explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-15T02:50:33Z

162.158.90.177: /* Explanation */ Pointed out that empiricist definition excludes the Sun

{{comic
| number = 3063
| date = March 14, 2025
| title = Planet Definitions
| image = planet_definitions_2x.png
| imagesize = 653x1435px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Under the 'has cleared its orbital neighborhood' and 'fuses hydrogen into helium' definitions, thanks to human activities Earth technically no longer qualifies as a planet but DOES count as a star.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|The explanation is too short.[''Are you kidding me?''] }}

This comic addresses the {{w|IAU definition of planet|controversy of whether of Pluto is a planet}} and explores many definitions, most of them humorous/nonsensical, of what a planet could be.

;Traditionalist: {{w|Pluto}} is a planet (9 planets)
:In modern times, there was {{w|IAU definition of planet#Background|no formal definition of a "planet"}} prior to 2006. However, it was generally accepted as a colloquialism that there were nine planets around the {{w|Sun}}, Pluto included (starting with Pluto's discovery in 1930 ([[988|Tradition]] is whatever Baby Boomers grew up with). As more sophisticated methods of mapping the {{w|Solar System}} were developed and {{w|Eris (dwarf planet)|Eris}} was discovered to be even more massive than Pluto, it became clear to astronomers that a more standardized definition was needed. In 2006 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) published their formal redefinition of a "planet" to require a planet to be gravitationally dominant within its orbit, disqualifying Pluto (and Eris) which is now considered a "dwarf planet." This has been subject to push back from countless people, including [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 some planetary scientists], but in numbers mostly nostalgic laypeople dissatisfied with Pluto being "demoted" or otherwise relegated.

;Modern: Pluto is not a planet (8 planets)
:When the IAU redefined what a planet is in 2006, Pluto no longer qualifies as a planet. (since it wasn't able to clear its neighborhood around its orbit) Using the modern definition of a planet, only eight celestial objects qualified.

;Expansive: Dwarf planets are planets (17+ planets)
:It is likely that since the term "dwarf planet" contained "planet" in its name, Randall considered those as also planets under this category.
:It is also likely that the number of planets includes the ones that are considered planets and the ones that are considered to have compacted into fully solid bodies, {{w|Dwarf planet#Most likely dwarf planets| as defined by Grundy ''et al.'',}} those being {{w|Ceres (dwarf planet)|Ceres}}, Pluto, Eris, {{w|Makemake}}, {{w|Haumea}}, {{w|Gonggong (dwarf planet)|Gonggong}}, {{w|Quaoar}}, {{w|Orcus (dwarf planet|Orcus}} and {{w|Sedna (dwarf planet)|Sedna}}.

;Ultratraditionalist: Only the classical planets are planets (5 planets)
:The {{w|classical planets}} are objects found and considered by the Greek astronomers in classical antiquity to be considered planets. Their definition of "planet" considered visible objects that move across the sky relative to the fixed stars. There are seven classical planets, but if one were to only consider the ones that fall under the IAU's definition of a planet (this being ''less'' traditional), then there would only be five. (The Sun and the {{w|Moon}} would be disqualified)

;Condescending: Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big {{w|asteroid}}s (4 planets)
:This definition may refer to the {{w|giant planets}}, planets much larger than the {{w|Earth}}. Only the four outer planets fall under this definition.
;Simplistic: Anything gravitationally round is a planet (37+ planets)
:Using the Wikipedia {{w|list of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System}}, there are 37 objects listed. That includes the Sun, 8 planets, 9 dwarf planets and 19 {{w|Natural satellite|moon}}s.

;Grounded: Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets (10 planets)
:This list includes objects in the Solar System that a spacecraft has {{w|List of landings on extraterrestrial bodies| performed a soft landing on}}. The list includes {{w|Venus}}, Earth, {{w|Mars}}, the Moon, {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}}, {{w|433 Eros|Eros}}, {{w|25143 Itokawa|Itokawa}}, {{w|162173 Ryugu|Ryugu}} and {{w|101955 Bennu|Bennu}}. Notably, {{w|comet}} landings are not included in the list.

;Regolithic: Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet (infinite)
:This list excludes the {{w|Gas Giant}}s and the {{w|Ice Giant}}s. The list would likely include dwarf planets, asteroids, moons and comets. This is effectively the opposite of the "condescending" definition: every object in the solar system is included in one definition or the other (except for the Sun).

;Lunar: You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon (12+ objects)
:Only some objects in the solar system have known and acknowledged moons orbiting them. The value given may be {{w|List of natural satellites| the number of planets and dwarf planets}} that have moons, when excluding {{w|Haumea}} for not reaching {{w|hydrostatic equilibrium}} despite having moons. The Sun is excluded because its satellites are not moons, because ... oh, look, a Squirrel!

;Solipsistic: Earth is the only planet (1 planet)
:{{w|Solipsism}} is the idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Randall extrapolated this idea to mean that only one's own planet that they are standing on is sure to exist.

;Judgemental: Only the prettiest ones are planets (6 planets)
:This list is likely formulated from Randall's own perception of the prettiest planets in the Solar System. Strangely, seven objects are highlighted:
:* Earth
:* Jupiter
:* One of Jupiter's moons (unclear)
:* Saturn
:* One of Saturn's moons (unclear, possibly Titan)
:* Neptune's moon (probably Triton)
:* Pluto

;Empiricist: Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets (12 planets)
:This list may refer to the celestial objects in the Solar System that have been made visible at night, probably using with an optical telescope (a hobbyist one, perhaps Randall's, or from time borrowed on a major institutional installation). Jupiter's {{w|Galilean moons|four largest moons}} are technically visible but hard to distinguish due to Jupiter's brightness, while Neptune is considered too faint to see with a naked eye (even if you know where to look). Apparently Randall has seen Uranus, which technically [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-see-uranus-in-night-sky Uranus ''is'' visible to the naked eye] under the very best viewing conditions, but these conditions are rare and it again requires knowing exactly where to look.
:The omission of the Sun from the list of worlds that Randall has personally seen is interesting. Yes, people are not supposed to stare at the Sun, but it is not too uncommon to accidentally look in its direction for a split-second before instinctively closing one's eyes and turning one's head away.

;Marine biologist: Only objects with oceans are planets (6+ planets)
:This list includes Earth, {{w|Europa (moon)|Europa}}, {{w|Ganymede (moon)|Ganymede}}, {{w|Callisto (moon)|Callisto}}, {{w|Titan (moon)|Titan}}, and {{w|Enceladus}}.

;Maritime: Only objects with ''surface'' oceans are planets (2 planets)
:In the comic Earth and a Saturnian moon, likely Titan, are highlighted. Earth is the only body known in the solar system to have liquid water on the surface significant enough to be called an ocean. The highlighted moon of Saturn is most likely Titan due to its liquid seas of methane and nitrogen.

;Universalist: They're all planets (infinite)
:This list claims that all objects are planets.

;Existantialist: What if {{w|outer space|space}} ''itself'' is a planet??? (Duude)
:This list is different from the list above as it claims that all of space, rather than only the objects existing in space, are planets. The interjection ''Duude'' expresses one's amazement at this 'revelation' and replaces the number count.

;Spiteful: ''Only'' Pluto is a planet (1 planet)
:This list is a malicious play on the demotion of Pluto by demoting all other planets except Pluto instead, leaving Pluto as the only planet in the Solar System.

;(title text) {{w|Star}}: Earth is a star (2 stars)
:In May 1934, Mark Oliphant, Paul Harteck and Ernest Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory, published an intentional deuterium fusion experiment, and made the discovery of both tritium and helium-3. This is widely considered the first experimental demonstration of fusion. Randall considers that this makes Earth fall into the category of a star due to the human-induced ability for Earth to fuse hydrogen into helium using nuclear fusion.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[A table with 3 columns, the headers labelled "Definition", "# of planets", and "Solar system" and 17 rows.]
:[In each row, the first column has a single word, in bold, and a descriptive sentence, the second column has a digit or other 'value', the third column is a drawing of the Solar system, featuring various bodies and a selection of moons: The Sun, Mercury, Venuse, Earth + The Moon, Mars + two moons (Phobos and Deimos), a small selection of Asteroid Belt bodies (Ceres and other smaller examples), Jupitor + four moons (likely Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto), a ringed Saturn + usually one moon (probably Titan) or two (Enceladus?), Uranus + four or five moons (likely to be Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, and Oberon, but one of these over the face of Uranus only in some versions of the image), Neptune + one moon (probably Triton), Pluto + one moon (Charon), four more plutoid/Kuiper Belt objeccts (probably Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong and Eris, in distance order), the first two of them with distinct moons indicated (entirely dependent upon which main objects they are).]
:[Each row's illustrated solar system has indivudal combinations of green highlights applied to the otherwise repeated diagram.]
:[Row 1: Definition:] Traditionalist: Pluto is a planet [Number:] 9 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto]
:[Row 2: Definition:] Modern: Pluto is not a planet [Number:] 8 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune]
:[Row 3: Definition:] Expansive: Dwarf planets are planets [Number:] 17+ [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres (in Asteroid Belt), Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the further main bodies]
:[Row 4: Definition:] Ultratraditionalist: Only the classical planets are planets [Number:] 5 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn]
:[Row 5: Definition:] Condescending: Only giant planets are planets; the rest are big asteroids. [Number:] 4 [Highlit: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune]
:[Row 6: Definition:] Simplistic: Anything gravitationally round is a planet [Number:] 37+ [Highlit: The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres (without other asteroids), Jupiter + moons, Saturn and Titan, Uranus and its moons, Neptune and its moon, Pluto and the four further dwarf planets]
:[Row 7: Definition:] Grounded: Only objects a spaceship has landed on are planets [Number:] 10 [Highlit: Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, five (non-Ceriese) asteroids and Titan]
:[Row 8: Definition:] Regolithic: Anything covered in dirt and ice and stuff is a planet [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, Earth, The Moon, Mars, Ceres and across all other asteroids from the Asteroid Belt, the moons of Jupiter, the moon(!) of Saturn, the moons of Uranus, the moon of Neptune, Pluto and Charon, all remaining dwarf planets and their moons]
:[Row 9: Definition:] Lunar: You can't be a planet if you don't have a moon [Number:] 12+ [Highlit: Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and three(!) of the other dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt]
:[Row 10: Definition:] Solipsitic: Earth is the only planet [Number:] 1 [Highlit: The Earth]
:[Row 11: Definition:] Judgemental: Only the prettiest ones are planets [Number:] 6 [Highlit: The Earth, Jupiter and one of its moons (not identified), Saturn, one of ''two'' Saturnian moons in this image and Pluto]
:[Row 12: Definition:] Empiricist: Only worlds that I, author of this table, have personally seen are planets [Number:] 12 [Highlit: Mercury, Venus, The Earth, The Moon, Mars Jupiter and its four moons, Saturn and Uranus]
:[Row 13: Definition:] Marine biologist: Only objects with oceans are planets [Number:] 6+ [Highlit: The Earth, three Jovian moons, the two illustrated Saturnian moons]
:[Row 14: Definition:] Maritime: Only objects with [next word in italics] surface oceans are planets [Number:] 2 [Highlit: The Earth and Titan]
:[Row 15: Definition:] Universalist: They're all planets [Number:] [infinity symbol] [Highlit: All drawn objects, including The Sun and all moons]
:[Row 16: Definition:] Existantialist: What if space [next word in italics] itself is a planet??? [Word, in italics:] Duude [Highlit: The whole third column cell]
:[Row 17: Definition:] Spiteful: [next word in italics] Only Pluto is a planet [Number:] 1 [Highlit: Pluto]

==Trivia==
*The 'Judgemental' definition has 7 colored objects instead of the labelled 6.
*[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/6/66/20250314195557%21planet_definitions_2x.png The initially released version of the comic] had two errors that were later fixed:
**The 'Traditionalist' definition had Neptune's satellite {{w|Triton (moon)|Triton}} colored instead of Pluto.
**The 'Modern' definition had Pluto colored as a 9th planet. It appears that the images for 'Traditionalist' and 'Modern' were swapped.
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Comics edited after their publication]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T10:13:47Z

162.158.90.177: /* Trivia */ wording

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an TOTALLY CONFORMING TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses the 1742 {{w|Celsius}} scale for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}} (or the related {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}}), which uses the 1724 {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale. The other widely used temperature scale is the 1848 {{w|kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from °Celsius (which, along with °Fahrenheit, is now officially defined relative to kelvin). The Kelvin scale has been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually made in degrees Celsius or kelvin.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also known as "centigrade", was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of kelvin. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) is a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same scale as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.)
<center>Celsius = kelvin - 273.15</center>
<center>kelvin = Celsius + 273.15</center>
While kelvin is very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, it can be unintuitive to laypersons.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead originally setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution.
<center>Celsius = (Fahrenheit - 32) × 5/9</center>
<center>Fahrenheit = Celsius × 9/5 + 32</center>
Although those reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity in Anglophone countries, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F, and 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|coincidentally close to normal human body temperature}}. The Fahrenheit scale remains officially used only in Randall's home country (the U.S., and its territories), the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making.
<center>Celsius = Réaumur / 0.8</center>
<center>Réaumur = Celsius × 0.8</center>
The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it originally used the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<center>Celsius = (Rømer - 7.5) × 40/21</center>
<center>Rømer = Celsius × 21/40 + 7.5</center>
The Rømer scale is considered the predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, because Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°Ra] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point.
<center>Celsius = (Rankine - 491.67) × 5/9</center>
<center>Rankine = (Celsius + 273.15) × 9/5</center>
Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
<center>Celsius = Newton × 100/33</center>
<center>Newton = Celsius × 33/100</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{Actual citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.<ref>https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43</ref>
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inconsistent.
<center>Celsius = (Wedgwood + 8) × 100/1.3</center>
<center>Wedgwood = (Celsius × 1.3/100) - 8</center>
The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,<ref>https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml</ref> when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold.
<center>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius - 22) / 100) × 8</center>
This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying -100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness (or cursedness itself) would be Randall's invention. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures through 1.42x1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,<ref>https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198</ref> will be negative in this implementation. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
<center>Celsius = 100 - real_Celsius</center>
<center>real_Celsius = 100 - Celsius</center>
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a {{w|Millimetre of mercury|column of mercury}} at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was changed, to more or less the form already described above, after his death in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100:
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) - 273.15</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15 )</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [''sic''] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature</ref> The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)<ref>https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature</ref> The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.<ref>https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature</ref>

"Surface" temperatures are measured at 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent the temperature of the air, because temperatures closer to the ground are often quite different due to effect of absorbing sunlight (or a lack thereof, e.g. at night or under clouds), and the thermal capacity of soil.

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Due to high temperature records increasing almost every year (and similarly the trend in average temperatures) as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While the subsequent °X value being given to everyday benchmark temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

==Trivia==

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}} 
! {{w|Human body temperature}} (range midpoint)
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}<ref>https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature</ref>
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}<ref>https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety</ref>
! Typical warm bath temperature<ref>https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/</ref>
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|hot coffee}} temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22 °C || 0 °C || 100 °C || 37 °C || 2.5 °C || -18 °C || 39 °C || 77 °C
|-
| Kelvin || 295 K || 273 K || 373 K || 310 K || 276 K || 255 K || 312 K || 350 K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72 °F || 32 °F || 212 °F || 98.6 °F || 36.5 °F || 0 °F || 102 °F || 171 °F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6 °Ré || 0 °Ré || 80 °Ré || 29.6 °Ré || 2 °Ré || -14.4 °Ré || 31.2 °Ré || 61.6 °Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1 °Rø || 7.5 °Rø || 60 °Rø || 26.9 °Rø || 8.8 °Rø || -2 °Rø || 28 °Rø || 47.9 °Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531 °Ra || 492 °Ra || 672 °Ra || 558 °Ra || 496 °Ra || 459 °Ra || 562 °Ra || 630 °Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3 °N || 0 °N || 33 °N || 12.2 °N || 0.8 °N || -5.9 °N || 12.9 °N || 25.4 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || -7.71 °W || -8.00 °W || -6.70 °W || -7.52 °W || -7.97 °W || -8.23 °W || -7.49 °W || -7.00 °W
|-
| Galen || 0.00 || -1.76 || 6.24 || 1.20 || -1.56 || -3.20 || 1.36 || 4.40
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || -21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|}

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T12:00:25Z

162.158.90.177: /* Explanation */ 2295: Garbage Math

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}}, which uses the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale, which preceded Celsius by just under two decades. The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|kelvin}}s, which uses the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from °Celsius (which, along with °Fahrenheit, is now officially defined relative to kelvins.) Kelvins have been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually done in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water Freezes
! scope="col" | Water Boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742, and revised to its current version a year after his death, in 1745. 0°C represents the freezing point of water, and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of the Kelvin scale. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the two least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin (written with a lowercase 'k' as a unit, or as 'K', without the degrees symbol '°') is a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same scale as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.) While kelvins are very useful for {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they can be unintuitive. Kelvin and Celsius are the most commonly used units in scientific measurements and calculations.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution. Although these reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity especially in Anglophone countries, likely because it aligns with everyday weather conditions and is intuitively useful. Its range covers typical temperatures across various latitudes and seasons, and 100°F is close to normal human body temperature. The Fahrenheit scale remains commonly used only in the U.S. (Randall's home country) and its territories, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5.
The Rømer scale is also considered the common predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales. Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur, and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to avoid the need for decimals.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvins are to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more practical zero point. Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition. Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{cn}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] during his time as a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold. This range from +4 to –4 is humorously described as implying –100% cursedness, which while technically the least cursed of all the listed scales, is still as unclear as the idea of negative cursedness or cursedness itself. There is no standard abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (through 1.42x1032K, the maximum physical temperature[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198]) will be negative. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined; see [[2295: Garbage Math]].
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped inspire) the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was only corrected posthumously in 1745, but Delisle's scale was not.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [sic] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || ''not provided'' || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature] "Surface" temperatures are measured at 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent the temperature of the air, because temperatures closer to the ground are often much different.

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Due to high and average temperature records now being broken nearly every year as a result of {{w|climate change}}, Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift more significantly over time, everyday temperatures will vary less.
|}

=== Trivia ===

Here are the {{w|room temperature}} values for those scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit
! Room temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22°C
|-
| Kelvin || 295K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72°F
|-
| Réaumur || 18°Ré
|-
| Rømer || 18°Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531°Ra
|-
| Newton || 7°N
|-
| Wedgwood || -7°W
|-
| Galen || 0
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78
|-
| Dalton || 25
|-
| °X || 59°X
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2024-08-07T01:50:37Z

162.158.90.177: /* Differentiation */ might as well put spaces around the dots

{{comic
| number = 2117
| date = February 27, 2019
| title = Differentiation and Integration
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic illustrates the old saying [https://mathoverflow.net/q/66377 "Differentiation is mechanics, integration is art."] It does so by providing a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.

However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-knows-where extents.

It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", and a "No"-branch for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.

===Differentiation===
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))\cdot g'(x)</math>.

'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''

For any 𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑘 ⋅ 𝑥𝑎, it follows that 𝑓 '(𝑥) = 𝑘 ⋅ 𝑎 ⋅ 𝑥𝑎−1.

'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)\cdot g(x)-f(x)\cdot g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.

'''{{w|Product rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)\cdot g(x))=f'(x)\cdot g(x)+f(x)\cdot g'(x)</math>.

===Integration===
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified. The catch is, there exists no algorithm for determining what functions they might possibly be, so this approach quickly devolves into a guessing game - this has been the topic of an earlier comic, [[1201: Integration by Parts]].

'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''

The "chain rule" run backwards. Since d(f(u)) = f'(u) ⋅ du/dx ⋅ dx, it follows that f(u) = ∫ f'(u) ⋅ du/dx ⋅ dx. By finding appropriate values for functions f, u such that your problem is in the form ∫ f'(u) ⋅ du/dx ⋅ dx, your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. <math> \frac{d^n}{da^n}f(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{\left(z-a\right)^{n+1}}\, dz.</math> It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''

Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.

'''Install {{w|Mathematica}}'''

Mathematica is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is to install and use Mathematica to do the integration for you. Here is a description about the [https://web.archive.org/web/20180727184709/http://reference.wolfram.com/language/tutorial/IntegralsThatCanAndCannotBeDone.html intricacies of integration and how Mathematica handles those]. (It would be quicker to try [https://www.wolframalpha.com Wolfram Alpha] instead of installing Mathematica, which uses the same backend for mathematical calculations.)

'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''

The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width, as in <math>\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f(t_i) \left(x_{i+1}-x_i\right).</math>, and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the {{w|Lebesgue integration|Lebesgue integral}}. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.

'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''

Stokes' theorem is a statement about the integration of differential forms on manifolds. <math>\int_{\partial \Omega}\omega=\int_\Omega d\omega\,.</math> It is invoked in science and engineering during control volume analysis (that is, to track the rate of change of a quantity within a control volume, it suffices to track the fluxes in and out of the control volume boundary), but is rarely used directly (and even when it is used directly, the functions that are most frequently used in science and engineering are well-behaved, like sinusoids and polynomials).

'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''

The Risch algorithm is a notoriously complex procedure that, given a certain class of symbolic integrand, either finds a symbolic integral or proves that no elementary integral exists. (Technically it is only a semi-algorithm, and cannot produce an answer unless it can determine if a certain symbolic expression is {{w|Constant problem|equal to 0}} or not.) Many computer algebra systems have chosen to implement only the simpler Risch-Norman algorithm, which does not come with the same guarantee. A series of extensions to the Risch algorithm extend the class of allowable functions to include (at least) the error function and the logarithmic integral. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.

'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''

Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation x2⋅d2y/dx2 + x⋅dy/dx + (x2 - n2)⋅y = 0, where n is the order of the Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''Phone calls to mathematicians'''

This step would indicate that the flowchart user, desperate from failed attempts to solve the problem, contacts some more skilled mathematicians by phone, and presumably asks them for help. The connected steps of "Oh no", "What the heck is a Bessel function?" and "Burn the evidence" may suggest the possibility that this interaction might not play out very well and could even get the caller in trouble.
Specialists and renowned experts being bothered - not to their amusement - by strangers, often at highly inconvenient times or locations, is a common comedic trope, also previously utilized by xkcd (for example in [[163: Donald Knuth]]).

'''Burn the evidence'''

This phrase parodies a common trope in detective fiction, where characters burn notes, receipts, passports, etc. to maintain secrecy. This may refer to the burning of one's work to avoid the shame of being associated with such a badly failed attempt to solve the given integration problem. Moreover, such a poor attempt at integration could be viewed as a 'crime against mathematics', with the working of the problem being criminal 'evidence' that must be destroyed to avoid exposure as the culprit. Alternatively, it could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so the negative consequences of a prosecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''

Symbolic integration is the basic process of finding an antiderivative function (defined with symbols), as opposed to numerically integrating a function. The title text is a pun that defines the term not as integration that works with symbols, but rather as integration as a symbolic act, as if it were a component of a ritual. A symbolic act in a ritual is an act meant to evoke something else, such as burning a wooden figurine of a person to represent one’s hatred of that person. Alternatively, the reference could be seen as a joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because Randall can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

==Transcript==
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]
:DIFFERENTIATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Chain Rule
::Power Rule
::Quotient Rule
::Product Rule
::Etc.
:Done?
::No [Arrow returns to "Try applying" step.]
::Yes
:Done!

[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]
:INTEGRATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Integration by Parts
::Substitution
:Done?
:Haha, Nope!

:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]
::Cauchy's Formula
::????
::???!?
::???
::???
::?
::Partial Fractions
::??
::?
::Install Mathematica
::?
::Riemann Integration
::Stokes' Theorem
::???
::?
::Risch Algorithm
::???
::[Sad face.]
::?????
::???
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??
::Phone calls to mathematicians
::Oh No
::Burn the Evidence
::[More arrows pointing out of the image to suggest more steps.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Analysis]]
[[Category:Flowcharts]]
[[Category:Math]]

2967: Matter

2024-08-03T04:03:51Z

162.158.90.177: /* Explanation */ fix template

{{comic
| number = 2967
| date = August 2, 2024
| title = Matter
| image = matter_2x.png
| imagesize = 234x341px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = He was the first person to land a 900, which is especially impressive because pulling off a half-integer spin requires obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GOOFY FRONTSIDE WIKI GRIND TO SECRET PHYSICS DEMO TAPE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In {{w|skateboarding}}, the term 'goofy' means to use the {{w|Footedness#Goofy_stance|opposite stance}} of the 'standard-footed' one where one pushes with right foot. This comic takes this as an apparent analogy of {{w|antimatter}} in elementary physics, which exhibits the opposite charge to normal matter will mutually destroy 'normal' matter (releasing energy relative to the original mass). This appears to be the kind of explanation that one gets when {{w|Tony Hawk}}, an ex-professional skateboarder of great renown[https://www.mobygames.com/game/3567/tony-hawks-pro-skater/], is teaching.

This metaphor also indirectly raises the problem of {{w|baryon asymmetry}}, in which ordinary matter appears to be much more common than antimatter, unlike most{{citation needed}} distributions of handedness, chemical {{w|chirality}}, or the {{w|skewness}} of {{w|Multimodal_distribution|bimodal statistics}} describing asymmetries in nature (called {{w|homochirality}}, e.g., organ shape and centering, or plants favoring one branch over the other at a fork) and in artificial methods, while 'goofy-footed' skaters are about common as 'regular-footed'.

The use of Tony Hawk in the comic is could be a play on {{w|Stephen Hawking}}, a famous astrophysicist and professor at the University of Cambridge before his death in 2018. As Tony Hawk does not have a degree in physics{{citation needed}}, teaching popular but inaccurate versions is a likely pitfall of his professorship.

The title text describes Hawk as the first person to "land a 900," meaning the successful completion of a {{w|900 (skateboarding)|skateboarding trick}} involving two and a half rotations, or nine hundred degrees (2.5 × 360° = 900°). In physics, {{w|Spin (physics)|'spin'}} is a {{w|quantum number}} describing subatomic particles, named for the analogous ''but crucially distinct'' concept of {{w|angular momentum}} in classical physics. Obeying {{w|Fermi–Dirac statistics}} requires that the particles involved are {{w|fermion}}s, which include all of the electrons, protons, and neutrons comprising the entirety of Hawk's mass and electrochemical state. Fermions all have {{w|half-integer}} (i.e., ...-1½, -½, ½, 1½...) {{w|spin quantum number}}s which do indeed include 2½. However, it's very important to remember that [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYeRS5a3HbE&ab_channel=ScienceClicEnglish quantum mechanical spin is ''not'' rotation, but how quickly the corresponding particle changes state when rotated.] In fact, all skateboarders, indeed all animals, plants, minerals and most everything we ever interact with ordinarily except light and cosmic rays and their decay products, are comprised entirely of fermions, so everyone is obeying Fermi–Dirac statistics at all times.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Tony Hawk (drawn with short hair) gesturing at a narrow whiteboard on which illegible things are marked, what may be a Feynman diagram with one of the particle/antiparticle pair going into a circle (possibly representing a black hole, and thus depicting the popularized(incorrect) analogy for {{w|Hawking radiation}}), and at the bottom, a 2x3 table of values.]
:Tony Hawk: In the standard model, regular matter will annihilate if it comes in contact with oppositely-charged ''goofy'' matter.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Tony Hawk becomes a physics professor

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2656: Scientific Field Prefixes

2022-08-09T15:02:25Z

162.158.90.177: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2656
| date = August 8, 2022
| title = Scientific Field Prefixes
| image = scientific_field_prefixes.png
| titletext = Massage: Theoretical (10), Quantum (6), High-energy (2), Computational (1), Marine (1), Astro- (None)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a Quantum Dentist - Fill in this [[#Table with explanations|table with explanations]]. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Google Scholar}} is a search engine for academic publications, and [[Randall]] has been having fun with it.

Randall searches for various terms that are composed of some common prefixes and common suffixes, but not always commonly associated with each other in each possible combination, and tabulates the results. See this [[#Table with numbers|table with numbers]] for easy overview.

This reveals some very commonly used full terms like "{{w|Theoretical Physics}}", the most discovered, which represents almost four million hits compared to the next highest, "{{w|Computational Biology}}", with almost 3 million hits and {{w|Astrophysics}} with 2 million hits. Ducking just below 1 million hits is fourth placing {{w|Marine Biology}}. Of the 42 possible fields just 14 have more than 100,000 hits, and only four more have over 10,000.

But there are also some that have much lower numbers, eight with less than 10 hits in the table. "High-Energy Psychology" and "Marine Dentistry" have just one apparent occurrence each (equivalent to a {{w|Googlewhack}}), whilst there are no hits at all recorded for four of the initially combined terms. In total (with the title text) there are 48 fields, see a full [[#List of Scientific fields|list of scientific fields]] below.

An explanation for both existing and fictive scientific fields can be given below in the [[#Table with explanations|table with explanations]].

In the caption to the table Randall list four potential research opportunities i.e. those with no hits in the table: Quantum Dentistry, High-Energy Dentistry, Astrodentistry, and High-Energy Theology

He thus suggests that, because of the (apparent) lack of current studies in these specialized sub-fields, there may be unexplored potential for a study. This could be that the more "used" areas have far too much competition and be might already be "used up" for potentially useful discoveries. (This does not account for how much 'study space' might be available in a given box of research, even though Randall has previously hinted that anything "Astro"-related is potentially [[2640: The Universe by Scientific Field|full of many things to study]].)
Of course the real reason for no one studying these fields are that they make no sense. {{w|Dentistry}} is related to fixing peoples teeth. The quantum world has no effect on humans teeth, and high-energy inside a humans mouth may also be a bit dangerous (although x-rays and radiation treatment in the mouth could be seen as high energy.) Astrodentistry is not really relevant if seeing this as something used on humans. Of course astronauts might need dentistry while in space, but it would be a stretch to call the study of dentistry in zero-G for astrodentistry. High-energy Theology seems more like someone could have used the word...

In the title text Randall lists the figures for another 'major' field suffix, i.e. {{w|Massage}}, and the numbers of its prefixed forms. From this, we learn that Astromassage is another 'open' field that is currently unstudied, but none of the five others have more than 10. Actually the most surprising aspect of the title text is that there are hits for both quantum massage and high-energy massage... Massage has been added to the tables below and the list of fields.

===Table with numbers===
*Here the table is presented with only numbers, so it can be sorted.
**Massage from the title text has been added.
{|class="wikitable sortable"
!
! Physics
! Chemistry
! Biology
! Engineering
! Psychology
! Theology
! Dentistry
! Massage
|-
| Theoretical
| 3990000
| 445000
| 553000
| 2460
| 15500
| 726
| 41
| 10
|-
| Quantum
| 478000
| 740000
| 7620
| 21100
| 699
| 447
| 0
| 6
|-
| High-Energy
| 844000
| 9600
| 3
| 119
| 1
| 0
| 0
| 2
|-
| Computational
| 510000
| 599000
| 2910000
| 67400
| 4620
| 40
| 11
| 1
|-
| Marine
| 3920
| 136000
| 945000
| 108000
| 35
| 6
| 1
| 1
|-
| Astro-
| 2010000
| 20600
| 226000
| 430
| 64
| 580
| 0
| 0
|}

===List of Scientific fields===
This is included for easy reading of the numbers:
*Theoretical Physics: 3,990,000
*Theoretical Chemistry: 445,000
*Theoretical Biology: 553,000
*Theoretical Engineering: 2,460
*Theoretical Psychology: 15,500
*Theoretical Theology: 726
*Theoretical Dentistry: 41
*Theoretical Massage: 10
*Quantum Physics: 478,000
*Quantum Chemistry: 740,000
*Quantum Biology: 7,620
*Quantum Engineering: 21,100
*Quantum Psychology: 699
*Quantum Theology: 447
*Quantum Dentistry: None
*Quantum Massage: 6
*High-Energy Physics: 844,000
*High-Energy Chemistry: 9,600
*High-Energy Biology: 3
*High-Energy Engineering: 119
*High-Energy Psychology: 1
**Job ad from October 31st, 2001, asking for "high energy psychology, speech pathology or special education majors to work with our mildly autistic son"
*High-Energy Theology: None
*High-Energy Dentistry: None
*High-Energy Massage: 2
*Computational Physics: 510,000
*Computational Chemistry: 599,000
*Computational Biology: 2,910,000
*Computational Engineering: 67,400
*Computational Psychology: 4,620
*Computational Theology: 40
*Computational Dentistry: 11
*Computational Massage: 1
*Marine Physics: 3,920
*Marine Chemistry: 136,000
*Marine Biology: 945,000
*Marine Engineering: 108,000
*Marine Psychology: 35
*Marine Theology: 6
*Marine Dentistry: 1
**The paper mentions the application of something in "Transportation, Marine, Dentistry, Electronics" and other fields
*Marine Massage: 1
**Article in "Professional Beauty" of 2021, mentioning "An exceptional massage technique with the professional-only Oligo-Marine Massage Cream includes smoothing, relaxing and stretching movements for total relaxation and optimal skin"
*Astrophysics: 2,010,000
*Astrochemistry: 20,600
*Astrobiology: 226,000
*Astroengineering: 430
*Astrophychology: 64
*Astrotheology: 580
*Astrodentistry: None
*Astromassage: None

==Table with explanations==
*Here all 48 fields can be explained in a table:
{|class="wikitable sortable"
! Field
! Number of Searches
! Explanation of field
|-
| Theoretical Physics
| 3990000
| {{w|Theoretical Physics}} is a whole field in itself, with journals made only for that type of physics. Also the one with by far most hits.
|-
| Theoretical Chemistry
| 445000
|
|-
| Theoretical Biology
| 553000
|
|-
| Theoretical Engineering
| 2460
|
|-
| Theoretical Psychology
| 15500
|
|-
| Theoretical Theology
| 726
|
|-
| Theoretical Dentistry
| 41
|
|-
| Theoretical Massage
| 10
| Theoretical Massage is not a real scientific field{{Citation needed}}, but rather the theory about it, in contrast to the practical application of {{w|Massage|massage}}. This term is most likely to be used in the context of learning or studying massages, for example during the process of becoming a massage therapist. Alternatively this term could refer to the studying of the masses of matter, (or its massage if you will). This would make it a field of physics.
|-
| Quantum Physics
| 478000
|
|-
| Quantum Chemistry
| 740000
|
|-
| Quantum Biology
| 7620
|
|-
| Quantum Engineering
| 21100
|
|-
| Quantum Psychology
| 699
|
|-
| Quantum Theology
| 447
|
|-
| Quantum Dentistry
| None
|
|-
| Quantum Massage
| 6
|
|-
| High-Energy Physics
| 844000
|
|-
| High-Energy Chemistry
| 9600
|
|-
| High-Energy Biology
| 3
|
|-
| High-Energy Engineering
| 119
|
|-
| High-Energy Psychology
| 1
|
|-
| High-Energy Theology
| None
|
|-
| High-Energy Dentistry
| None
|
|-
| High-Energy Massage
| 2
|
|-
| Computational Physics
| 510000
|
|-
| Computational Chemistry
| 599000
|
|-
| Computational Biology
| 2910000
|
|-
| Computational Engineering
| 67400
|
|-
| Computational Psychology
| 4620
|
|-
| Computational Theology
| 40
|
|-
| Computational Dentistry
| 11
|
|-
| Computational Massage
| 1
|
|-
| Marine Physics
| 3920
|
|-
| Marine Chemistry
| 136000
|
|-
| Marine Biology
| 945000
|
|-
| Marine Engineering
| 108000
|
|-
| Marine Psychology
| 35
|
|-
| Marine Theology
| 6
|
|-
| Marine Dentistry
| 1
|
|-
| Marine Massage
| 1
|
|-
| Astrophysics
| 2010000
|
|-
| Astrochemistry
| 20600
|
|-
| Astrobiology
| 226000
|
|-
| Astroengineering
| 430
|
|-
| Astrophychology
| 64
|
|-
| Astrotheology
| 580
|
|-
| Astrodentistry
| None
|
|-
| Astromassage
| None
|
|}

==Transcript==
:[A table is drawn with seven columns and six rows. Above each column and to the left of each row there is a label. All 42 fields are filled out with a number, except when the number is 0, then is says none in a red font. Above the table there is a large header:]
:<big>Number of search results on Google Scholar</big>
:{|class="wikitable"
|
| Physics
| Chemistry
| Biology
| Engineering
| Psychology
| Theology
| Dentistry
|-
| Theoretical
| 3,990,000
| 445,000
| 553,000
| 2,460
| 15,500
| 726
| 41
|-
| Quantum
| 478,000
| 740,000
| 7,620
| 21,100
| 699
| 447
| ''None'' 
|-
| High-Energy
| 844,000
| 9,600
| 3
| 119
| 1
| ''None'' 
| ''None'' 
|-
| Computational
| 510,000
| 599,000
| 2,910,000
| 67,400
| 4,620
| 40
| 11
|-
| Marine
| 3,920
| 136,000
| 945,000
| 108,000
| 35
| 6
| 1
|-
| Astro-
| 2,010,000
| 20,600
| 226,000
| 430
| 64
| 580
| ''None'' 
|}

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Potential research opportunities: Quantum Dentistry, High-Energy Dentistry, Astrodentistry, and High-Energy Theology

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Google Search]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Engineering]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

Talk:2619: Crêpe

2022-05-16T22:07:36Z

162.158.90.177: /* dots over letters */ new section

You can almost make the same weird circumflex by using combining diacritics. e, then inverted breve then circumflex. Doesn't seem to render properly with firefox at least --> ȇ̂ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.241|172.70.114.241]] 14:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
: U+2372 is a caret with a tilde through it: ⍲ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.251|108.162.245.251]] 14:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:: Would you like a crē̂pe? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.32|162.158.63.32]] 20:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:: I looked at a few more unicode things. I'm not too familiar with unicode; there are a few more down curves I think, but I didn't see any way to make it just like the image. I think wiki markup or an embedded image would probably do this best, and may be worthwhile if anybody's excited. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.32|162.158.63.32]] 20:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
::: The closest I can find is 🢕, which may render okay on desktop but not mobile as <table style="display: inline-table; line-height: 0.5em; vertical-align: 0.85em;"><tr><td style="font-size: 75%; text-align: center;">🢕 </td></tr><tr><td>crepe</td></tr></table> given that terrible table/css hackery that you'll regret looking at if you find this comment in wikitext. Someone with the patience to codepen up a three cell-tall table with varying font-size:s and line-height:s can probably overlay ∧ and ^ to get the exact shape, but I doubt it would be robustly cross-platform, and of course certainly not across arbitrary fonts, or worse, on mobile because we can't control viewport scaling in wikitext, because that's a head/meta tag. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.25|172.69.33.25]] 21:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
::::....does a {{w|Template:Ruby|ruby}} tag work in {{w|Template:Ruby-ja|wikicode}}?? because i see ''table'' in there and thats scary. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.241|172.70.114.241]] 14:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
::::: Presumably you tried it. Neither the template or the <nowiki><ruby></nowiki> tag works. Whoever came up with the stroke/fill approach had the right idea: <table style="display: inline-table; line-height: 0.1em; vertical-align: 0.65em;"><tr><td style="font-size: 20%; text-align: center;">⮝  </td></tr><tr><td>crepe</td></tr></table> [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.36|172.70.211.36]] 00:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

: Is it possible to vertically stretch a character? A combination of a "regular" circumflex and a vertically-stretched circumflex might work. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 18:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:: I didn't realise it was actually two circumflexes of different heights. This is pretty visible in the new picture. There might be a taller or shorter circumflex somewhere in unicode, but I think stretching would take mathml or something dunno. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.65|172.70.110.65]] 23:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the circumflex is not an "A" but more of a split-and-stretched delta, or an arrowhead. Maybe show a zoom-in of the circumflex (obviously from the 2x image) in the explanation? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.163|108.162.221.163]] 14:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: Also, i noticed there are weird white dots past the corners of the border. They are even more visible in the 2x! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.163|108.162.221.163]] 14:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: A chevron, perchance? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.15|172.68.50.15]] 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it not also a play on "weird flex but OK"? https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/weird-flex-but-okay/ {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.11}}

IPA would be appreciated {{unsigned ip|172.70.110.241}}
: I would say the accepted online versions seem to work well for me:
:* US pronunciation: /kɹeɪp/ ("krayp")
:* UK possibilities: /kɹɛp/, /kɹeɪp/ ("krep" or "krayp")
:** For me, I'd use the former for food (e.g. "Crêpes Suzette") as a fairly direct loan from French,
:** But I'd say the latter for paper (the crinkly-tissue stuff)
:* Fr pronunciation: /kʁɛp/ ("krep", but with that funny French 'r'! ;) )
: YMMV, and possibly different regional British accents (or just who they learnt the terms from) might vary quite wildly. I'm not sure the average Brit truly understand French (typographic) accents. Though possibly we are more inclined to at least try ''something'' than your average American. :p [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.209|172.69.79.209]] 21:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:: In British English it's pronounced 'pancake'. ;o) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.248|162.158.158.248]] 08:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like an "A". It's more a hollow outline of a circumflex. You can see it more clearly in the 2x version. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.54.247|172.70.54.247]] 19:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The crêpe itself is also in the shape of an accent. -JT {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.55}}

Is this a reference to the vandalism attacks? "crap" and "crêpe" are somewhat similar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.27|172.70.178.27]] 23:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
:There tends to be no acknowledgement at all that Randall takes any notice of what goes on here at the moment. Despite the occasional suspicion that he deliberarely Nerd Snipes us with a comic that is particularly designe to be hard to document 'normally'. I'd say it's a pure co-inky-dink, personally. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.223|172.69.79.223]] 18:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
::I admit I have just such a slight suspicion for this very comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.25|172.69.33.25]] 21:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
If the circumflex is interpreted as a small capital A, it could be considered a form of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_character ruby text], phonetic characters used to transcribe logographic characters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.38|172.68.189.38]] 19:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thought it is supposed to be some kind of combination of the 3 french accents? one aigu ´ and one grave `above a circonflexe ^ (in many fonts the first two are significantly steeper in my experience)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.91|172.68.50.91]] 14:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

== dots over letters ==

If, as the current version suggests, a diuretic is in fact a medicine to promote urin excretion, the title text might also refer to the practice of writing one's name in snow using urin and, having diurtetic-induced spare writing fuel, being forced to add diacritic symbols.

2617: Maps

2022-05-11T04:52:11Z

162.158.90.177:

{{comic
| number = 2617
| date = May 9, 2022
| title = Maps
| image = maps.png
| titletext = OpenStreetMap was always pretty good but is also now *really* good? And Apple Maps's new zoomed-in design in certain cities like NYC and London is just gorgeous. It's cool how there are all these good maps now!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHER- Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Apple Maps}} was quite bad when first released, attracting lots of criticism from iPhone users who were accustomed to the superior[{{w|Wikipedia:Citation_needed|opinion: how is it superior?}}] {{w|Google Maps}}. In [https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-maps-gets-drivers-lost-in-australian-outback-police-warn/ one instance], it sent drivers 40 miles out of their way into the Australian desert with no water supply. Often, initial negative impressions about a product are retained for a long time, regardless of how it may have developed, particularly when there is an obviously superior competitor to adopt, and no compelling reason to revisit the alternatives. Hence Randall/Cueball is surprised to discover that Apple Maps is now pretty good. His surprise is exaggerated to the extent that it is comparable to finding that some fundamental constant of the universe has shifted, such as the speed of light or pi being changed to some other number.

The title text mentions {{w|OpenStreetMap}}, an open-data crowd sourced geodatabase, which has also improved since Randall has last checked, potentially moving it from a "pretty good" score to a "really good" score. He also adds two examples on how the Apple Maps service has improved: zooming in on cities, like London or New York you can see features like trees and road markings, the latter usually not visible on other mapping services at all. He marvels at the number of "good" mapping options now!

Google Maps itself, and especially its satellite coverage outside the US, was considered quite bad when it launched in 2005. The maps displayed back then led to mockery among "real" cartographers that the service couldn't really be considered a map, either: It was called "map-like", given that it was just a visualization running on an extensive geodatabase, and didn't have a fixed scale. However, Google's popular mapping approach revolutionized how maps were perceived all over the world [{{w|Wikipedia:Citation_needed|''how?'' please explain how it differed from earlier online satellite mapping services, such as MapQuest}}], blurring the lines between traditional paper maps, GIS (geo-informational systems) and digitally rendered maps on screen. The process of "mapping" - as it is referenced here - has since moved significantly into the digital realm.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Megan and White Hat face Cueball, who is staring down at his open palms.]
:Cueball: You look around one day and realize the things you assumed were immutable constants of the universe have changed.
:Cueball: The foundations of our reality are shifting beneath our feet.
:Cueball: We live in a house built on sand.

:[Caption below panel]
:The day I discovered that Apple Maps is kind of good now

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Maps]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]