explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2966: Exam Numbers

2024-08-01T15:24:40Z

172.70.90.106:

pre-algebra: 4, calculus: pi^2 / 4 (about 2.467), physics: cosmological constant: depends on how you measure it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.48|162.158.167.48]] 18:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Game theory: -5x10⁶ (maybe helpful, maybe not... just be thankful I didn't include an ''i'' factor in there somewhere...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting; I went with ∞+10. So, between our answers, that makes the average... [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Could somebody reformat all the math here in whatever LaTeX plugin this wiki uses? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.102|162.158.222.102]] 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Probably not, because the MathML here is broken. But, also, nothing I see requires anything particularly complicated, it can all stay in fairly straightforward (standardly formatted) text. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.224|141.101.98.224]] 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I had to look up "TREE(3)." Seriousness aside, I think the largest number would be the astrological sign 1 that has its end_points_ as galaxy clusters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.184|172.68.245.184]] 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Which astrological sign? Search engines aren't helping. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 20:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::The nonexistent one I just made up that looks like a "1." 😃 [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.6|172.71.222.6]] 21:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:'OAK'? 'ELM'? 'ASH?' 'BOX'? 'YEW'? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.165|141.101.98.165]] 08:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If infinity _is_ a number, it might be a possible solution to the game theory question. The average of any set of numbers that includes infinity is infinity, and infinity + 10 is still infinity. I probably wouldn't try that in most classes, but a game theory professor might approve "gaming" the system, as it were. {{unsigned ip|172.70.39.44}}
:If I would prefer no-one (else) to win, I might submit -∞ as my answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.74|172.70.90.74]] 20:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::If I really wanted to mess with them, I would submit i. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.248|172.70.160.248]] 08:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I did a bit of a deep dive into wikipedia and the googology wiki and the answer to the last question depends on a few things (along with assuming ZFC). If transfinite ordinals count as numbers, then those at the end of {{w|List of large cardinal properties}} take the cake (if i'm reading it right). Otherwise, something based off [https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Rayo%27s_number Rayo's number] is the best googologists have come up with so far. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 20:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

:How about "On, in the context of MK set theory"? MK is a standard way to extend ZFC by allowing classes as mathematical objects, so On (the class of all set-size ordinals) is a class-sized "ordinal". But MK doesn't allow proper classes to be contained in any object, so "On+1" doesn't exist except as a definable hyperclass. Thus, On is the biggest "number" in a model of MK set theory.{{unsigned ip|172.68.205.151}}

Isn’t the joke in the pre-algebra that it would require algebra in order ro calculate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I agree that it would be worth adding wording along the lines that “the joke here is that you need algebra to solve the equation”. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
: I interpreted the 'pre-' bit as being more like 'proto-' - i.e. it's not fully proper algebra, but it's the kind of work you would do in preparation for tackling proper algebra.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.156|172.68.186.156]] 08:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You know, formatting math on this wiki would be a lot easier if the Math extension were correctly installed, but evidently it's not: <math>\int_0^\pi x \sin^2 x \;dx</math> [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that integral really correct? I asked Wolfram Alpha and it gave me
: integral x sin^2(x) dx = 1/8 (2 x (x - sin(2 x)) - cos(2 x)) + constant
which does not seem to be the same as
: −2x sin(2x)+cos(2x)−2x)/28 + C.
But maybe there's something with half-angle formulas that makes them the same? … but I don't think so, they don't evaluate the same for x=0. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 02:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:Yup, looks like it was supposed to be
:: -(2x sin(2x)+cos(2x)-2x^2)/8
:but they messed up the places of the negation and square.
:Though the important part here isn't what it is at any f(x), but what it is for any f(x)-f(y). In this particular case, f(pi)-f(0). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.121|162.158.41.121]] 04:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As to '''biggest numbers:''' I thought most people would say the answers revolved around "nine-stuffing." For a kindergartener, stuff in as many bare <code>9</code>s as possible. For a postgrad, mix in exponentiation and write your numbers even smaller than a kindergartener can. <code>9^9^9^9...</code> or perhaps <code>99^99^99...</code> or…I'm not sure what's optimal. Of course, I'm not math postdoc ;) Or maybe some integrals or big-∏ notation. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 12:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The PhD Cosmology question is easy, actually. Just write down H0 (imagine that 0 is subscript, I don't know how (if) I can format this comment). It doesn't ask you to write down the ''value'' of the constant, just the constant itself.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.103.118|172.71.103.118]] 14:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:Well if you're going to get smartass about it, the last question is easy too - you just write out "THE BIGGEST NUMBER YOU CAN THINK OF"[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.56|172.68.186.56]] 15:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

== What is a number? ==

Infinity is _not_ a number. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Infinity is absolutely not a number, and is the one answer I would mark as unambiguously wrong for the last one. Just say TREE(G_64) or something. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 20:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:This is correct. No one in post-grad math would write “infinity” and expect that answer to work. Infinity is NOT a number except for seven-year-olds. Yet the explanation above continues to posit it as a possible correct answer. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::I qualify as a "post-grad math", and yet, I think infinity would have been a perfectly valid answer. Let me explain. The term "number" without further context is a bit vague, because there are several possible generalizations of natural numbers (something that presumably everyone agrees to call a "number"), and they are not compatible, ie. there is not a single generalization that generalizes them all. So we have to choose which generalization makes sense in the current context. Since the question is about thinking how big a number is, I naturally thought that the adequate generalization would be one that focuses on the order on natural numbers, ie. ordinals. In that case, my answer to this question would be "the class of numbers I can think of is not bounded, therefore there is no such thing such as a 'biggest number I can think of'". But if I had to write down a big number, I would write ε_{ε_{ε_{...}}} up until I filled the page, because that's the most efficient way I know to write a big, *big* infinity. Which is a number. (and I'm not seven, just to be clear) [[User:Jthulhu|Jthulhu]] ([[User talk:Jthulhu|talk]]) 08:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:In IEEE floating point math, Infinity is ''not'' Not A Number. The latter is an indication of error (in a context where errors can't be signalled immediately) and an entirely separate concept to infinity. But both are not Normal Numbers. Or even Denormalized Numbers. Floating point math is a whole lot trickier than it appears to be at first glance, and only extremely tangentially related to mathematical reals. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.54|172.68.205.54]] 00:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::I would have written this, but I saw that your comment already explained the two points I would have made, so, well, well done! [[User:Jthulhu|Jthulhu]] ([[User talk:Jthulhu|talk]]) 08:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:If I write a song titled "Infinity" that was part of an opera, then it would be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_number number]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.175.141|162.158.175.141]] 13:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
A number, by definition, is a construct used to classify and/or compare values. How rigorous this needs be for one limits the extent to which they accept things as being a number. Even things like "apple" could be interpreted as (dimensioned) numbers, with a possible value being "1 fruit"; In that regard, one may consider things like apple=orange<grapes.

Just "infinity" is nearly useless in this regard, as it's "no end thing". Usually interpreted (when necessary) as the countable infinite cardinal x=aleph_null, this prevents most useful comparisons, including dimensional analysis since x^n=x for all counting (aka. finite positive integer) n. Spacetime may or may not be boundless, but we can't tell how many edges may or may not loop. Is it infinity? Yes. Is it infinite? God only knows. Can you *count to it*? God can. Does that make it a number? Depends. Is "infinity plus one" a sane concept? No, it can't be finite, ordinal, and/or real in a way addition is defined; It's without end, and if you could add to it, that would indicate an end.

In contrast, classification has its roots in trade, and barter, and tipping. How much of a thing is enough, but not too much. Somebody may accept between 1/2 and 2/3 of a pie you're splitting, because less wouldn't be fair and more may give them a stomach ache; Is 3<=6x<=4 a number? It's similar in uselessness to "infinity", but whether something is less or more can at least still be established within its range. In the limit, Surreal numbers are the principal example of classification, taking the arithmetic mean of the maximum and minimum of their lower and upper bounds, or the predecessor or successor, or zero. For example, y={y|1} is the biggest number less than one, with z<=y<1 for all z<1. It's less than one, but not any "smaller" than one, with an immeasurably infinitesimal difference 0<1-y.

Choice of axioms is very important for all this, since its full extent can render everything except finite non-negative integers "not a number" (by Presburger Arithmetic), or allow everything up to and including unique antichain cardinalities (by Martin's Maximum).

The sixth power of the smallest ordinal with the cardinality of the continuum in the constructed universe (w_1^6 where beth_n=C(w_n)) is the biggest number I can personally conceptualize, although I can consistently work with w_2 in this system as well. Does the fact that this is infinite make it any less useful as a number than 2.5? No. It says I can think accurately about all the standard ways of comparing things in up to 6 infinitely divisible dimensions. Just because one cannot necessarily picture something others can't doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a one-eyed person can only see a 2 spatial + 1 temporal dimensional image, that doesn't mean depth doesn't exist, it just means it's "hidden" from that perspective. 3+1+2 has two "hidden" dimensions compared to normal 3+1 spacetime, and beth_1 is infinitely divisible unlike the quantum (at most beth_0) nature of our known universe, but I can still work with 3+1+1, and 3+1+2 in the same way people can think about a (possibly looping) universe where everything can be bigger or smaller, and spatial geometry itself may be some degree of spherical, and people have been working with fractions since antiquity, so why should I limit myself to what other people can grasp?

In summary: "number" is too vague for claiming most things "aren't" to be reasonable. Infinite values (that aren't just "infinity", that's vague enough by itself to be almost as unreasonable) are just one one example of a valid answer most people seem to be up in arms about. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.181|162.158.41.181]] 01:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:All right, all right. I yield. That’s some... _impressive_ reasoning. If we are going to redefine words to meaninglessness then there is no hope of engaging in useful discussion. I’m sure Randall will at least get a good laugh out of the idea that post-grad math students would submit “infinity” as the largest number they could think of. I still think it a disservice to readers to posit infinity as a _valid_ answer, though. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 05:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Y'all, the answer is clearly 1. Sincerely, someone who has studied probability.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.137.155|162.158.137.155]] 14:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

2809: Moon

2023-08-01T12:28:30Z

172.70.90.106: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2809
| date = July 31, 2023
| title = Moon
| image = moon_2x.png
| imagesize = 313x402px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I mean, it's pretty, but it doesn't really affect us beyond that. Except that half the nights aren't really dark, and once or twice a day it makes the oceans flood the coasts.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a STRANGE ORB FLOATING IN THE SKY. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The {{w|Moon}} is a celestial body orbiting Earth, first formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago - about 50 million years after the initial formation of the solar system. As of today (August 1st, 2023), the Moon is still orbiting the Earth{{Citation needed}} at a distance of approximately 384,400 kilometers, or about 238,900 miles.

This comic points out how weird it is to have such an enormous celestial body near to us. The Moon has a radius more than one quarter of Earth's, and is around one eightieth of Earth's mass, and is close enough that we can see the craters and other stuff on the surface with our naked eye, though a telescope would help. The second nearest body of comparable size, Venus, is approximately 46.576 million kilometers away at its closest.

There are other planets with moons, but Earth's moon is very big compared to Earth - Mars's moons are way smaller and the biggest moon in our solar system, Ganymede, is just twice as massive with 1.5 the radius, despite orbiting Jupiter, which is 317x more massive than Earth with 11x bigger radius.

In human history, we have landed twelve people on the moon in the Apollo missions from 1969 to 1972. Despite advancements in technology since then, we have yet to land another person on the Moon, though plans are being made.

The title text refers to two facts about how the Moon majorly impacts life on Earth, which also would seem strange if they weren't real. Firstly the lunar cycle, in which the Moon's orbit is roughly half the time on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun and (being visibly at least half-illuminated, whilst there, except briefly during rare eclipses) provides a low but significant amount of reflected illumination that nature (as well as humanity) has found a nocturnal use for. Secondly, the tides, a very nearly twice-daily cycle where the Moon's gravity (modified by the Sun's) subtly pulls upon the Earth and drags the waters of the seas and oceans around, periodically increases the sea levels in most places. However, it reflects a naïve view that these effects are minor and incidental, underestimating the profound ways in which they have shaped the history of the Earth. This reflects general attitudes - we like the Moon 'cause it is close to us, but tend to be relatively unaware of it's huge significance.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Ponytail points to something in the sky, presumably the moon. Cueball stands nearby.]
:Ponytail: That thing hanging in the sky is a second nearby world. It's close enough that you can see its surface as it passes overhead.
:Cueball: Wow. Isn't that... weird?
:Ponytail: I dunno, it's just always been there.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:If it didn't exist, the moon would sound like such an outlandish sci-fi concept.

==Trivia==
Earth's moon is weird for an additional two reasons. First, it is by far the largest and most massive moon relative to the planet it orbits. Secondly, our moon is the only moon in the solar system to not have a proper name, not even a jumble of letters and numbers. In English it is simply given the proper name of "the Moon" (capitalized), being the ancient archetype for all other moons discovered since the time of Galileo, although it can also be described by other titles such as "Luna" (directly taken from from Latin mythology/astronomy).

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:2801: Contact Merge

2023-07-17T08:22:55Z

172.70.90.106:

Same person.
:All three of them...[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 08:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is he only using John's first name when talking about him, as if Surf King should know who that is, when it's clear they've "never met"?
Shouldn't it be: My phone keeps wanting to merge you with my friend John Smith? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.30|172.71.178.30]] 07:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
: Because he's spectacularly unaware, and assumes that everyone that he 'knows' also know each other?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.110|172.70.90.110]] 08:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
: Because "my friend John" is perfectly specific enough. It could have (if not for the needs of the joke) just as easily been: My phone keeps trying to merge you with one of my other friends. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.51|172.69.247.51]] 13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::"My friend John" would have been fine, too. The comic just says "John".
::"Weird, my phone keeps trying to merge your contact with John's" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.62|162.158.74.62]] 18:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the first XKCD in a long time that I have absolutely no understanding of. Who is Surf King? Even Google doesn't bring anything up (I assumed it was someone well known in the USA but unknown to the few of us that don't live in that country). Please someone post an explanation soon! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.46|162.158.74.46]] 09:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:No one in particular. Just someone named John. The short explanation is that his phone figured out that "Surf King" and "John" are the same person/contact while Cueball remains ignorant. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 09:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::I see now. I think I was reading too much into it. I usually assume Randall is operating on a level far above my own! [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.146|172.69.79.146]] 10:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:Came here to say this. I usually understand what he’s talking about whether it’s math, chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, whateverology, but this time all I could say was “Huh?” and came to explainxkcd for a clue. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.203|172.71.154.203]] 21:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I took the "4 years" thing to mean that Cueball had been chatting with SurfKing for 4 years (not an idle chat, but still actively used), and has somehow missed the fact that it's his friend John he's been talking with the whole time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.25|172.70.38.25]] 11:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, and I think it's probably a group chat. It might not be that unusual for someone to use a nickname in a group chat (maybe because someone else gave them that nickname). The group chat context might also make it more likely that a context would have been established where Cueball might expect that everyone would know who "John" was, though as pointed out above, Cueball is pretty clueless.[[User:Mwphil|Mwphil]] ([[User talk:Mwphil|talk]]) 11:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:: Adding, I think it has to be a group chat because it would be too strange even for Cueball if he started a one-on-one chat with Surf King without knowing who he was, but if some friend added them both to a chat this situation might make sense. [[User:Mwphil|Mwphil]] ([[User talk:Mwphil|talk]]) 12:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::: One more, sorry: This *has* to be a group text because Cueball is @-ing Surf King. You don't need to @ someone if they're the only other person you're talking to. (Also Surf King must be pretty annoyed if he's managed to break out the bold italics in a group text, I don't think most texting services support that.) [[User:Mwphil|Mwphil]] ([[User talk:Mwphil|talk]]) 12:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::(Comment below edit-conflicted by sub-thread thisnisvindented to... Adding this replybafter, but same timestamp.)
::I deliberately left "group chat" unsaid (i.e. leaving it open) because of the lack of correspondants' avatars on the non-self side of the conversation, which seems to be a standard for both actual and xkcdified representation. Though 'tagging' SurfKing might indicate a more broadcast chat, it's as possible/polite to say in a one-to-one (like starting a letter "Dear Aunty Emma", though the envelope it was in was clearly addressed to her). ((This bit written before edit-conflict with Mwphil's triple-indent, above. But answers it anyway, possibly.))
::Anyway, likely possibly its a grouping-agnostic 'chatroom' type thing (or conversation handler) whereby you invite/include at least one other person and it threads all messages with the same full set of contacts together for easy reading (and possible separation from derivative conversations with additions/removals from that set, unless it allows retroactive inclusion/chucking). As said below, I've used many different chat-type methods (though not directly with the "speech bubble" UI as visual theme) and I think we can't pin this down to a particular family of P2P interfaces. But I find the respective thought processes of the two participants (both inside and outside the screenshot shown) more interesting than the more nebulous decisions as to UX/functionality. Strangely for me, being that I'm much more comfortable thinking about code than people where it's just something involving myself.
::But, of course, open to be re-rewritten. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.35|172.70.85.35]] 12:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

::To me the chat UI feels sort of Discord-inspired. Discord does not have indentation, but it does display the person's name at the start of each "group" of messages from the same person (as seen here with the grey "Surf King" label above the left-hand messages) and it does have "@" mentions even in 1-to-1 DMs. Personally I sometimes "@" mention someone in a DM at the start of a new string of messages, like if I haven't sent them a message for some time, because this highlights the conversation for them even if their settings disable highlighting/notifications for new regular messages. This could explain why the conversation shown here starts with "@Surf King" even if this is a 1-to-1 conversation with someone that the sender talks to regularly/semi-regularly. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.160|172.70.162.160]] 00:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Done a significant rewrite/expansion to the explanation. My experience of "bubble chats" like the comic is restricted only to screenshots (or illustrations, like this) so I'm extrapolating a lot from all the variations that exist, plus adding extensive IRC/BBS experience which is linked by cross-pollination (pre-web/Web-1.5/etc forming a clear basis for Web2.x and App-based paradigms now handle instant/asynchronous short-form messaging conventions). If I'm totally wrong, I'm sure you'll rip out the bad bits. Wanted also to suggest the possibility that if John hasn't actually been seriously using Surf King for a while (but still has pull-/push-notifications active), it was only Cueball's necro that got him to go back into whatever chat-handler that was set up to handle his surf-dude chat. But it was already very unweildy an Explanation, so I'll only leave this bit of my imagination here - to be more easily ignored/dismissed. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.35|172.70.85.35]] 12:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

''The title text implies that Cueball (still unaware of the reality of the sitution) has had second thoughts about the compatability of Surf King/John with himself'' - I disagree with this. I think what the title text is saying that even though Cueball now knows John and Surf King are the same person, he still thinks they wouldn't like each other - this is philosophically confusing to Cueball, and suggests that John has subtle self-hatred issues which only became obvious thanks to Cueball's mistake. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 13:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Came here because I didn't understand the comic. Now I am even more confused. It would be great if someone could explain the comic in a clear and understandable way. It is possible that there are multiple interpretations, but at the moment they are intermingled. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.55|172.71.160.55]] 14:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
: Cueball is in an ongoing chat (possibly a group chat) with someone whose alias is "SurfKing". He tells SurfKing that the contacts manager on his phone is trying to merge "SurfKing" with his friend, John. This has happened repeatedly, but he doesn't realize the cause: John *is* SurfKing. He says that SurfKing should meet John because they both like to surf. SurfKing is outraged by this because he has been talking to Cueball in this chat for four years, and yet Cueball still is unaware that SurfKing is John. In other words, John has been talking to Cueball for four years and Cueball thinks he is some other guy called "SurfKing" after all of this time and never connected the two.
:This sometimes happens in real life, particularly in group chat. You could be chatting with a group of people, not knowing who they all are behind their aliases, and continue for some time. Eventually, you become friends with people whom you have never seen in real life, not realizing that "SurfKing" was just your friend John who likes to surf. Alternatively, you could meet a bunch of people in real life at a surfing competition, giving out your contact info, and "SurfKing" strikes up a conversation later. You think this is a new person you met at the competition and chatted with for years before you find out that this is just your friend's alias. Randall then comments that he wonders who holds the longest record for having done this.[[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:: [[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]], that is an excellent, clear, and concise explanation. Perhaps you would care to add it to the article instead of the discussion page. [[User:TV4Fun|TV4Fun]] ([[User talk:TV4Fun|talk]]) 17:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:Okay, my real name is Andrew. Let's say commenter Kynde, who I've spoken to a bit on here, knows me in real life as Andrew (he doesn't, this is a HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE. Sorry I feel the need to specify, I've been encountering a few people lately who don't get how examples work) (Funnily enough, my name was in my ExplainXKCD profile, until Kynde mentioned that the stupid wiki site was using Andrew in some stats instead of NiceGuy1). This is like Kynde saying "Hey NiceGuy1, my phone keeps trying to merge you with Andrew", not realizing that his real life friend Andrew is also a commenter on ExplainXKCD, using a username he has spoken to. :) In 4 years, Cueball hasn't connected that SurfKing is the chat alias of his friend John. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

== three dots ==

I don't think the three dots are Surf King not deigning to respond. Aren't three dots (in some chat things?) what you get when someone is typing but hasn't sent the message yet? So Surf King has started to try to respond to this but is too flabbergasted to finish his comment. [[User:Mwphil|Mwphil]] ([[User talk:Mwphil|talk]]) 12:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:I thought there could be three things they could represent:
:*Surf King "had no words" to Cueball's inane reality-ignoring comment, it's his version of 'eye rolling'. Which Cueball didn't understand (fully/correctly).
:*The "your party is typing" symbol. (Although that shouldn't be still there once further messaging (to and from that party) have been added to the chat-sequence.)
:*It's a conversation-manager indication of time passed.
:**And/or that further messages existed in this spot but that are ellided in this view (leaving intro message, for context, and the current foot of the conversation).
:To me, the first makes most sense (flabberghasted and ''did'' type something). The second looks wrong (reason given). The third is clear from context (the time passing), though there's a problem with the alternate/additional 'third' point being that it doesn't help the joke of this being a four year (mostly no-contact?) conversation where Surf King has seemingly forgotten things while Cueball has no grasp of the temporal dislocation.
:But YMMV. And because I wasn't ''totally'' sure I tried to write what I wrote to cover all three main ideas. (It wasn't really dealt with at all when I started my edit regarding it. Any further informed change is of course perfectly welcome, but at least you now have my half-considered lines of thought about all this.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.153|172.71.178.153]] 12:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:...Forgot to mention the fourth (separate) interpretation I also had.
:*It's a response so long that it's been collapsed behind an icon. Though usually that'd be the first bit of it being shown with an "<expand>" or "<read more...>", as a tappable hotspot, this might not be the case here.
:But ''if'' it's a collapsed paragraph of a long "no, they're both me, you know this because when we last met I..." reply, then it seemingly ''also'' went <sup>Whoosh==></sup><sub>Cueball's head</sub>, at least by the time four further years had passed. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.62|172.70.85.62]] 13:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::About the "Your party is typing" message disappearing, I do think that it's within reasonable comics convention to show things that happen in temporal sequence within the same panel within reasonable limits. (https://readgraphicnovels.blogspot.com/2017/04/read-understanding-comics-graphic-novel-chapter-4-page-2.html) So Randall could be depicting the three dots symbol because it had appeared in the chat before, even though not everything in the panel appears at once. I don't know how much he uses this convention though (well I'm pretty sure there are panels in the strip depicting passage of time within a panel, but I don't know if any work this way).
::My take on John/Surf King typing three dots is that that would be a sort of passive-aggressive reaction, and I think John/Surf King is supposed to be a pretty normal person. Albeit one who's friends with Cueball. This is admittedly my interpretation [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.92|172.70.110.92]] 14:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:Actually, no, not like this. The "Typing" version goes away after you Submit the message (or if Cueball commented while SurfKing was still typing, the "Typing" dots would move to below Cueball's new comment). The fact that it's ABOVE comments and isn't the bottom thing means that SurfKing ACTUALLY commented 3 dots at Cueball. It basically is a text version of "Uhhhh", to say "I'm speechless". [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
::I read it more as a shorthand way of typing "Well, yes... think about it - you'll get there...". Except, Cueball being Cueball, he doesn't.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.106|172.70.90.106]] 08:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
On reading it, I at least was convinced that this was a conversation taking place today, with John actually typing the three dots. It is true that the "Hey" suggests that this could be a (much) later text, but there is no reason to suppose it is four years later.
:I think this is the only interpretation possible, and the current interpretation is obviously incorrect. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.92.201|172.70.92.201]] 16:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought that rather than there being a long gap between the two parts of the conversation, like the current explanation says, that "Surf King"/John was expressing disbelief that Cueball hadn't understood that they were the same person for the four years that they've been chatting.
[[User:Apocolypse101|Apocolypse101]] ([[User talk:Apocolypse101|talk]]) 17:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me of a picture I've seen of a Tweet or something, a woman saying something to the effect of "I don't get it, for two years there's been this dude at the ticket booth going to work, sometimes we get along great, chatting and stuff, sometimes he's all cold and acts like he doesn't know me. Just found out, it's TWINS working at the same place! TWO DIFFERENT GUYS!! TWO YEARS, GUYS!". (I tried to search my Facebook, to get the exact wording, was a Memory not long ago, but I never comment on it, that's all that can be searched). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 07:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2795: Glass-Topped Table

2023-06-30T07:58:32Z

172.70.90.106:

First! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.167.52|172.71.167.52]] 19:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

How is "glass-topped" not a term found often online, yet I'm so used to calling it that in verbal conversation (Western Canadian, for reference). Searching for "glass-topped" (with quotes) shows this comic first in results (past ads) :) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.105|162.158.146.105]] 19:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:Its probiably just your search personalization. My first search result https://www.designtoscano.com/categories/glass-top-accent-tables followed by xkcdexplained, xkcd, walmart, etsi, and commercial-interiorsuk.com (boy talk about a sus URL). [[User:Jamcdonald|Jamcdonald]] ([[User talk:Jamcdonald|talk]]) 09:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not "instead of" -- the table has both a glass surface and a drinking glass. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

…You could always hand-wash the cup. [[User:PxP|PxP]] ([[User talk:PxP|talk]]) 19:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:Not sure about you, but when I hand-wash something, I'm doing it over sink. Getting the table to sink would be quite hard, although probably easier than fitting it into dishwasher. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
::It would also be difficult to pour out either the drink or the washwater.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.51|172.69.247.51]] 23:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::Pressurised water... If you have anything hose-like (or it's within range of one of those extensible tap-attachments) then gush water into it and anything not actually stuck to the glass (any really gloopy liquid - like a partly dried old smoothie left there too long that may need a bit of mechanical wiping too) gets diluted and pressured out. (...Onto the floor, unless you are prepared for that.)
:::A quick rub with a dishcloth can wick up most of what doesn't jump straight back out (you need a quick shut-off to the water supply, ideally, so it doesn't dribble-fill so much, anyway) and if it was hot enough then the last bits of dampness 'self dry'. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.159|172.70.162.159]] 01:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the unpopularity probably comes from it being halfway off of the table, giving you the ever-present feeling that it might fall. [[User:TheLittlePeace|TheLittlePeace]] ([[User talk:TheLittlePeace|talk]]) 19:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Some seemed to have missed the real point; this is a cat torture device. I can just see my moggy lying there kicking at it for hours. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.131|172.69.34.131]] 04:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:Cat torture device? I could see it being their main entertainment, depending on temprement... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.126|141.101.98.126]] 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The torture aspect causes me to doubt that this is anywhere close to the least popular. We've seem the style he has in furniture. I bet there is no couch, it's just offered so that people don't get upset.

Are there really dishwashers large enough to fit an average dining table? The link in the explanation refers to an advertising installation that specifically does not work as a dishwasher. It was designed to keep objects inside it dry. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 07:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:There are, this one should do the trick https://www.webstaurantstore.com/champion-pp-20-split-door-pot-and-pan-washer-208v-3-phase/253PP20SDC.html [[User:Jamcdonald|Jamcdonald]] ([[User talk:Jamcdonald|talk]]) 09:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This has to be a cat's worst nightmare... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.137|172.71.94.137]] 08:46, 29 June 2023‎ (UTC)
:(Doom music starts playing) [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 19:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This is my first ever edit, so forgive me if I don't sign it correctly, but I felt compelled to create an account in order to share that this comic very much reminded me of The Uncomfortable (https://www.theuncomfortable.com/). Don't know if this belongs in the main explain page, but thought I'd share it here and let someone else decide. [[User:dominiclipari|dominiclipari]] 12:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:"...so forgive me if I don't sign it correctly" - close enough, but I suspect you wrote (most of?) it manually. Just put the <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> in (or press the penultimate button in the line of buttons immediately above the textediting area) and you should get it correctly.
:For me, it'll give something like <code><nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/<<IP Address>>|<<IP Address>>]] <<Time>>, <<Date>>‎ (UTC)</nowiki></code>. For someone with a user account active, it'll be <code><nowiki>[[User:<<Username>>|<<Username>>]] ([[User talk:<<Username>>|talk]]) <<Time>>, <<Date>>‎ (UTC)</nowiki></code> ''unless'' you've messed with your personal profile settings.
:It doesn't matter much. Best to still have Time and Date. And some form of your Username-related links... But just FYI. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.171|172.70.162.171]] 19:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one who interpreted the glass being part of the edge of the table to mean that there is not actually a bottom to the glass? The tooltip text seems to suggest otherwise, but it is a humorous interpretation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.42|172.71.26.42]] 19:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

;The tabletop is not glass

Just FYI, the tabletop itself is definitely not glass. That's why you can't see the rear legs through the surface of tabletop.

What makes this comic funnier is the very fact that they have attached a glass (as in glass of liquid) to the surface of a regular table on which the tabletop is not itself made of glass.

If the tabletop were made of glass, then the humour around 'glass-topped table' would be lessened, because it would be combining two different and therefore ambiguous senses of that phrase. {{unsigned|Lheydon|02:25, 30 June 2023}}

:Actually, it just looks more like a glass-topped table (a table with [https://www.egw.co.uk/products/6mm-rectangle-toughened-glass-rattan-table-topper a glass pane on top of its wooden/whatever surface]; acting to be more wipe-clean/protective, as well as aesthetic) than a table with a glass top (a glass pane as [https://www.dunelm.com/product/milan-oak-glass-top-coffee-table-1000108238 the entire surface span], held inside the legs-and-edges frame). That, or it ''is'' the latter but the angle of view and background makes the reflection off the surfaces overwhelmingly more dominant than the refracted view through both surfaces and towards(/from) the underside. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.53|172.70.91.53]] 03:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

;True, I suppose that is also another possibility. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.191|162.158.2.191]] 04:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The caption states "glass top", so the pun on "table covered with a sheet of glass" and "table with a drinking glass on top" is explicit. Any [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_glass non-transparent] glass would satisfy the first condition (as would the case of a glass insert atop a non-glass surface, mentioned above), and spare Randall the effort of trying to draw in that fourth table leg. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.154|172.69.33.154]] 06:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
:It's also clear (no pun intended... but I'll also happily claim it if nobody else wants it!) that we can see the thickness of the 'top' both at the front (where we're obliquely edge on) ''and'' at the rear (where we're seeing the internal 'edge-away'), indicating that it is certainly a transparent(-enough) pane of material of a number of millimetres thickness above whatever opaque material might lie immediately beneath. (And saving complexity of drawing not just thr upper rear bit of leg, but also the rear/second-side frame support and/or any attachment method that isn't just gravity+friction, or maybe adhesive, in action.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.106|172.70.90.106]] 07:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)