Talk:3010: Geometriphylogenetics

2024-11-13T09:32:19Z

172.70.86.111:

Does the phrase "maximum likelihood" have any relationship to phylogenetics? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
: {{w|Computational_phylogenetics#Maximum_likelihood|Profoundly so}}. Most contemporary analyses, especially of large datasets, use either maximum-likelihood methodologies or Bayesian inference (q.v.). I will see if I can say something coherent and comprehensible about this in the explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.58|172.71.147.58]] 03:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::If it was you who added the explanation for the title text, nicely done! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 05:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

"Pointy circle" is, of course, an oxymoron. Randall is also making a joke about how older phylogenetic trees were based on anatomy, like saying that squares and triangles are close because they have exoskeletons with straight lines and joints. Now, the tree is (where possible) based on genetic similarity. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 05:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hippos can't swim? Did the BBC lie to us? https://youtu.be/X20NjqMiQyo?si=8pN-xwgKJEWM08ZF
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.135|172.68.186.135]] 06:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Fiona the Hippo begs to differ. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YRJCSZRJU] [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::Not sure if you're being ironic, but that video shows that Fiona ''can't'' swim. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 17:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why was phylogenetic analysis required to establish this relationship? Reuleaux triangles are an intermediate form, demonstrating a close relation between circles and triangles. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.130.208|172.71.130.208]] 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

''Obviously'', he's doing phylogenetics wrong: the pentagons (& hexagons, not shown) should also be shown as descending from the circles. Plus, the ovoids (far more than a middle step between lentiform & triangle, truly an extant branch in their own right) are not represented ''at all''. A major oversight, to cut such corners, given the point he's circling about?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 06:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:There are two competing theories of the origin of circles. They are either very basal polygons (having one side) or very derived (having infinite sides). It's possible that both are true and 'circle' is a polyphyletic group. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 16:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::Circles are priests, obviously. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.183|172.69.43.183]] 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone should add something about how circles and triangles are related through trig in a way that the rest aren't. Sorry I am new to this and don't know how to format my comment correctly.

I'm sure you could develop a 'DNA' sequence for geometric shapes. [Number of active vertices + angle, Number of curves in each side + variation from straight + orientation from centre, thickness of stroke, etc] basically the sort of data in any drawing data of said shape. Thus you could have two circles that look every similar, but one being an extreme Reulaux triangle and the other a 10,000 sided polygon with no side curvature at all! C.f. Swift and swallow! YMMV [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 10:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
: The result would be a taxon x character data matrix, the first step in all forms of phylogenetic analysis. On such a small matrix, you could probably perform maximum parsimony analysis by hand, as Hennig did. However, with such a small number of characters per taxon, taxon resolution would probably be low (lots of polytomies instead of fully resolved dichotomies), and [https://wiki.christophchamp.com/index.php?title=Bootstrapping bootstrap support values] would be horrible. The resulting consensus tree would likely be [ahem] sharply criticized - not least because it would be a "mere" {{w|Analysis_of_similarities|similarity analysis}} and not a true phylogeny (not a reconstruction of descent with modification of progeny). Do not submit such a tree for peer review, and especially do not take it to a meeting of the [https://cladistics.org/ Willi Hennig Society]. You have been warned. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.130|162.158.42.130]] 13:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:I’m reminded of the incircle and circumcircle of a triangle. Triangles are the only shape where all polygons of that edge count are guaranteed to have an incircle and a circumcircle (unless, of course, it is degenerate). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.24.5|172.71.24.5]] 13:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe in this "Theory of Polygon Evolution". I believe all abstract polygons were created in their current state by intelligent mathematicians. [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 12:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:Heathen - The One True Creator is Euclid! 😉 [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 12:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminds me of pedigree genetic charts as well, anyways you geomreationists are so absurdly wrong it's laughable /j [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.130|108.162.238.130]] 13:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

'''Obviously''' both triangles and squares descended from circles. But, while triangles evolved from circles with protrusions that extended into points for improved dynamics, squares evolved from circles that developed flattened sides for more stability. Looking forward at their descendants, we see that both shapes have crab-like descendants. But again, developed from very different mechanisms: The evolved triangles's points split and reformed into the crab claws, while the squares evolved into rectangles which developed concave ends that eventually consolidated into the crab claw shape. [[2314: Carcinization]] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.73|162.158.41.73]] 20:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It also reminds me of the quadrilateral family tree (google it, I guess), which has always bothered me exactly because it shows just how unapplicable phylogenetics is to geometry, or they are just super incestuous in a time-traveling sort of way? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.29|172.70.43.29]] 20:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:Also (re-)interbreeding. c.f. parallelograms that (regularised) become rhombi, but also the "kite" branch can lead, by regularising, to a rhombus. And rhombi descend to the special case of squares, as do special cases of rectangles (differently special cases of parallelograms than rhombi). If anything, the most interesting sub-family of quadrilateral are all the ones that (while not self-intersecting, adding further complications) manage not to be a rhombus, parallelogram ''or'' trapezium. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.183|172.69.43.183]] 23:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland Circles are descended from polygons and squares are descended from triangles], at least according to the renowned expert [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Abbott_Abbott Edwin Abbott Abbott]. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.175.23|172.71.175.23]] 21:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Exciting new research may have found the universal common ancestor, which is being called a 'point'.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.111|172.70.86.111]] 09:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:119: Worst Band Name Ever

2024-11-09T11:05:51Z

172.70.86.111:

What about hitchslapper? '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What indicates there is no audience? "...the name 'Hedgeclipper' as the reason why the band has no audience..." I read it as the other members or a promoter/manager decided on a band name for a battle-of-the-bands, open mic, or other venue with multiple acts, and told the announcer, but an audience might still be there. [[User:Tryc|Tryc]] ([[User talk:Tryc|talk]]) 13:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that, if they end up being any good, then whatever their name it'll be forever associated with a successful band. I mean ''The B''ea''tles'' is such a kitsh name, right? What on Earth is ''U2'' supposed to mean (to anyone not familiar with the plane type, or the various other vehicles and objects given that name), and what made it "the name that they disliked the least"? ''Arctic Monkeys''? Silly name. ''The Who''? Who? (And surely more grammatically ''The Whom''!) Are ''The Beach Boys'' lifeguards? Isn't ''Blondie'' just what we call that fair-haired lass in the office? And you can forget right now about ''The Buzzcocks'' and ''The Sex Pistols'', I think you just wandered into the wrong store... [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

:"the who" references doctor who[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.231|172.70.162.231]] 08:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Not as far as I know. According to {{w|The Who|wikipedia}};
::''Townshend and his house-mate Richard Barnes spent a night considering names, focusing on a theme of joke announcements, including "No One" and "the Group". Townshend preferred "the Hair", and Barnes liked "the Who" because it "had a pop punch". Daltrey chose "the Who" the next morning.''
::....although the respective dates (1963 and '64) ''do'' line up fairly neatly, I'm not sure we can speculate that a later-to-be-cult TV programme was more likely an ancestral inflence than just a cousin (both band and show trying to evoke an air of mystery, and hapening to land upon the same keyword). I ''suppose'' the counterclaim (and alternate justification) could be rooted in it not being seen politic (or rock'n'roll) enough to admit that it was all originally a big of a cultural ripoff. But then it seems that they've always been savvy enough to officially avert any such link, as there's no first-hand-ish assertions of this to be found, only unreliable fan-(either of DW or TW)-theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.111|172.70.86.111]] 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you not realise that "U2" sounds like "you too" or maybe "you two"? XD{{unsigned ip|172.69.79.171|12:00, 2 August 2022}}

I'm disappointed to see that no one has a decent explanation of this strip. If the implication is that electric hedgeclippers make bad sounds, why is there a pair of manual hedgeclippers on the bass drum? Why is the name '''singular'''? I'm forced to conclude that this is Randall’s equivalent of The Far Side's "Cow Tools" but not as funny. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.118.8|172.68.118.8]] 18:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hedgeclippers are not only noisy, but also probably smelly. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.123|172.69.23.123]] 02:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3010: Geometriphylogenetics

Talk:119: Worst Band Name Ever