explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3045: AlphaMove

2025-02-03T17:19:52Z

172.71.142.30: Break it up

Ask Tom Murphy VII to get on this [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.103|141.101.99.103]] 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

This has actually been done and tested against other strange algorithms:
https://youtu.be/DpXy041BIlA?t=729

I have attempted to run the proposed bot against itself — if I haven't made any errors, here are the resulting games:

Rounding down:
1. e4 e6 2. f3 f5 3. e5 g5 4. d4 d5 5. exd6 g4 6. d7+ Kf7 7. dxc8=N Ke8 8. fxg4 h6 9. gxf5 Kd7 10. g4 h5 11. fxe6+ Ke8 12. g5 Na6 13. h3 Nc5 14. h4 Ne7 15. Kd2 Ne4+ 16. Ke1 Nf5 17. g6 Nf6 18. g7 Ng3 19. gxf8=N Nge4 20. Ke2 Ng4 21. Kf3 Ngf2 22. Ke2 Nh3 23. Ke3 Nhf2 24. Nb6 Nh3 25. Na4 Nhf2 26. Nac3 Nxc3 27. Kxf2 Nxd1+ 28. Kf3 Qc8 29. c4 Ne3 30. Ke4 Nf5 31. Kd3 Ng3 32. e7 Nxh1 33. Kc2 Qb8 34. d5 Kxe7 35. d6+ Kf6 36. dxc7 Nf2 37. c8=R Ng4 38. Kd2 Nh2 39. Ke3 Ng4+ 40. Kd4 Nh2 41. Kd5 Nxf1 42. Nc3 Nh2 43. Nce2 Ng4 44. Nd4 Nh6 45. Nd7+ Kf7 46. Ndf3 Qd6+ 47. Ke4 Qd2 48. Nf8 Qd5+ 49. Ke3 Qd2+ 50. Ke4 Qd5+ 51. Ke3 Qd2+ 52. Ke4

Rounding up:
1. f3 f5 2. e4 f4 3. d4 e6 4. e5 g6 5. g3 fxg3 6. c3 g2 7. d5 gxf1=Q+ 8. Kxf1 exd5 9. Ke2 d6 10. Kd3 g5 11. Kd2 dxe5 12. Ke2 d4 13. Kd3 dxc3+ 14. Ke3 e4 15. Ne2 exf3 16. Ng1 f2 17. Nxc3 fxg1=N 18. Qc2 Kd7 19. Ne2 h6 20. Qa4+ Ke6 21. Qb3+ Ke7 22. Qb4+ Ke8 23. Qb5+ Kf7 24. Qa6 Kg7 25. Qa4 Kg6 26. Qb3 Kg7 27. Qb4 Kh7 28. Qb5 Kg7 29. Qa6 Nc6 30. Nxg1 Na5 31. Qb6 Kh7 32. Qb3 Kg6 33. Qb4 Kg7 34. Qb6 Kh7 35. Qb3 Kg6 36. Qb4 Kg7 37. Qb6

Rounding down code:
const { Chess } = require("chess.js");

const chess = new Chess();
while (!chess.isGameOver()) {
const moves = chess.moves();
moves.sort((a, b) => b.localeCompare(a));
const move = moves[Math.floor(moves.length / 2)];
chess.move(move);
}
console.log(chess.pgn());

To round up, swap the a and b in the sort function.

Both games end in a threefold repetition draw. The game with rounding down does, in fact, have 6 knights in it, so I believe he did code this to see what would happen.

[[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] ([[User talk:Ohpointfive|talk]]) 22:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on the Tom VII point - this is the YouTube video that possibly inspired the comic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.179|141.101.98.179]] 22:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
:Specifically, it's the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA&t=1483 Arithmetic Player at 24:43] set to ½. [[User:ChaoticNeutralCzech|ChaoticNeutralCzech]] ([[User talk:ChaoticNeutralCzech|talk]]) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately for white, it's mate in 1 with Bb4# [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.124|162.158.90.124]] 23:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if white makes a different move, its still forced mate in one. RIP XKCD Bot. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 00:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Well, for most options. Queen to a4 puts Black in check, forestalling an immediate move to mate White; capturing the knight de-threatens enough squares around the king that Black can't check next turn without leaving an escape route. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.28|172.70.176.28]] 17:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

<s>Although it wouldn't change the outcome much (either by changing black's move or white's general options), I'm currently not understanding why Kd4 isn't on the list of options at this point in time. So long since I played serious(ish) chess, and the only reason I could think of is that it's probibited by some strict ortbodox game rule recognising the ''potential'' moving of the knight out of the way (in the next white move-cycle). But I'd have treated that later option as forbidden, as a revealing-mate. But, as I said, it's been a while, so maybe I'm just blind to something like a sweeping bishop-range that disbars this (much as the near knight, bishop and pawn disbars four out of the five moves).</s> ...darn, it's just clicked. That's the AlphaMoved white-knight's destination (before that, the black queen was entirely covering that square, and double-teaming one of the adjacent black-knight covered squares), I'd been thinking that was the piece's origin (with the empty highlighted square as its destination) until I'd finally read the highlighted movelist item properly and deciphered it as Knight To King Two (done), not the (intention of) Knight To King's Bishop One. So ignore the above. Although, just to note, for the Black Queen to have even achieved that position would probably have required at least ''one'' normally-sacrificial exposure to the deadly white Q/B/R pieces guarding the obvious entry, give or take the algorithmic development of their (and the "gateway pawns"') current positions. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.104|141.101.99.104]] 02:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:Follow-up... As far as the black queen is concerned, I suppose she could have done d6, (x?)g3 then f2, in-between the other black and white moves made, largely safe from the white 'defence'. Or to d4 then f2, if white Queen's Pawn was shielding still. (Appears to have been taken, but it would have been bold to have done that with the queen, for a normally immediate pawn-queen exhange!) A bolder/more opportunistic set of moves than I would have tried, either. Even (unknowingly) against AlphaMove, I'd have been wary of the unconventionally developing white disposition actually being an idiot-trap (and I'm really not that far off being an idiot, insofar as chess). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.162|172.70.162.162]] 02:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The explanation gives both O-O and 0-0 as notations for castling and then explains why 0-0 can never occur, even though O-O can be sorted pretty centrally. So, which is the correct notation? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.250.91|172.71.250.91]] 09:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
:According to the [https://ia802908.us.archive.org/26/items/pgn-standard-1994-03-12/PGN_standard_1994-03-12.txt pgn spec], section 8.2.3.3: they are capital Os and not zeros [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.96|172.68.3.96]] 15:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we're looking at a retrograde puzzle. [[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] is onto something here, with the six knights on the board a strong indicator. The question is, of course, where is the joke? White plays Alphamove all along and must have started with e4 (rounding down) or f3 (rounding up). Both are consistent with the end position. So from my point of view, the joke is
* either that the "stronger engine" is not a strong engine at all but maybe the same algorithm, rounding up instead of down
* or that black doesn't win this position (in real chess, White is of course toast) because its algorithm is even worse
@Ohpointfive, could you run the two versions against each other? --[[User:Pganon|Pganon]] ([[User talk:Pganon|talk]]) 15:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I created a playable version of this game in like 10 minutes using ChatGPT ;)

https://enn-nafnlaus.github.io/AlphaMove/alphamove.html

Git page here:

https://github.com/enn-nafnlaus/AlphaMove

-- [[User:Rei|Rei]] 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I checked, castling and en passant both work. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.25|172.68.245.25]] 19:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Pganon certainly:
White rounding down vs. black rounding up:
1. e4 f5 2. f3 f4 3. d4 e6 4. e5 g6 5. d5 exd5 6. g3 fxg3 7. c4 g2 8. h3 gxf1=Q+ 9. Kd2 Kf7 10. Kc3 Ke8 11. Kc2 Kf7 12. Kb3 Ke8 13. Kc2 Kf7 14. Kb3 Ke8 15. Kc2
White rounding up vs. black rounding down:
1. f3 e6 2. e4 f5 3. e5 g5 4. d4 d5 5. f4 gxf4 6. h3 h5 7. h4 Kd7 8. Kd2 Kc6 9. Kd3 Kb6 10. Ke2 Kb5 11. Ke1+ Kb4 12. Ke2 Kb5 13. Ke1+ Kb4 14. Ke2 Kb5

The first game is quite exciting, with black at one point having a chance at checkmate in one, but alas too many available pawn moves drives the winning move Qxc4# far past the center of the list. The second game is much less exciting.

[[User:Ohpointfive|Ohpointfive]] ([[User talk:Ohpointfive|talk]]) 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a question: What is the quickest way to checkmate AlphaMove? Here's the quickest that I have found so far:
# f3 d5
# e4 d5xe4
# f4 e5
# g3 Bg4
# d4 Qxd4
# f5 e3
# f6 Qxd1#
Thus, we have mate in seven. This might be good to mention outside the comments section as a demonstration tha AlphaGo is not very good (not to mention failing to attack black's queen with a less valuable piece), but a quicker checkmate might be possible, in which case we should mention that instead.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.159|172.70.207.159]] 11:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

: Checkmating Alphamove is easy. Getting checkmated *by* Alphamove is challenging. You basically have to forget everything you know about normal chess. -- [[User:Rei|Rei]] ([[User talk:Rei|talk]]) 14:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Fastest mate against Alphamove playing Black 3 moves (natural max), White 5 moves (exhaustive search), selfmate 9 moves - problem composers and mathematicians solve that in a jiffy. See here: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/46651/fastest-win-against-xkcds-alphamove [[Special:Contributions/172.70.248.29|172.70.248.29]] 09:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

One possible move, Kd2, is missing! /[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.164|141.101.76.164]] 17:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
:That can't be done. The Knight isn't between d2 and the Q@f2 at the point that the moves are being compiled. The Ne2 hasn't happened yet (we now see it, as having moved there, ''as a result'' of Ne2 being selected from the list, so ''next'' turn the King could move there, assuming the game isn't lost (or black decides to do something ''else'' which prevents it, for some strange reason). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.25|162.158.74.25]] 18:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I [https://lichess.org/analysis/r1b1k2r/1pp1nppp/8/p1b1p3/2PnpP1P/2K5/PP3q2/RNBQ1BNR_w_kq_-_0_1?color=white put the position before White's move into Lichess] and it says it's mate in 12 for Black.

On a related note, I'm also wondering how they got to the comic position in the first place. Anyone want to try constructing a proof game? [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 03:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot of the explanation is based on a round-up version of AlphaMove. It should round down for even lists like the title text says. The [https://enn-nafnlaus.github.io/AlphaMove/alphamove.html example implementation] is wrong too. The first move should be e4, not f3. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.55|162.158.187.55]] 07:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If there ever was an explanation that needed to be broken up into three paragraphs and a Detail section, this is it. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.30|172.71.142.30]] 17:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3009: Number Shortage

2024-11-11T05:48:26Z

172.71.142.30:

I bet there's plenty of 9s left. They obviously didn't get a proper range of digits at Benford's Discount Number Store. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.113|172.69.195.113]] 05:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:There are so many 9s because they get used the least on microwaves. [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 22:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this not an error? "15 2s and 12 3s" uses up one 3. So shouldn't it next be 11 3s left, not 10? -- [[Special:Contributions/172.69.144.152|172.69.144.152]] 10:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

the consequences of our actions /ref [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 10:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The above mentioned “error” is not an error. When she says there are 13 2s left, that uses up one 3. [[User:PedanticMan|PedanticMan]] ([[User talk:PedanticMan|talk]]) 11:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

: There's no pause, no "No wait" after "13 2s". Is she reevaluating numbers instantly realtime midsentence? Did she start the sentence planning to say one thing and instantly altered it partway through? I guess that's what Randall is going for. -- [[Special:Contributions/172.69.144.162|172.69.144.162]] 12:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::That's what I assumed, and I already included it in the explanation. But I'm not sure if the title text is consistent with that interpretation. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Title text is perhaps semi-consistent. Regardless of what was said/used beteen "ten minutes ago" and now, the statement (ten minutes ago) of "2 0s" used one zero. The statement (now) of "10 minutes ago" used another and ''technically'' used a third (but it could be considered recycled from the original statement being quoted).
:::Whichever way the counting works (and presuming that any quotable re-use principle doesn't allow just "Ns" to be requoted as "X Ns" in a way that preserves the N stock even whilst depleting Xs), we're certainly down to the stage where we can no longer say there are "0" of something, nor that the something involved is the 0s.
:::...to put it another way, a different TT might be "10 minutes ago we were down to only 2 ... oh darnit!". But that wouldn't have made itself quite so obvious (the Ns could have been 0, 1 or 2). I suppose having 3 0s ten minutes ago might only have led to the necessity of that logic being explained (then: "3 0s {0s=>2}"; now: "10 minutes {0s=>1} .. 3 0s {0s=>0}" "now?" " {0s=>0 ∴ unable to even begin to answer} "), however...
:::But, much like the TT question posed, wise use of "them”/etc might be useful in ''some'' (not-title text) circumstances. "I earlier said there were 9 9s, but now there are 7 of them. ...still 7. Yep, definitely 7 of them! (7s, on the other hand are now...)", vs. "there were 9 9s, but now there are 7 9s. 6 9s! 5 9s! <...> 1 9! <curses>" [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.114|172.69.195.114]] 12:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants to see self-referentiality of numbers taken even further, here is a series of posts that I wrote on "self-describing numbers": https://atmos.warplight.dev/profile/1p8WCZnqqG6N3ZOsJxBgUTo/p1cNCw1OTsioTQBRk [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 12:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

the first stage of grief is denial [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 12:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
: So you saw that the Harris banner is still up too, eh? There may be no shortage of absolute numbers, but numbers of things, yeah, there are shortages. Like, chances to act to avert disaster, like weren't taken in 2016, and we got lucky ... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.92|172.68.23.92]] 17:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Just heard on Not The Bee that Trump is planning to help the Democrats out by paying Kamala's campaign debt at a rate of $10/mention in speeches over the past 180 days. Should be plenty to pay off the $20 million.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 21:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::: [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2024/11/05/amoebas-lorica-experimentum-finita/ When logic and proportion][https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2024/11/03/ai-elect/ have fallen sloppy dead], {{w|It_Can%27t_Happen_Here|remember}} {{w|White_Rabbit_(song)|what the dormouse said}}.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.30|172.71.142.30]] 05:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "15" uses up one 3 (3*5) and "12" uses up two 2's and one 3 (2*2*3) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.213|172.71.222.213]] 15:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:No, I think the "3s" in the first statement uses one, and the ones place of "13" referring to the number of 2s left in the second statement uses another. [[User:Laneymarie96|Laneymarie96]] ([[User talk:Laneymarie96|talk]]) 03:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

"Well? How many numbers do we have left?"
"Oh great! There's one more!"
(Yes, I know this goes against the logic of the original comic)
[[User:Turquoise Hat|Turquoise Hat]] ([[User talk:Turquoise Hat|talk]]) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we try using Roman numerals while we wait for the shortage to get fixed? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.135.53|172.69.135.53]] 04:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems very related to the {w|Look-and-say sequence}! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.170.93|172.71.170.93]] 21:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Bumpf
== "None" ==

Instead of having to say "I don't know" in the title text, one could just say "none". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.170|172.70.110.170]] 19:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's funnier to imagine that they forgot how to articulate "zero" as a concept. [[User:Psychoticpotato|P?sych??otic?pot??at???o ]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 20:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:By that logic, they could (partially) escape the "10 minutes ago 0s" issue by saying "ten minutes ago" and not depleting certain digits. Or, as it says "numbers", depleting 10s (but neither 1s nor 0s). But you have to consider if "one" is a "1" (also "a(n)", maybe), and if you can get away with "a couple of" or dozens, scores, grosses, ton(ne)s of, a "pony" or a "grand" or even a googol/googolplex. Then one (1s--) may won(1s--?)der what really ''are'' the uses to be strictly atone(1s--?)d for? Still, I've got 33×3 problems, but the number of 3²s aint one! (1s--). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.218|172.70.160.218]] 12:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== Google ==
So, is this comic related to the Google incident? Google seems to be suffering from money '''shortage''' after being fined in large '''number'''s. [[User:CategoryGeneral|CategoryGeneral]] ([[User talk:CategoryGeneral|talk]]) 01:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
: ...no? Big leap in logic here. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.243|172.69.22.243]] 04:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T09:36:43Z

172.71.142.30: /* Explanation */ Dalton room temperature

{{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, it 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.
|-
| {{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.
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
! 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]]

2503: Memo Spike Connector

2023-10-14T12:48:29Z

172.71.142.30:

Hi explainxkcd.com Admin.,

Introducing AdCreative.ai - the premier AI-powered advertising platform that's taking the industry by storm!

As a Global Partner with Google and a Premier Partner, we have exclusive access to the latest tools and insights to help your business succeed. And now, we're offering new users $500 in free Google Ad Credits to get started with advertising - no upfront costs, no hidden fees.

With AdCreative.ai, you'll enjoy advanced AI algorithms that optimize your campaigns for maximum impact, as well as seamless integration with Google Ads for unparalleled performance.

Don't wait - sign up for our free trial today a https://free-trial.adcreative.ai/seo2650 and experience the power of AdCreative.ai for yourself!

2808: Daytime Firefly

2023-08-20T03:16:30Z

172.71.142.30: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2808
| date = July 28, 2023
| title = Daytime Firefly
| image = daytime_firefly_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Mr. Jones, watch out for Ms. Lenhart! She's from genus Photuris!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a waterfly. Believe in me / Help me believe in anything / 'Cause I wanna be someone who believes / Yeah / [Chorus]}}

Some things are associated with being seen so much in a given context that it can be surprising to see them anywhere else. This comic starts with the initially trivial incident of a famously night-time outdoor insect, a {{w|firefly}}, being discovered indoors and during the day.

This quickly becomes another typical observation, that of the experience of a schoolchild seeing someone, whom they normally only encounter in the classroom, 'in the real world'. This may not be strange in small, close-knit communities, but can still be seen as extraordinary, and is sometimes an event that happens after the child (and/or teacher) has left the school, after several years have passed, and is a sign that they are now more equal citizens rather than tutor and student with vastly different non-overlapping lives outside of education.

Unlike fireflies, teachers, or indeed humans, generally do not {{w|Bioluminescence|bioluminesce}}, or flit around in the open air.{{Citation needed}} But that scenario is where the analogy {{tvtropes|Metaphorgotten|quickly turns}}, imagining Mr Jones (named as the teacher concerned) behaving like such an insect. Such an encounter would be at least as awkward as bumping into them in a semi-social situation, and the conversation you'd be having could be terribly stilted.

The idea of an outdoor, night-time encounter often involving the deliberate flashing of lights could also bring to mind {{w|Dogging (sexual slang)|another activity}} where [https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/uk-world-news/dogging-fan-reveals-what-really-2665950 car lights] can be used to signal participation, with perhaps a not too dissimilar motive to that of fireflies in the mating flights, in which it might indeed be... 'awkward'... for students and teachers to unexpectedly encounter each other.

The title text continues the conversation with some sage advice, to the firefly-teacher, to avoid [[Miss Lenhart]] (presumably, but here with the honorific of {{w|Ms.}}), another teacher of their acquaintence whom they believe to belong to an {{w|Photuris|aggressively mimicking genus of predatory firefly}}, and thus a potential danger to his existence. The females of those species are known to copy the blinking mating patterns of other firefly species in order to lure the males of those species with the promise of mating but with the true sole intent of eating them. The speaker is clearly concerned that Mr. Jones, while acting out the life of a firefly, will be fooled by Ms. Lenhart's firefly persona and then consumed.

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

:[Cueball is pointing at a flying insect to the right. Megan is walking towards it.]
:Cueball: There's a bug in here.
:Megan: Oh, it's a firefly!
:Cueball: Wait, really?
:Megan: Yeah! I dunno which species. I'll let it out.

:[Cueball is standing to the left. Megan has caught the firefly between her hands.]
:Cueball: ...I guess it makes sense fireflies have to go somewhere during the day.
:Cueball: I had just never thought about it.

:[Megan is walking to the left while holding the firefly. Cueball is standing to the right.]
:Cueball: It's like seeing your teacher at the store.
:Cueball: "Oh, weird, you exist in other contexts, too."

:[Megan standing on a grass field has released the firefly.]
:Megan: Or when you see your teacher hovering over a field at night giving off flashes of light.
:Cueball (off-panel): Yeah, also weird.
:Cueball (off-panel): "Sorry Mr. Jones! Uh, have...fun? See you Monday."

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]