linked]] to below invalidates Randall's plot, "Hence the comparison is not comparing like with like and is scientifically invalid." The temperature rate between 1859 (coincident with America's discovery of petroleum and the Carrington Event) and today does not exceed that within the past 2,000, 20,000, or 100,000s of years. The present surge (the tip of the "hockey stick") concerns not 100 years but almost 40 years (36 years in Randall's plot) which does not successfully meet the three fluctuation disclaimers. As mentioned in the Wikimedia discussion the temperature resolution is about 300 years; therefore it should take another 150 years to see whether this slope corrects itself. [[User:Lysdexia|Lysdexia]] ([[User talk:Lysdexia|talk]]) 13:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

:Have you read the referenced papers? Well you fit well with the people he refers to between the two lines at the top. ;-) We are heading for troublesome times :-( [[164: Playing Devil's Advocate to Win]]... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

*the use unqualified of the words "still many people" is exactly the kind of weasely nonsense that this comic is designed to refute. there are "still many people" who claim the earth is flat, that they have been abducted by aliens, or that the MMR jab made their children autistic. those people are deluded or insincere. the difference with deniers of climate change is that there are in their ranks scientists who are clear-sighted but who have decided that funding at any price is better than none. this site should be better than that. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]]
::You're absolutely right, the ranks of climate deniers do indeed include a few scientists willing to sell their voices to the highest bidder (e.g. http://www.polluterwatch.com/heartland-institute ). But is that what you meant to say? - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:::that the wording be changed to reflect that. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.84|141.101.98.84]] 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

For a large post like this, it's a wonder that we can all keep up and edit something like this all at once. Wow. --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 11:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:Also, anyone else notice that this was a top trending post on Facebook last night? I don't know if I could call it a milestone but it's still pretty cool. And '''WE''' edited it! :D --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 12:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::Very interesting, so it was explain xkcd and not xkcd that where the top trending post? Could you post a link to where you found this out? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
:::I can see you are right from the fact that Randall has chosen to postpone his next comic in order to keep this one on the front page for all the new visitors as has now been noted in the explanation and in the trivia section. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add the fact that the transcript may be a reference to oxidation?[[User:Transuranium|Transuranium]] ([[User talk:Transuranium|talk]]) 19:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Transuranium
:I think you mean the "title text" not the transcript? And that you refer to the recent comic [[1693: Oxidation]] which is indeed referened in the title text, then that has been written at the bottom of the main explanation and has been there already since the 12th edit less than 1½ hour after the comic came out... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Is nobody else having a problem seeing the comic? Both here and on XKCD I get an "Image not found" icon, a blue question mark. I thought maybe this was an interactive comic that doesn't work on my iPad (like that garden thing, though that did nothing on my computer either). If I tap it on XKCD nothing happens, here it leads to the picture's Wiki page - also with the question mark - which says it's a PNG, which I know this iPad can show. It's 11pm EST, maybe night maintenance on XKCD? Or the file got renamed without updating the sites? - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.227|162.158.126.227]] 03:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:I had trouble seeing it on my own PC using Firefox but not the other browsers I have. See my early comment above. I guess the file is too big for your iPad as it is a very huge file. I tried to download it but it failed. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
::It's weird that I got what is clearly an "Image not found" icon, though. Maybe my 1st Gen iPad's Safari saw the file, decided "No way I'm loading that!"(or "that size can't be right", LOL!) and chose to show the error icon instead. When I force the issue, by going directly to the image URL listed on XKCD, the first time Safari crashed rather than load the image (but it crashes on a regular basis, so that didn't deter me), the second time it crashed, the third time it actually loaded, and I was able to see it. After seeing mentions here of spelling errors (though I have to disagree on "Pokemon", generally only people connected to the show bother with the accent. Like how I'm the only one who spells Hallowe'en correctly, with the apostrophe), I thought maybe the comic was taken down to correct it, but guess not. LOL! - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) So's this! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the missing bottom axis is a usability problem, so I fixed it. [http://info.org.il/data/earth_temperature_timeline_bottom_axis.png See it here.] [[User:Hananc|Hananc]] ([[User talk:Hananc|talk]]) 10:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
:Nice but I'm sure it was on purpose to indicate that time continues down,as well as a possible even worse temperature change. As shown in the previous global warming comic [[1379]] Earth has been 8 degree hotter than now... And apart from the last small segment (albeit a very important one) you either remember that white is normal and bluer is colder redder is warmer or else you cannot use the chart in between the top and bottom, and since this is the longest xkcd comic so far it would be a shame. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've managed to SEE the damn thing, I have a question. There's no mention of why this is using "BCE" and "CE" instead of the standard "BC" and "AD", never mind what these stand for (thinking and thinking about it, my guess is "Before Christ Era" and "Christ Era"). This is the kind of thing that should be mentioned on ExplainXKCD, LOL! Fun fact: when I searched this page for "BCE", to confirm it wasn't explained, I got "Over 100 matches". :) Anyway, I figure maybe those are currently accepted scientific terminology, especially since "AD" is Latin, unlike "BC", but the average person still uses BC and AD. In fact, I think this is the first time I've ever seen BCE and CE (unless it's been on XKCD before and I just dismissed it as a typo or something. This time there are WAY too many for it to be a mistake every time, including here in the explanation!) - NiceGuy1[[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.239|108.162.218.239]] 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:It's "Before Common Era" and "Common Era", an alternative to BC/AD. Pretty common alternative, though I don't know why off-hand - probably to remove the religious connotations of "Christ" and "Year of our Lord". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.236|108.162.215.236]] 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
::Because they're the standards in the scientific community. The guy above assumed his way is standard, but that's inaccurate. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.92|108.162.212.92]] 00:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:::I assume nothing. My statements are completely accurate. I OBSERVE it is the standard, the only standard anybody (else) seems to use. BC/AD is the "standard" because it is standard practice to use it. For good reason, since I would estimate just about everybody knows what it means, while I am sure I am in the majority in having never heard BCE/CE. It is also not "my" way, I made no choice here, it is the established convention, it is the way accepted and adopted by society. While I would normally be more inclined towards terminology devoid of religion (as seems to be the point here, now that someone kindly clarified these acronyms for me), I feel this would be a losing fight, one it would be foolish to attempt, the classic terminology is too ingrained in society. Sorry. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Also mine! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:: For the convenience of archeologists working in the Middle East. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 01:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
::Thank you! Yes, it sounds to me like the point would be to remove the religious aspect. Personally, I don't really mind the religious terminology, I just see it as historical, keeping a record of where the names and numbering came from. - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.118|108.162.218.118]] 02:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Also mine! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 11:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
:::Well, "it is the established convention" isn't quite correct either.. checking Wikipedia suggests to me that it's a large argument, and that people that aren't Christian or Muslim (i.e. just under half of all people) really never used the AD/BC notation in the first place. BCE/CE appears to have originated in Jewish European communities some point before the 1700s. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.192|172.70.100.192]] 20:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
What this comic doesn't show is what kind of changes occurred in the previous interglacial period as opposed to the current one. Since the current one is not yet over there could still be a stage of an interglacial with rapid temperature rise which we are only now reaching, but has happened in previous interglacial periods.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.54|108.162.219.54]] 02:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Check out this 400k year comparison of temperature variations from two ice core projects in Antarctica, Lake Vostok and EPICA. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png (Note that Randall's timeline matches up pretty well with the last 20k years on the far right of the graph) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.98|162.158.69.98]] 13:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this would be first time where I see global thermonuclear war described as "best case scenario". There was and still is lot of discussion about how much is current warming caused by humans, but that's not important. Important question is "can we stop it?" and the answer is "not without literally billions of dead" (and even that might not suffice). Any money currently used for most plans to reduce CO2 (which usually fails to reduce CO2, not speaking about global warming, but succeed in their main goal, which is moving the money into pockets of their proponents) would be better spent on ADAPTING to the change. Only plans for reducing CO2 actually worth doing are the ones related to stopping burning fossil fuels, because we will soon need fossil fuels to make food (and other stuff) from. Oh, and also stop burning FOOD. So we should replace fossil fuel power plants with only viable alternative - NUCLEAR. So called renewable power sources like solar are good addition, but doesn't scale to the amount of power and stability we need. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 14:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So disappointing to see that Randall Hitler Munroe subscribes to the obviously false "global warming" religion. He should know better. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.83|172.68.55.83]] 00:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
: Troll troll trolly trolly troll troll troll [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.217|162.158.214.217]] 03:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/261:_Regarding_Mussolini {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.126}}

I understand the concept behind this comic, but why doesn't the graph include atmospheric CO2, sulfur aerosols, and solar 10.7cm radio flux for comparison? Also, for the person who suggested we look at previous interglacial periods, I may be wrong, but I believe a lot of that data comes from ice cores, that would make it hard to look at time periods before the present ice sheets existed. IIRC, there were periods not too long ago (geologically speaking) where Antarctica was covered in lakes, tundra, and sparse forests instead of ice sheets.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.127|172.68.65.127]] 05:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The jump of 0.5 degrees from 2000 to 2016 has been shown to be false. It exists because "scientists" went back and changed (or "seasonally adjusted") their data to fit their preconceived conclusions. Just look at Al Gore's 'Inconvenient [Non]Truth', pretty much every doomsday scenario has not occurred. I expect better of XKCD.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.77|173.245.48.77]] 20:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It would be very nice if they wouldn't spread climate change misinformation.
22,000 year Time line [20,000 BC to 2000 AD]
versus
2.5 to 3 billion years of Evolution
on a 4 Billion year old Planet

22,000 / 2,500,000,000 = 0.0000088
Using 0.00088 % of Evolutionary History do decide what the weather is supposed to look like.
Now an atmospheric history lesson
-
Cambrian
Oxygen 12.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.45% - Average Temp. 21 °C - sea level 30 - 90 meters
-
Ordovician
Oxygen 13.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.42% - Average Temp. 16 °C - sea level 180 - 220 - 140 meters
-
Silurian
Oxygen 14% - Carbon Dioxide 0.45% - Average Temp. 17 °C - sea level 180 meters
-
Devonian
Oxygen 15% - Carbon Dioxide 0.22% - Average Temp. 20 °C - sea level 189 - 120 meters
-
Carboniferous
Oxygen 32.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.08% - Average Temp. 14 °C - sea level 120 - 0 - 80 meters
-
Permian
Oxygen 23% - Carbon Dioxide 0.09% - Average Temp. 16 °C - sea level 60 - 0 - -20 meters
-
Triassic
Oxygen 16% - Carbon Dioxide 0.1750% - Average Temp. 17 °C - sea level 0 meters
-
Jurassic
Oxygen 26% - Carbon Dioxide 0.1950% - Average Temp. 16.5 °C
-
Cretaceous
Oxygen 30% - Carbon Dioxide 0.17% - Average Temp. 18 °C
-
Paleogene
Oxygen 26% - Carbon Dioxide 0.05% - Average Temp. 18 °C
-
Neogene
Oxygen 21.5% - Carbon Dioxide 0.028% - Average Temp. 14 °C
-
Current
Oxygen 20.9% - Carbon Dioxide 0.039% - Average Temp. 15 °C

As you can see an atmosphere when healthy should have
Oxygen 25 - 32%
Carbon dioxide 0.1 - 0.15%
Average Temperature 14 - 18 °C
Sea level 60 - 180 meters
and there should be no polar ice caps

our sea level is at extinction levels
our carbon dioxide is almost too low for plants to survive
and our oxygen level is almost suffocatingly low

Less Carbon Dioxide means less Plants
Less plants means less Oxygen
Less Oxygen means less Life[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.112|108.162.246.112]] 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

:I think the point of comics is that while there were changes in temperature before, they were never this rapid. Although I wouldn't be sure about THAT either ... granted, the previous rapid changes were accompanied with mass extinction ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 15:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
::Yeah, the long sample intervals and best fit curves from pre-industrial temperature estimates tend to smooth out any rapid changes that may have occurred over the time period (Think of an ECG/EKG that took a single instantaneuos microvolt sample once every 15 minutes of your life from birth to death, the resulting deflection graph would not look like anything like a normal heart rhythm, but it could be interpreted as the average electrical activity of your heart over the course of a lifetime). It's true that the rapid climate shifts we are able see in geological records usually coincide with things like supervolcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. But those shifts are usually to the negative end from the nuclear winter effect. Idea for reversing global warming without affecting CO2 emissions, just send a couple of hypervelocity rods or a gravity-tractored asteroid into a dormant supervolcano caldera every few years and... instant winter. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.51.75|173.245.51.75]] 02:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting and important work.

Actually.... Solomon and Jesus are not historical figures. Outside the Old and the New Testament, there is no archaeological or other evidence for their existence. I suppose, Jesus has played a significant role in history. So, you may be justified to add an entry saying something like "Date that religious traditions hold as the date of birth of Jesus."

Then, if you mention, say, Shakespeare, then you should also mention the estimated composition of the Bible, an event with more important historical influences.

Roman empire was continued for more than thousand years (Eastern Roman Empire, today reffered as Byzantium).

Current scholarly wisdom is that the Homeric epics, (the Iliad and the Odussey) were composed at the second half of the 8th century, perhaps around 720 BCE.
[[User:Konstantas|Konstantas]] ([[User talk:Konstantas|talk]]) 05:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

:Except that no historical evidence has ever contradicted the Bible, and many archaeological discoveries were predicted by it.
:According to proper scientific analysis, it is the most accurate historical document(s) in existence. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.51.173|172.70.51.173]] 02:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Darryl

I wonder if it is getting to be a good time to make a followup, showing the further warming over the last several years and the rightward movement of the 'if we...' paths. 21-Feb-2020

~5000 BCE is <s>higher</s> slightly lower then now [[User:Squishmallow fan]] ([[User talk:Squishmallow fan|talk]]) 01:47, 10 February <s>2011</s> 2024 (UTC)

== Actual best-case scenario == 

The [http://imgur.com/a/H4prq actual best-case scenario] is far better than Randall's depiction; please see. However, the URLs below in that linked Imgur gallery's first caption were rendered unclickable, probably for spam protection measures, so I reproduce them here:
:;Actual "best-case scenario assuming immediate massive action to limit emissions"
:From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/17/why-cant-we-give-up-fossil-fuels
:What will it take to get to this scenario? https://www.solveforx.com/explorations/foghorn/ with http://freenights.txu.com/ and http://co2-chemistry.eu/ for ocean carbonate-sourced plastic composite structural lumber allowing reforestation.
[[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

: First, the Guardian is a newspaper, not a science journal. Second, that article is from 2013, before the latest upsurge. Third, even ignoring those things, the article doesn't say what you claim it does. The single most optimistic sentence I see is ''"If we are lucky, the impact of burning all that oil, coal and gas could turn out to be at the less severe end of the plausible spectrum."'' The rest of the article is quite pessimistic, such as ''"it is overwhelmingly likely that we would shoot well past 2C and towards 3C or even 4C of warming."''
: Please post exact quotes where your links talk about a better scenario. Please do not post URLs and expect us to figure out what you mean. You are making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 17:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
::How do you expect me to quote from [http://imgur.com/a/H4prq the graphs]? I can't upload images, maybe I need more edits. Please ask any questions you like. [[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 06:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
::: please explain how the Guardian graph you posted on imgur has to do with better scenarios. The title: "Cuts required for 50% chance of not exceeding 2°C". The footer: "CO2 emissions since 1850 (red); exponential growth (blue); cuts to hit climate target (dashed)." It says that in order to '''possibly''' reach the "optimistic" +2° scenario (Randall's 2nd line, not the 1st one), we would need to cut anthropogenic CO2 to about 1/10th our current level, which is ridiculously unlikely to happen. The other graphs you posted are just hypothetical extrapolations about energy production that, even if they're trustworthy (which I doubt) don't reference any climate scenarios at all, much less ones better than the timeline. Until you can post a cogent explanation, I will assume you are trolling and undo your edits. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 17:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
:::: If you extrapolate [http://i.imgur.com/G6OSyYE.jpg] to 2023-4, renewables dominate, right? Wind has been in competitive equilibrium with coal since 1995, and solar hit grid parity early this year and is expected to continue falling in price about as fast at least until 2035. Is there any reason to believe fossil fuels won't be abandoned by 2030? [[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 02:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: Exactly zero words in your explanation discuss how the linked graphs show the existence of a better scenario than the ones listed in the timeline. Your very first graph, from the Guardian, explicitly says '''50% chance of not exceeding 2°C''', which is Randall's middle scenario. That means '''it supports exactly what Randall is saying.''' It says absolutely nothing about a scenario better than the "best case" timeline. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
::::: Do you understand the words that I am saying? The words that I have been saying from the start of this conversation? I don't f***ing care about pie in the sky energy projects. '''Even if your energy claims are correct, they don't say a single d**n thing about beating the +1.2°C curve.'''. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::: I apologize. I confused the +1° mark with +2°. The labels are so far above at the top. You are correct. I will forgo uploading the graphs as we are now in agreement. [[User:JSalsman|JSalsman]] ([[User talk:JSalsman|talk]]) 22:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

== Joanne Nova ==

* http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-past-climate-change.html
* http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/almost-everything-we-know-about-fake.html
* http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html
* http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook
* http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova
* http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/
- [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 23:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

== Interesting Ways to Look at it. ==

Hey, I had a great time scrolling down and watching the earth heat up :).[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.115|108.162.245.115]] 19:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

ICYMI, [https://www.cato.org/ Cato] provides an [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/ IPCC MAGICC] [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/UserMan5.3.v2.pdf climate model] simulator for [https://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator anyone to examine]. FWIW, I side with {{w|Bjorn Lomborg}}, who famously champions a [http://www.lomborg.com/ middle way] in climate science for the sake of [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/09/19/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-lets-get-our-priorities-straight/ downtrodden peoples around the world]. Should we reconsider this [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1732:_Earth_Temperature_Timeline#Explanation explanation] in this light? [[User:Run, you clever boy|Run, you clever boy]] ([[User talk:Run, you clever boy|talk]])

== Fact checking the chart on Stack Exchange ==

I posted a question on Earth Sciences Stack Exchange about how the {{w|Younger Dryas}} fits into this comic: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/9103/6973

There was also an existing question about the chart's general accuracy: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/8746/6973

--[[User:Aaron Rotenberg|Aaron Rotenberg]] ([[User talk:Aaron Rotenberg|talk]]) 02:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

== Translation of the Morse code message ==

The translation of the explanation in "Telegraph", written in Morse code, is: "Now, the mother of Samuel Morse always sent the lad out on a horse." [[User:Agusbou2015|Agusbou2015]] ([[User talk:Agusbou2015|talk]]) 15:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

== "Sad comics" ==
<blockquote>...So after the election of a climate change denier later in the year of this comic's release, several sad comics have been posted. Some of the reason could be that Randall no longer believes that even his worst fears (as expressed by the current path at the bottom) will hold up, when USA gets a president, who will on purpose act in a way that scientist claims will make the temperature rise even more. See more here.</blockquote>

I've mentioned this on the talk page for [[2137: Text Entry]], but I'll reiterate it here: this observation is not factual, not relevant to the explanation, and does not belong in the description of this comic. If you read it in context, you will see that it is also a non-sequitur, clumsily inserted after one or two factual sentences - it does not follow from anything prior in the discussion. It is poorly expressed and the point being made is unclear in any case.

While the user doing this may well have honest intentions, they are simply defacing articles with their own anti-Trump projections and spamming a link to their own, misleadingly-titled page ([[Sad comics]]) which has no clear meaning or explanatory value. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 16:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
:I have removed the offending paragraph. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, and this graph shows it.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.19|172.68.50.19]]
:I agree that it has probably been a disaster (certainly a gamechanger) for the ecosystems, causing changes and challenges that are so much different to what everything else woupd have experienced without such a heavy hand of humans upon the planet. But for "the human race",vI wonder if there'd be so many billions of us if industrial (and post-malthusian) developments had never arisen. By a simplistic numbers game, we are (currently) ranking higher than it seems likely a more nature-tuned alternative 20th/21st-Century would have looked like.
:A higher population doesn't guarantee "success", I know, and only hindsight will say for sure whether unprecedented growth leads to unprecedented decline in the same 'scoring' value (indicating that it isn't the best score to use long-term), but some would say this. (Not me, I'm just philosophising here.)
:Beyond this, if only by entering the Industrial Age do we have the ability to foresee and forestall some asteroid impact..? Perhaps then the (somewhat damaged) ecosystem actually lives on 'better' (subjectively) from our flawed attempt to industrially improve the planet, to our own ends, the rediscovery of ecoprinciples and then the successful aversion of another planet-killing asteroid (or at least the development of "arks" to let the current biodiversity to ride out the problem, here or elsewhere). Unless you have the view that the post-now changes (like the post-dinosaur/etc changes) are themselves higher scoring on the nature-scale. (But then if an unaverted asteroid is equal to a prior one, then is our polluion of the world equal to when earlier organisms started to fill the atmosphere with deadly oxygen and convert the world to an entirely different phase of life?)
:What can definitely be said is that we're doing ''something'', but expect some people (who aren't actually full-on deniers) to suggest that it isn't really a bad thing. Which it probably is, of course. Or at least not the ''best'' thing, and there's probably better outcomes than the one we're tumbling into, by whatever measure. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.31|172.70.86.31]] 09:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2893: Sphere Tastiness

2024-02-16T18:51:51Z

162.158.33.130:

base balls are delicious after boiling and peeling[[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.212|172.68.64.212]] 00:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:You seem to be confusing baseballs with eggs. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]])
:And who the hell calls baseballs “bAsE bAlLs”. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

who's the authority on whether or not the earth and the moon are "not tasty"????, i think the moon would be pretty delicious actually [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.71|172.69.71.71]] 00:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)GR8GH
:Some Apollo astronauts reported that moondust tastes and smells like gunpowder. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::Yum! [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::Sounds {{w|Gunpowder_tea|delicious}} to me.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.26|172.70.85.26]] 11:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:::My favorite! [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 12:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
:Sure, if you like green cheese! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.123|172.70.207.123]] 03:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::I actually quite like a good blue cheese, and had a blue (red) leicester only yesterday. But some actual sage derby would fulfil the role of a green one quite tastily. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.112|141.101.99.112]] 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::{{w|Green_cheese}} can be perfectly tasty - it's just a young unaged cheese.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.26|141.101.99.26]] 11:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:"Not like any cheese I've ever tasted"-Wallace[[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.43|172.70.127.43]] 21:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In Fuck Grapefruits, watermelons were just slightly tasty. Does he like other melons so much that the average melon is as tasty as grapes? Or has he learned how delicious watermelon actually is? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:I think that he probably just learned how delicious watermelon is. [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::Watermelon is different genus (albeit in the same family) to most melons, so I'd assume watermelon is excluded here.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.162|172.69.194.162]] 11:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:::Of course silly discussion but the melons is listed below grapes on the tasty scale. And if that scale is also log then they could be deemed to taste much less nice than grapes even with this slight difference. Maybe even grape fruit would be close to this line? But also melons does not mean water melons! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 06:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This comic is begging for another of his four-corner plots, not a line graph. Ball bearings: lower left. Bowling balls: middle bottom. Tapioca: upper left. Cheese balls: upper middle. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.123|172.70.207.123]] 03:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:My first thought was that he clearly isn't accounting for frequency, because I'm pretty sure there's a ''lot'' more oranges than baseballs...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a linear interpolation, Michael. How big could the error be? 10%? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 03:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Grapes are spherical? I guess some varieties. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

With a logarithmic x axis and an unlabelled y axis, I find calling it “linear interpolation” without further explanation disingenious. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.121|172.68.110.121]] 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we have to give serious consideration as to how untasty the Sun is, and the possibility of subatomic particles being absolutely delicious. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.189|172.69.79.189]] 10:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Can't we just ask whoever tasted quarks to figure out the different flavours?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.24|172.69.195.24]] 11:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Baseballs aren't the only questionable object for this theory..... think of the marbles!!!--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.73|162.158.154.73]] 12:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Marbles are tasteless. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In looking for something else that might fulfil the 800m sphere criteria I stumbled across [https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/p0qws3/self_if_you_blended_all_788_billion_people_on/ this] :o(| I'll make no comment on potential tastiness.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.191|172.70.90.191]] 12:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Soylent Green meatball. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Galactus would totally disagree with this graph. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.25|172.70.175.25]] 16:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:As would Unicron... and Dormammu...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
::[https://tick.fandom.com/wiki/Omnipotus . . . Omnipotus . . .] [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 12:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to a mile-long hotdog [https://www.lifeinthecarolinas.com/syndicated-columns/2018/3/6/miles-and-miles-of-hotdogs-from-an-igloo miles-of-hotdog], while technically not a single hotdog nor a sphere it's a mile's worth of hotdogs. I recall there once being created a mile-long submarine / hoagie / po-boy sandwich, but couldn't find it on a quick google search. That also is not remotely spherical. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The moon is made of delicious cheese, isn't it? That would put it in the upper right corner.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.15|172.71.102.15]] 16:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Giant peaches?

Am I reading this wrong, or is the mark for grapes just slightly to the left of the tick for 10^-1 m? Which suggests that grapes are about 8 cm wide? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.82|172.70.38.82]] 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:Looks to me like it's about 2/3 the way between 10^-2 and 10^-1. So call it between 10^-1.3 and 10^-1.4. Which is between 4cm and 5cm. Still a rather large grape, but perhaps more plausible if he's measuring across its widest dimension. 10^-1.6 (2.5cm) would perhaps give a more representative grape length, or maybe 10^-1.7 (2cm) if he normalised the measurements to account for their spheroid(ish) nature. But we'd also have to get in to the question of when is a grape a grape? There will be lots of grapes that will never reach more than a few mm, but not ones that we would normally eat. His melon looks to be about 10^-0.7, or 20cm, which again seems rather large for an average dimension (though proportionately less so than the grape).[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.203|172.69.194.203]] 09:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a reference to James and the Giant Peach [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.39|172.71.155.39]] 21:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

IDK how you'd define "tastes okay", but I bet you could find an 800m comet that's about 50% ice & 50% dust. [[User:Snuffysam|Snuffysam]] ([[User talk:Snuffysam|talk]]) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
:I think you would need less than 50% of dust for "taste OK". Still, you may be on right track - there should be some comet consisting of mostly ice which would taste OK. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 04:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::Or one that was 50% dust and 50% ice cream.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.216|172.70.85.216]] 09:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why and how did John Young taste the moon? I heard moon dust is cancerous, far more jagged than earth sand, and even if it WAS just earth sand, it would be awful to put anywhere near your mouth. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.59.203|172.69.59.203]] 09:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:I've heard it had some pretty nasty effects on Cave Johnson. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.3|172.70.46.3]] 11:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
::SPAAAAAAACEEEE!!!! [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
:I'm sure that when they removed their helmets back in the capsule, some of the dust was airborne. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that the Earth is slightly more tasty than the Moon? [[User:Weslar|Weslar]] ([[User talk:Weslar|talk]]) 16:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Weslar
:This was mentioned, for some time (I even rephrased the original prose about it), but it seems to have been excised during a subsequent edit. The thoughts were that this is because there were known tasty bits in it. I refined that to "on the surface", or similar wording. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.108|141.101.99.108]] 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the 800-meter sphere that tastes okay would be humans? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.143.120|172.70.143.120]] 03:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably best candidate for the 800 m sphere that tastes ok would be some kind of fungus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.26.75|172.68.26.75]] 16:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
:Cheese. A big wheel of cheese. (Maybe blue cheese, for anyone still liking the idea of fungus...) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.48|162.158.74.48]] 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) -- addendum: no, wait, that'd be absolutely ''delicious, not "tastes ok". At least if it's actual proper cheese and not squeezy stuff or hamburger-slice stuff.

User talk:Eelitee

2024-01-29T17:16:48Z

162.158.33.130: /* Passing query... */ Speeling. Missing words. Format tags. Postscript (giving permission to tidy up my potentially in-future-irrelevent 'contribution'.

this is a talk page. [[User:Eelitee|Eelitee]] ([[User talk:Eelitee|talk]]) 23:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

== Passing query... ==

Can't actually tell from your comment whether you actually intended to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2885:_Spelling&curid=27174&diff=333704&oldid=333581 remove several contributions]. I get that you did want to sign an unsigned comment (note, best done with <code><nowiki>{{unsigned up|<their IP>|<the timestamp>}}</nowiki></code> template item, copying both from the appropriate Diff-page header element). But you seemed to suggest that you were just not *bothered* about much of the chatter (links to platiarism-related things, included?), but that you'd tolerate it and just personally skip over it, rather than have any good reason to remove several persons' comments. (None of them mine, I'm not being 'precious' about my own contributions.) So, I'm wondering if it's actually an editing error of some kind.

Best guess is that you went back in the History to find the 'missing signing details' and then edited the ''legacy'' incarnation of the page to add your discovered info. But this of course effectively restored the rest of the page to before lots of other changes were made. I'm almost tempted to straight revert your change (but, on top of that, redo your ''unsigned ip'' info as you did it/I would have done it) myself but... letting you sort it out. As the only person who ''knows'' what you think you were doing. Maybe intentional, for some reason? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 17:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - PS, if/when resolved (or considered not worth a reply), no need to respond, you can just delete.

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2024-01-28T00:59:21Z

162.158.33.130: /* Practicality */

Number systems aren't real math, at least not serious math. They're an affectation. 99.9% of math is number-system-independent, so nobody should care about them. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.108|172.70.46.108]] 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

: Of course it's "real math." There aren't that many applications, but so what? Math isn't about applications. Besides, there are some. Maybe not specifically for factorial base, but for some place systems. The only thing "dirty" about decimal is the arbitrariness of ten. Considering place systems in general is just considering special kinds of sums. Certainly, "serious" mathematicians are interested in proving numbers normal in specific bases, or in every base. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: A great deal of interesting maths can be found in and around he various arrangements of digits in number systems, surely. AzureArmageddon 07:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a complete joke, until coming here. The "factorial number system" exists?! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.249|162.158.90.249]] 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Yup, complete news to me too... What's REALLY weird: the night before this comic I was tutoring a friend's daughter in math, and I happened to teach her what factorials are! (News to me there's a number system, though)... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to a converter, but the one I found is https://www.dcode.fr/factorial-base which is quite ugly with lots of adds and a bit counter-intuitive.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 23:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This needs simplifying a bit. Came here because I had no idea what was going on, and after a quick scroll through the prose, the main thing I learned was "it's 'cause you're dumb". May be true but I still don't get what Randall's factorial system is....[[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Should we move the line about the number at the top of the presentation being the number of this comic to trivia? Seems like it belongs there. [[User:B_for_brain|B for brain]] ([[User_talk:B_for_brain|talk]]) ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg4bo-hj-mDyOOUp_Yp0pug youtube channel] [https://bforbrain.weebly.com/ wobsite (supposed to be a blag)] 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:It seems to be fairly integral to the comic, IMO. Trivia seems to me more for "Incidentally, if we go beyond what the comic directly says..." (though it has been used for more and for less, or not used at all when something might have been relegated to it). Maybe you can consider it an Easter Egg, but it's not even really all that hidden. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.33|172.71.178.33]] 19:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

==Fractions==
I have actually considered this system, though not with any illusion of its being useful. Any system "exists", just as any number "exists". A system where 1 = decimal 1, 10 = decimal 29, 100 = decimal 493 , exists in the monetary system of the Harry Potter world. An actual system existed where 1d = 1d, 1/- = 12d, £1/-/- = 240d.

It's only on seeing that someone else had come up with this system, that it's occurred to me to consider fractions. Any rational number has a finite number of places after the "factoradic" point. Anything with infinite repetition after the point is irrational.
1⁄2 = 0.1

1⁄3 = 0.021 [Corrected: 0.02]

1⁄4 = 0.0121 [Corrected: 0.012]

1⁄5 = 0.01041 [Corrected: 0.0104]

1⁄6 = 0.011 [Corrected: 0.01]

1⁄7 = 0.0032061 [Corrected: 0.003206]

1⁄8 = 0.0031 [Corrected: 0.003]

1⁄9 = 0.002321 [Corrected: 0.00232]

1⁄10 = 0.0022

π = 11.003156502.....

e = 10.11111111111111111111.....
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.185|198.41.236.185]] 09:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not following the fractions presented above after the first - if these are inverses of the left-of-decimal bases (excluding 1!), .1 = 1/2, .01 = 1/6, .001 = 1/24, etc., then I believe the corrections added above are appropriate (mostly removing a trailing 1). If I'm mistaken, perhaps it needs a bit more explanation? Regardless, e as a repeating value is delightful. Majuba
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.123|172.71.147.123]] 19:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

==..==

Factorial base also allows to finitely represent all rational numbers - no constant base is capable of that! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.238.76|172.68.238.76]] 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Unless you use a division sign. But yes, only radix numerals of a variable base with infinite series of factors of every prime can even theoretically finitely represent arbitrary rationals without invoking existential quantifiers. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.26|172.71.147.26]] 06:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like Michael when Oscar is trying to explain what a “surplus” is.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.241|162.158.186.241]] 04:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:Bruh, same, and I'm a stats major. This "explanation" sorely needs a couple paragraphs of ELI5 introductory exposition for English majors between the first and second sentences. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.16|172.69.134.16]] 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

== The warning is complete nonsense, just remove it ==

bots cant be escorted out of somewhere just remove the stupid warning [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.109|162.158.203.109]] 04:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: you must be new here - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.143|108.162.216.143]] 15:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The nonsense is part of the fun. AzureArmageddon 07:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

::im deleting it {{unsigned ip|162.158.203.80|11:16, 30 September 2023}}‎

:::Premature elision. Still has a purpose (as does signing your contributions here). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.208|172.71.178.208]] 14:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* As has been stated, you MUST be new here. The "incomplete" tag goes on new comics while their descriptions are still in flux. When the bot creates the empty description page, it does so with the Incomplete warning, labelled with its name. On the first edit, someone ALWAYS changes the name to some silly gag that's related to the comic, often pretending it's the name of the bot that created the page for us. In this case the comic shows Cueball being escorted out, so the joke is the bot is being escorted out. If you're not going to have a sense of humour, why are you here? Just leave the editing to others in the meantime. :) (Oh, and as the user above noted, make sure to end your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (4 tildes), like it says at the top of the editing text box you type in). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:Okay, now the Incomplete warning needs to stay up forever. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::nope
::: Sign your comments. :) And yup. Whenever someone makes an unreasonable objection, it MUST be ignored to tech unreasonable people to stop being ridiculous. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
:In case you weren’t aware, this wiki has a tradition of humor. This is one of its examples. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.134|172.68.58.134]] 12:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

== The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers ==

It's not explicitly mentioned in the comic but the "adic" in the name "Factor''adic''™" implies that the number system extends the factorial number system by being in some way "adic" as discussed in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=tRaq4aYPzCc this YouTube video on the Veritasium channel] and so negative numbers would have a truly wacky representation that violates the intent of the title text's pronouncement by requiring an infinitely long representation requiring infinite digits (1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 9, A, B, C, ..., ''infinite digits''). AzureArmageddon 08:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The "adic" in factoradic doesn't actually relate to p-adic numbers of any kind. Rather, both factoradic and p-adic numbers use the suffix -adic to refer to the concept of adicity, which is "The number of arguments or operands a function or operation takes" according to Wiktionary. Each place value of a p-adic number had p possibilities, and each place value in the factoradic system has a number of possible arguments determined by the factorial of the place. Factoradic would be better called "factorary" since it's more similar to ordinary n-ary number systems, but I guess it just isn't. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.205.130|172.69.205.130]] 20:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

:: Ah, today I learned. AzureArmageddon 15:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

== Title text ==
The title text references that 10! = 3,628,800 (base 10), and so for numbers greater than or equal to that, you would have to add a tenth digit in order to display them in this system. The question is asking whether you would then proceed to using letters of the alphabet such as one does in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal hexadecimal] to which the reply is that numbers above this amount are simply illegal. The trouble comes when you try to write down the number 10 * 10! = 36,288,000 (base 10) in this system. For 10!, the notation is 1000000000 , so 9 * 10! would be 9000000000, and then to get 10 * 10!, you would have to write A000000000 because 10 * 10! < 11!. In fact, since this is the first "illegal" number, you could "legally" allow up to 10 * 10! - 1 = 36,287,999 (base 10) in the system (which would be written as 9987654321 = 9 * 10! + 9 * 9! + 8 * 8! + ... + 2 * 1! + 1 * 1!) without the need to introduce any letters. I also want to point out that the reference in the comic to 9 being reserved for big numbers is due to no number needing a 9 to write it down in this system until 9 * 9! = 3265920 which is written 900000000. Since numbers above 10! are not allowed, this means that only the 9! digit is legally allowed to hold a 9, and it only applies to numbers in that high range of 3265920 to 3628799.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.230|172.71.166.230]] 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:I feel the current in-Explanation explanation about that already covers this, with the addition of the validity that the digit that could need to be >9 could still be any digit 0..9 without needing to invoke the 11th digit. (Maybe a few tweaks, but not sure what you're trying to add here.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.148|172.70.86.148]] 15:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

== Radix Economy ==
Someone got in there just before I did, about (from a quick scan of what's been added) "economical" use of Factorial-based variable radices. (I was planning both the test code and the explanation for this, whilst travelling.) My short way of putting it is that (apart from values of zero or one, which represent identically in Factorial-based notation to any other notation in base of 2+) the Factorialised method initially is using up 'places' quicker until the point at which it has reached a 'magnitude' equal to its base-normal 'original' (i.e. only when there are N glyphs made available under Factoradic notation does it not rush through the 'magnitude' quicker than the base-N number). And ''then'', it needs to work up into the more 'efficient' higher-order digits in order to pull back the disadvantages of its lower-order ones and equal, then be shorter than, any given value's respective base-N form. 
Now, I've done some very rough calculations (started hitting numbers for which I really need to convert everything into high-precision large-number data types, which needs me to rewrite one or two elements of my existing code) and looked at the successive changes of magnitude, in each base, and checked the calculated Factoradic length (with the assumption that there are enough extended glyphs to represent every digit singly, unlike the comic Title Text speculation). 
By my reckoning, Base-2 is more efficient at 20fact (compare with 1002, =410); Base-3 breaks better at
3111fact (100003, =81); Base-4: 540220fact (10000004, =4096); Base-5: 533340021fact (10000000005, =1953125); Base-6: 90967344000fact(1000000000006, =362797056); Base-7: 7ABAA086002001fact(1000000000000007, =678223072849); Base-8: D73A256860540220fact(100000000000000008, =281474976710656); Base-9: B1HEA65678836651220fact(100000000000000008119, =1350851717672992000) ...but at this point, the conversion of decimal to its base-9 form (and that powers of 9 should ''never'' have trailing zeros!) shows I may very well have hit a limit to normal large-number precision, so I really can't trust the subsequently derived base-10 values. 
But, in case anyone wants it, the following is my (Perl, but should be easily convertible into most medium-to-high level code dialevts) en-Factoriadialising function.
sub factadic { my ($n,$place)=(@_,1);
return () unless $place;
if ($n>=fact($place+1)) { return factadic($n,++$place) }
my $digit=0; my $base=fact($place);
while ($n>=$base) { $digit++; $n-=$base; }
my @return=($digit,factadic($n,$place-1));
return @return;
}
You call it as <code>factadic(''<value>'')</code>. Or <code>factadic(''<value>'',''<minimum_digits>'')</code> to start with the assumption of at least a minimum number of digits, but it'll start by shifting the default minimum of 1 into the <script>$place</script> variable if you don't give it that (there are other ways that you can/must do that, of course), and it will still always expand that to the degree necessary in the first phase of 'diving in' as far as it needs to in order to agree with the <code>fact()</code> function (factorial calculator, a trivial coding issue that I only use here like this because I alreadu set it up for another bit of code). 
It returns an array (@-variable, in Perl) of digits, in standard most-to-least-significance order, that you can convert to a glyphwise notation in any way that you wish (or do a string conversion within the function, at each stage of building it up). ...and I'm presenting a ''slightly'' less optimised version of it here (some of the Perl-tricks I originally used don't translate well into some non-Perl) and, yes, the <code>while ($n>=$base)</code> loop could be done using modulus and integer-division, but it's a fairly trivial part of the looping process. 
If you have any ''real'' problems with it, it's probably going to be if you're hitting any recursion-depth limits (especially as it uses roughly twice as many recursive calls as the eventual notation-length it produces). I also have a 'stack-based' version (loops round as it shifts in enough 'slots', then works back down again assigning the place-values) which avoids such trouble, but that's coded in a slightly esoteric Perlish way that I'm not sure most of you'd appreciate. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.77|141.101.76.77]] 20:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Probably a double precision floating point accuracy limitation, you can only get up to 2^53 = 9007199254740992 before many modern programs start getting numerically fuzzy. But what weirds me out is you seem to have gotten 1350851717672992900 out of what should have been 9^19 = 1350851717672992089, instead of a nearby float of 1350851717672992768 or 1350851717672993024. What is it with things rounding to decimal like that? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.84|172.71.147.84]] 11:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::One 'solution' is to <code>use Math::BigFloat</code> (or similar), in the Perl, and make hold such sensitive and large-tending values. Alternately, implement an array of digits in a raw manner (can be of entirely arbitrary base, explicitly, plus arbitrarily long; well, as long as one doesn't hit ''other'' data limits!) and make your own long-division/etc algorithms. Or pack bitwise/bytewise data as a 'string', with suitable overloaded/replacement mathematical functions. But it all adds extra coding effort, of course. And I rarely share my various hacked-together bits of Perl, because they either work but look horrible or they don't work (and probably look strange, even to me - hence why I've failed to discover why they don't work!). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.87|172.71.98.87]] 19:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
: Just analyzed the growth rate; For base x, the length can be estimated by 1/2+e*x-e-1.487*ln(x). Maybe a more sniped nerd can get more precision, or even an exact solution; but this is within a digit of the result up to around base 10^13, and then I start running into precision problems in general, so I'm just putting this here as a good enough guess. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.129|172.71.146.129]] 13:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Factorial numbers is new to me... It sounds more like a coding system than a number system, LOL! "The door code is 4503 in factorial! Figure it out!" (I'd write this on the bottom of the comments as usual, but I don't want to get mixed up with that ill-thought out and unsigned coding sample Algorithm and table that I KNOW must be mangled when published because the wiki refuses to honour single Newlines. Clearly the author didn't take a peek at what it looks like when published EDIT: Correction, wow, the wiki spotted the code and marked it as such automatically (for now), wow!) :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

All the stuff about economy / efficiency doesn't seem to really have any direct relation to the comic, so I'd suggest it doesn't really belong in the explanation, but should be confined to the comments, or at least to a trivia section. Not least because it dives off into a lot of technical stuff that ''itself'' requires explanation for a significant part of the readership. As it is, it's doing more to confuse than to explain.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:I sort of agree, in that I had planned something similar about 'notation economy' as a Trivia-like addendum, before others got there before me. But there could at least be something to be said that by reserving higher-digits(/dissalowing them in lower values), Cueball/Randall is sacrificing conciseness for (one idea of) aestheticism. (And that's without going into 'how much storage it takes to store each digit', which I wasn't going into. So rather than the idealised radix being base-'e', I would have said the idealised base was whatever base-number exceeded the highest value, so it was just one (different) single squiggle for ''everything''. Obviously, there's necessary entropy in the choice of differentiatable squiggles/encoding, though, which is why I also appreciate the current Explanation's blurb.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.52|172.70.90.52]] 10:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

NiceGuy1 the wiki uses standard markdown, if you preface with 6 spaces, it will automatically recognize it as a code snippit. I appologize if my contribution was ill-thought out, though i have gone back and signed it. [[User:Drinkcoffeeandcode|Drinkcoffeeandcode]] ([[User talk:Drinkcoffeeandcode|talk]]) 20:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:I called it "ill-thought out" for having no tags or markup, and thus figured it would be all mangled. :) I was mistaken. Good to know, except I don't see myself ever sharing code (I figure people generally aren't hanging out in a coding environment to just run random code like that. I myself don't have any place to try it these days, and if I did I don't prefer C so probably wouldn't have a C environment anyway). But the last time I wrote someone after an unsigned comment, some idiot manually marked it as mine (WHY would I reply to myself?), which I removed, and I don't know how to manually write someone else's sign in (and didn't want to hunt one down to SEE and learn how), so it's probably STILL unsigned. Usually when there's an unsigned comment someone who knows how checks the edit history to find the IP or name to add it. :) Oh, and usually if you want to reply to someone, you put a colon and place your reply below theirs (like this). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

== Factoradic Algorithms ==

there are several ways to compute the factoradic of a base 10 number, depending on the choice of language
the length of the program will be demonstrably bigger. Dynamically typed languages, like perl can likely
perform this in one or two lines, where as a language like c++ will be longer.

The simplest algorithm is to generate the digits from right to left one at time by dividing the number by a per-iteration-incrementing radix starting from 2 (because 1 is simply '0', we start from 2), taking the result and repeating until the quotient reaches zero:

#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int factoradic(int num) {
string digits;
int radix = 2;
while (num != 0) {
digits.push_back(((num % radix)-'0'));
num /= radix++;
}
reverse(digits.begin(), digits.end());
return atoi(digits.c_str());
}

Using Randall's values we can confirm it is correct:

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
for (int i = 21; i < 26; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 5038; i < 5042; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 999998; i < 1000002; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
return 0;
}

max@laptop:~/$ ./factoradic
21 - 311
22 - 320
23 - 321
24 - 1000
25 - 1001
5038 - 654320
5039 - 654321
5040 - 1000000
5041 - 1000001
999998 - 266251210
999999 - 266251211
1000000 - 266251220
1000001 - 266251221

Came back to sign code sample after seeing NiceGuy1's comment. [[User:Drinkcoffeeandcode|Drinkcoffeeandcode]] ([[User talk:Drinkcoffeeandcode|talk]]) 20:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would love to have some kind of explanation as to why this number system exists/what it's used for in the real world. (Even if that explanation is just "there's no practical purpose, mathematicians just love doing this stuff".) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.87|172.70.134.87]] 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too much of a fandom crossover to edit / annotate the last word of the explanation (at time of commenting, the word "senary") to "seximal"? Or, given that we are discussing intentionally silly base systems, just the '''right''' amount of a fandom crossover? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.176|172.71.242.176]] 08:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
:: "Fandom crossover" with what, exactly? Just humour for Beavis & Butthead/Quagmire-style "sex, hee hee" people (such as myself), or is there some actual fandom you're referring to? As it is, I would have thought the proper word WOULD have "sex" in it, like sextillion does... :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
::: I'm assuming the jan Misali fandom. The guy is mostly known for his videos on constructed languages, but he also has strong opinions on base 6. As a reference, see his site [https://www.seximal.net/ seximal.net].

Can I politely note that your algorithm potentially has no end? num is never 0 because you're always dividing and never subtracting. My perl attempt goes through every radix up to around 180 before giving up. (Leave out the atoi and you'll see what I mean.) I might recommend capping radix at 9. [[User:Hymie|Hymie]] ([[User talk:Hymie|talk]]) 12:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

== Category ==

There should be a category where presenters are escorted by security, or are about to be.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.153|162.158.87.153]] 12:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
: You may be right, I recall several (none specific come to mind, but I know it's a scenario Randall clearly enjoys). [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

== Notation ==

[[wikipedia:Factorial number system]] uses the 3121! style notation. Should probably be used in the explanation, together with the 8310 notation. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.154|162.158.87.154]] 12:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
: "In this article, a factorial number representation will be flagged by a subscript '!'", that sounds like it's not a standard notation, just one THAT editor used for THAT article to clarify things when explaining it. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
::It's used at least in a *Scientific American* article from 4 years ago: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/its-factoradical/

== Practicality ==

It doesn't seem that this number system actually has that much practicality. Perhaps this can be proven wrong though. {{unsigned ip|172.70.210.201|00:28, 28 January 2024}}
:There's already some pointers as to what it's practical at, above...
:At the very least, it gives an easier-to-use (from representation to implementation) rearrangement, knowing that you just have to slice off bits of both the sort-key (shifting off a digit at a time, to get N1, N2, N3... etc) and the source-sequence (splicing out the N1th, N2th, N3th... etc). Easier than saying "try the 2835th recombination plan".
:But that's just the most trivial use, a mere abstract compared to some more complex topological uses that map 1:1ish against number theory. Use your imagination! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.130|162.158.33.130]] 00:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2038: Hazard Symbol

2024-01-18T08:23:49Z

162.158.33.130:

When on xkcd, the emoji only shows up as an empty square. On this site, it shows up as a sigma, caputal Y with umlauts, tilde, and decree symbol. What is it actually supposed to be? [[User:Smperron|Kestrel]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 12:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:It's https://emojipedia.org/face-with-open-mouth-and-cold-sweat/ this emoji. Shows up correctly for me on the actual site on android but not on the wiki [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.28|141.101.98.28]] 13:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
::It shows up OK (Albeit small) on Mac OSX [[User:BSchildt|BSchildt]] ([[User talk:BSchildt|talk]]) 13:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:::For me (Windows, most fonts replaced with Arial) it's ok on the wiki, but on the page it's just ▯. But that might also be my font replacer messing up again, it often does that. I wonder why it doesn't happen here. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
::::It's showing the correct emoji on my iPad. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 10:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::Ditto on my iPad, a sweating frowny face with a blue forehead (WHY blue?), funny since on an iPad I can't mouse-over on the comic site, I can only see title texts here. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know the source of the slippery symbol? The other symbols seem to be common to most standards, but the slippery symbol seems to have various designs. ☠☢☣⚡︎? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.57|162.158.62.57]] 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:https://www.amazon.com/NMC-FS1-Double-Sided-CAUTION/dp/B009RVF1DY <-- This one on Amazon.com seems pretty close. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.245|172.68.58.245]] 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_7010 ISO 7010] - W011 Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.70|172.68.110.70]] 14:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
: It's meant to represent a "wet floor" or "slippery when wet" sign. There are many versions of it, but that is the most common use of the image (at least, to my knowledge) --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|'''JayRules''XKCD''' ]][[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|what's up?]] 15:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking a slimy electric eel with nuclear-powered cybernetic laser eyes...and a post-op staph infection. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.64|172.68.90.64]] 17:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf
: I'm thinking Godzilla saliva. (Wikipedia: "Godzilla's signature weapon is its "atomic breath," a nuclear blast that it generates inside of its body and unleashes from its jaws in the form of a blue or red radioactive heat ray. [...] Various films, television shows, comics and games have depicted Godzilla with additional powers such as an atomic pulse, magnetism, precognition, fireballs, an electric bite, superhuman speed,[52] eye beams[53] and even flight.")--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.66|162.158.90.66]] 13:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The yellow colour, danger of sliping and radioactivity (previously mendtioned on xkcd) are all consistent with a banana. Could this be the secret message? I can stretch it to say that a banana left unattended might eventualy grow some biohazardous fungus. Is there anythng electrical or laser emitting about this fruit? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.116|141.101.77.116]] 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

He forgot flammable and inflammable. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.196|108.162.216.196]] 20:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a legitimate hazard sign that combines 3 symbols. The new supplementary ionizing radiation warning symbol launched on 15 February 2007 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Contains radiating waves, a skull and crossbones and a running person. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_symbol#/media/File:Logo_iso_radiation.svg] [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 14:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:Note: Will only replace the standard yellow radiation trefoil symbol in certain specific limited circumstances. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I need this on a t-shirt... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.16|108.162.249.16]] 00:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

;Transcript
Please just describe the image. What it is or does mean belongs to the explanation. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
: I actully preferred previous version of transcript. It did include some of explanation, but it was also more clear in describing the images. --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 01:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:: A transcript is just that. No interpretation or explanation, only the description of what is shown/written/said. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:::TBH, if I were to explain the comic to someone else who hasn't seen it (in the words of the Editor FAQ), I would probably tell that there is a biohazard symbol, radioactivity symbol etc. But at least in this case, the caption below the frame clarifies the image a bit. [[User:Asdf|Asdf]] ([[User talk:Asdf|talk]]) 11:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
::::No, just describe the content. Only mentioning that there is a biohazard symbol wouldn't be helpful because many people just don't know how it looks like. And when the image gives no hint what it is everything further belongs to the explanation. Of course common items like cars or houses can be noted but identifying those symbols here is part of the comic and shouldn't be revealed in the transcript. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough. I meant by my earlier comment that I wouldn't have only mentioned the names of the symbols, but their shapes as well like in the current transcript. But it's true these symbols aren't universally known. The transcript should just explain what the image contains and not what is meant by those symbols. [[User:Asdf|Asdf]] ([[User talk:Asdf|talk]]) 18:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
::::::It came to my attention 1 or 2,000 comics ago that there are blind people who follow XKCD by using this site. When I think about it, the transcript is pretty much useless for the rest of us, anybody who can see can simply look at the comic. As such, it seems like the transcript should be written directly to them, which in this case includes considering that they might not have ever SEEN a radioactive symbol or biohazard symbol or the others (like I've never seen the laser one and would certainly not know what it meant if I saw it). Though to me that also means the transcript should name them as well as describe them. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::::The laser figure is a modified starburst. [[User:Lysdexia|Lysdexia]] ([[User talk:Lysdexia|talk]]) 21:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The NFPA or fire diamond is not required or mentioned in the MSDS files. They are used almost exclusively on buildings that store the chemical and alert firefighters to potential dangers on entry. The MSDS has its own set of hazards that I believe he is referring to in the description/title. [[User:Piza|Piza]] ([[User talk:Piza|talk]]) 19:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
: Every SDS I've seen does include the NFPA numbers, though not always arranged in the diamond graphic. Also, regarding the description: the diamonds on trucks and train cars are not NFPA diamonds; that's a completely different system used by the DOT. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.137|108.162.212.137]] 01:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WARNING: Radioactive when wet[[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.66|162.158.90.66]] 13:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

One Symbol to rule them all--
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.221|162.158.91.221]] 12:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Some people on the Stack Exchange subsite Worldbuilding got curious about this and attempting to make an organism that fit this criteria. [https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/123281/anatomically-correct-xkcdius-lethalissimus] The two top answers were based on a frog and a radiotroph similar to those living in Chernobyl. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.226|162.158.63.226]] 20:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
:LOVING this concept. LOL! With the laser part my first thought goes to the Austin Powers Dr. Evil's "Sharks With Freaking Laser Beams Attached", so maybe using that as a starting point. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
::What will man wrought bro :(((--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.33.130|162.158.33.130]] 08:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
:these criteria [[User:Lysdexia|Lysdexia]] ([[User talk:Lysdexia|talk]]) 21:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Jokes aside, I feel like this might be a useful symbol to share around, to familiarize people with the 5 symbols. For example, this is my introduction to the laser part, and I hadn't realized what the biohazard one meant, somehow from context I had taken it for a variance on the radioactive symbol (also a warning to keep your distance, also three pronged). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
::six-pronged [[User:Lysdexia|Lysdexia]] ([[User talk:Lysdexia|talk]]) 21:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Phazon from the Metroid Prime games fits everything but the "wet and slippery" part. At least, I don't remember any occurance of Phazon or Phazon entities that could be described as "damp." --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.39|172.71.151.39]] 08:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)