explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:719: Brain Worms

2015-06-24T08:33:56Z

173.245.48.91:

I'd like to actually try that. Does anyone know where you can find statistics on most common dreams? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.202|141.101.89.202]] 20:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Kinda expected to find it here :-)
This is a list that seems plausible, but it is not exactly scientific study: http://www.thecrazyfacts.com/top-10-common-dreams-meanings/10/

Falling is probably the most common, I have experienced it many times. On the other hand, I have never dreamed of being naked in front of people, although it is supposedly very common.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.206|141.101.97.206]] 09:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I took a stab at expanding the description as requested. If it looks good to you guys feel free to remove the incomplete tag! [[User:Domino|Domino]] ([[User talk:Domino|talk]]) 15:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Domino

I have had this exact dream, anyone else? Also, when seeing the movie "Inside Out", I was shocked to find that I had the exact same dream that Riley had about the dog. I wondered if they also consulted some list. One common theory about dreams is that they are the brain defrag-ing while you sleep, which is why you dream of recent events and random things, and why your memory starts to go when you don't sleep. (This is another theory supported by "Inside Out" :D)[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.91|173.245.48.91]] 08:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:719: Brain Worms

2015-06-24T08:28:50Z

173.245.48.91:

Talk:1292: Pi vs. Tau

2015-06-09T21:00:01Z

173.245.48.91:

I would argue the 666 appears twice, and 6666 appears once, and that occurence of 6666 is two more occurances of 666: digits 0 through 3 and 1 through 4. He didn't say anything about them being distinct times. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.91|173.245.48.91]] 21:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I started an explanation. Hopefully others will help improve it, as I don't think it's quite adequate. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.174|199.27.130.174]] 05:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The comic currently shows the symbol π (pi) in all three cases, but it should have the symbol τ (tau) in the rightmost case. I'm sure there is a compromise symbol "pau" too. Maybe with a deformed left leg? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.4|141.101.97.4]] 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WolframAlpha gives
<pre>
4.5545743763144164456766617143366171162404440766665105335330776311513504520604364524762740226212061363100001776216741750712622557020442741544760057441760026766230424023460366047331305225241275347777145543054127636365666430221066167347236617261603127725745513663702031155234027041040155322217227723576660045156156303357534162372112340027743775672417274565277274565735325624457113522164166560115654407251403563246444122664066521461311773474046032763760765740133706761276420415672577471077133607673035331070364705651055376634161405567176532346433567731715723623721267302576735154761375545411215522177775706407470673020025353246535120744232706060324711633457720155013202527060250466252665661576165164140301645132275526153126363575631176312270212441433434206352313125326760006365710744276056412434626534152021052065172556442150110056601034116570607064550553636566432544260105637423220411372664024454234201642615033200331506013362432026775605543212342336511350621361642654426372425415023071413764173735461042064323757413414533013..._8</pre> which does indeed have four 666 sequences. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.254|141.101.99.254]] 08:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This number contains 7777, 000 and 444 twice, though. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.93.11|141.101.93.11]] 09:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrote the transcript, not sure if I explained the visual well enough, so I left the incomplete tag if someone else has a better idea. Should suffice for understanding however, considering the content [[Special:Contributions/108.162.248.18|108.162.248.18]] 08:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

----

(The discussion about different results was trimmed)

Wolfram gives the result with 666

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.5+pi+octal
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022
</pre>
The Unix arbitrary precision calculator gives the result without

$ echo "scale=200; obase=8; 6*a(1)" | bc -l
<pre>
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257
</pre>
Any suggestions how we can check them?

"Randall says so" is probably correct, but insufficient :-) {{unsigned|Mike}}

:Please use the <nowiki><pre></nowiki> tag for this long numbers.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Testing Wolfram Alpha with <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8 in decimal</pre> and <pre>4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000_8 in decimal</pre> both indicate the approximation is only accurate to a limited degree.
<pre>
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal
</pre>
<pre>
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4.55457437631441644567666171433661711624044407666651053353307763115135045206043645247627402262120613631000177621674175071262255_8+in+decimal
</pre>

The method I used to get the value I put in the text was; I used the following command to generate my approximation:
<pre>echo 'scale=200; obase=8; a(1) * 6' | bc -l | tr -d ' \\\n' ; echo</pre> which outputs<pre>
4.554574376314416443236234514475050122425471573015650314763354527003043167712611655054674757031331252340351471657646433317273112431020107644727072362457372164022043765215506554422014311615574251563446213636251744101107770257
</pre>
In 'bc'', a(1) is arctangent of 1 (i.e. 45 degrees, or pi/4); (pi/4 * 6) should be equal to 'pau'. I additionally checked the result using base 2 encoding, and converted each three bit binary value into an octal value. The decimal value of pi (using a(1) * 4) matches with the value of pi to at lease 1000 digits.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.86|173.245.54.86]] 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Both Maxima and the GNU Emacs calculator output as the first 1000 octal digits:
<pre>
4.5545743763144164432362345144750501224254715730156503147633545270030431677126116550546747570313312523403514716576464333172731124310201076447270723624573721640220437652155065544220143116155742515634462136362517441011077702611156024117447125224176203716336742057353303216470257662666744627534325504334506002730517102547504145216661211250027531716641276765735563341721214013553453654106045245066401141437740626707757305450703606440651111775270032710035521352101513622062164457304326450524432531652666626042202562202550566425643040556365710250031642467447605663240661743600041052212627767073277600402572027316222345356036301002572541750000114422036312122341474267232761775450071652613627306745074150251171507720277250030270442257106542456441722455345340370205646442156334125564557520336340223313312556634450170626417234376702443117031135045420165467426237454754566012204316130023063506430063362203021262434464410604275224606523356702572610031171344411766505734615256121034660773306140032365326415773227551
</pre>
This also agrees with the first 220 digits of the previous result (last two digits above are 57 vs 61 here, maybe due to rounding when converting to octal). Again, no 666 within the first 200 digits. The Wolfram result deviates from this at the 18th digit already. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Also e+2 does not contain the substring '666':
<pre>echo "scale=200; obase=8; e(1) + 2" | bc -l</pre>
<pre>4.55760521305053551246527734254200471723636166134705407470551551265170233101050620637674622347347044466373713722774330661414353543664033100253542141365517370755272577262541110317650765740633550205306625</pre>--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 10:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

: A sudden flash of realization: are we getting nerd-sniped here?--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.168|108.162.254.168]] 11:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

::Not unlikely. Have posted this as a trivia. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

: The claim is clearly about e+2, making Dgbrt's comment closest to the right direction. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 12:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

When I take Wolfram alpha's octal(pi*1.5) I get the first 303 (base 10) characters as this:
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777714554305412763636566643022106616734723661726160312772574551366370203115523402704104015532221722772357666
</pre>
200(base 10) is 310(base 8) so in the fist '200' characters, 666 shows up 4 times (5 if you count 6666 as twice?) [[User:Xami|Xami]] ([[User talk:Xami|talk]]) 14:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

: The Wolfram result is what you get when you calculate pi*3/2 in decimal, round to 14 digits after the decimal point and then convert to octal. That is, 4.7123889803846910 converted to octal. Definitely, this won't give you 200 digits precision. --[[User:Ulm|ulm]] ([[User talk:Ulm|talk]]) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
:: It lines up too perfectly to be a coincidence. It fits all the requirements: has 666 four times within 2008 digits, and although 0000, 222, 444, and 7777 appear, they only appear once as a run. You can't double count 7777 as two 777's because it is a single run. If WolframAlpha doesn't give the correct precision, it is likely that Randall made the same error. --[[User:RainbowDash|RainbowDash]] ([[User talk:RainbowDash|talk]]) 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Being τ, tau, is already being expressed in terms of π, pi, it shows bias. (Though I think Pau would lead to some interesting spherical geometry equations. ~~Drifter {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.214}}

The bias is worse than that: From the perspective of π, the discussion is about multiples of π, so (3/2)π (that is 3π/2 = 3τ/4) is indeed the compromise between π and 2π. But from the perspective of τ, the discussion is about fractions of τ, so the compromise between τ and τ/2 is τ/(3/2) (that is 2τ/3 = 4π/3). Maybe we can call this ‘ti’ (or ‘tie’, pace 173.245.53.184 below). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, both compromises are wrong. (3/2)π is the arithmetic mean of π and τ, while τ/(3/2) is their harmonic mean. But for geometric ratios (which these are), the appropriate mean is generally the geometric mean (hence the name). You can see how even-handed this is: it's (√2)π = τ/(√2). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I am in favour of just calling it ti(e). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.184|173.245.53.184]] 17:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

---

There are real world uses to both Tau and Pi: Pi is the number that relates to what you get when you measure a circle (the distanced around divided by the distance across); and Tau is get when you draw a circle (the distance around divided by the distance from the center). It is the difference between a mic (aka "micrometer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer ) and a protractor. Tau might have some mathematical advantages in both 2D and 3D in that it has no integer attached to it to find either circumference (2D) or surface area (3D) which makes radians and solid angles simpler. However, that advantage is lost in other dimensions and for the area of a circle.

Pau, of course, has a 61% chance of going to the dribbling spheroid hall of fame. (ref: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gasolpa01.html ), to which neither Tau nor Pi can hold a candle.~~Remo ( [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.183|199.27.128.183]] 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) )

---

The differences between Wolfram and BC really bothered me since I have used both for precision calculation in the past. The long and short of the matter, having done most of the maths 'long hand', BC is correct, Wolfram is wrong, and sadly, Randall was also wrong. It seems as tho Wolfram is rounding pi*1.5 to around 15 decimals but leaving the 9 repeating before converting to Octal.

If you take the output of octal(pi * 1.5) and paste it back into the input like so:
<pre>
4.554574376314416445676661714336617116240444076666510533533077631151350452060436452476274022621206136310000177621674175071262255702044274154476005744176002676623042402346036604733130522524127534777_8
</pre>
Wolfram gives you back (converted to decimal):
<pre>
4.71238898038468999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
</pre>
If you give that same input to BC and ask it to convert to decimal you get:
<pre>
4.712388980384689999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999992894219160392567888
</pre>
If you do the math long hand out to 55 decimal places, pi * 1.5 equals:
<pre>
4.712388980384689857693965074919254326295754099062658731462416...
</pre>
Converting that by hand into octal is a bit of a pain, but if you do, at the 18th decimal place where BC and Wolfram differ you end up with the following:
<pre>
0.000000000000000183697019872102976583909889841150158731462416... is your remainder to be converted so far
0.000000000000000055511151231257827021181583404541015625 = 8 ^ -18
</pre>
Wolfram gives the 18th decimal as 5, BC as 3. I can't see 5 going into 18 5 times, but 3 times fits nicely.
--[[User:DarkJMKnight|DarkJMKnight]] ([[User talk:DarkJMKnight|talk]]) 20:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Wolfram is simply using floating-point mathematics, presumably the IEEE "double precision". Interestingly, this is not the first time floating-point maths has been a problem; in [[287]], a similar problem caused an unintended trivial solution. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
* On second thoughts, there's no indication that he used Wolfram Alpha; as with [[287]], it simply could have been a Perl script (or Python or pretty much any programming language). [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 05:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

How can 200 be octal and then mean 310 decimal???
If 200 were octal, that would be 128 decimal, so we would end up writing 128 decimals.
Of course 310 octal is 200 decimal, but taking 2008 to mean 31010 is plain crazy, even if it's the only way to make it fit the "four times 666" constraint!
What am I missing here? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.149|173.245.53.149]] 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This Mathematica code searches for the pattern 666 in the octal expansion of 1.5 pi:
<pre>digits = RealDigits[3*Pi/2, 8, 10000][[1]]; Select[Range[10000 - 2], Take[digits, {#, # + 2}] == {6, 6, 6} &]
{279, 326, 495, 496, 3430, 3728, 4153, 6040, 7031, 7195, 7647, 7732, 8353, 8435, 8436, 8575, 8768, 9008}</pre>
These positions start counting with the leading "4" as position 1. It does not occur in the first 200 digits, but occurs 18 times in the first 10,000 digits. Many other digit combinations occur more times in the first 10,000 digits, including "123" (23 times), "222" (21 times), and "555" (26 times). Note that "xkcd" converted to numbers (a=1, b=2, etc.) is 24, 11, 3, 4. The combination 241134 first occurs in 1.5 pi at digit number 250,745. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|talk]]) 06:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, this filled up fast. Is it time to remove the Incomplete tag yet? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.66|199.27.128.66]] 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:Please do your adds at the bottom. Otherwise it looks like as the first discussion here and everybody will ignore your comment.
:My answer is: NO. We still have to figure out if Randall is wrong or just using an algorithm nobody does understand right now.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Someone said there's no indication that Randall used Wolfram, and that double-precision IEEE numbers in mostly any language would cause the same error.
This is not true: IEEE double precision numbers (binary64) are stored internally in binary.
Converting them to octal would give at most 18 nonzero significant (octal) digits, and from that point on all additional digits would be zeros (remember that an octal digit is equivalent to three bits).
What Wolfram does is rounding to a decimal number, which is not round in octal.

I think the previous is an indication that Randall did indeed use Wolfram.
Added to that, he used Wolfram in several what-if's, and in one case he used it so heavily that his IP got temporarily banned from Wolfram.
This leaves little or no doubts in me that Wolfram is the source of Randall's mistake.

Also, I still would like to know why everybody is interpreting "200 digits" as "2008 digits" and pretending that's equal to "31010 digits" instead of "12810 digits".

And out of curiosity, what happened with [[287]] and floating point numbers?
The explainxkcd for 287 says nothing about floating point.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
* With [[287]], there was only meant to be one solution, the other solution was unintended. It's mentioned in the discussion only, not in the body of the explanation, but there's a link to an interview where he indicates that it was indeed unintentional. [[User:Sabik|Sabik]] ([[User talk:Sabik|talk]]) 07:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

;What is the period of the wolfram answer?
What is the repeat period of the octal answer with the 666's, (the length of the repetend) i.e. the one that comes from Wolfram, that is converting 4.71238898038469 decimal to octal? And how many 666's are in the full repetend? Oooh - I like that new word - thanks to {{w|repeating decimal}}! [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:Dunno, either Randall uses WolframAlpha whithout further checks, so he has to check his sources, or we all are just dumb.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

: The period is 4882812500. Yes, what I mean is that it repeats every 488281250010 digits. Not sure I want to count the number of 666's in there. Oh, and thanks for the answer about [[287]], I've seen it now. -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.139|173.245.53.139]] 17:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I hardly dare to ask now... ;)
*What is an octal expansion?
*This explanation cannot be complete before someone explains what this actually means, to someone who have never herd of octal expansion before (like me)
[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:You are absolutely right, the incomplete tag is back. It seems only math geeks were working here but it should also be explained for people with less knowledge on math.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

:*The wikipedia page for {{w|Octal}} contains a complete explanation. I wrote a plainer one but mine is still very long, so instead of posting it here I uploaded it [http://www.jojonete.com/00/20131121_Octal/ there]. It's very crappily formatted and not thoroughly checked as I don't have time for more at the moment, but I might improve it some other day. Please note that the only reason for not posting it here is its length, and in particular it has nothing to do with copyright issues. I mean, everybody feel free to copy, rewrite, summarize, expand, correct, destroy or do whatever to that text with no attribution, just as if it had been posted here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::The explain for non math people should be much more simple. Randall likes simple English, I like simple Math. Not everything is covered but more people will understand the essentials. While I like all that details many people don't. We still do need an simple Math explain here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

::I know and I agree, that's why I kept my explanation out of this discussion. My summarizing skills are just not good enough. I used the time I didn't have to reformat my explanation, but that just means it's now a bit longer than it was. I hope someone else will write a much shorter and simple one, as I just seem to be unable to do so. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.145|173.245.53.145]] 01:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks for a great explanation. I knew about this system but only for integers. However, still need a word on how to get pi in Octal. Until anyone does better a link could be posted for your explanation! [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

::::I added the conversion part to the explanation, it's in the same link. Still way too long to post here. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.117|173.245.53.117]] 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that pau is Catalan for peace, which is a good solution for the pi/tau dispute. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.150|173.245.53.150]] 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

:Has posted this as a trivia item. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The trivia that states that e here represents Euler's Constant, and not Euler's Number, seems to be false, is it not? e+2 being ~4.71, not ~2.58. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.11|108.162.237.11]] 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
:I have removed that sentence. It was simply wrong. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

4/3*Pau=Tau, 2/3*Pau=Pi, therefore, It can have a practical use.--[[User:ParadoX|ParadoX]] ([[User talk:ParadoX|talk]]) 10:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear DgBrt, Please leave the explain as it is. It's "way too complex" for a reason. And the Title Text does in fact need its own header (it's not the only title text to have earned it) [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 19:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:Hello 199.27.128.65, please post new comments to the bottom. I did revert your revert because you didn't solve any of the remarks by me. And the title text EXPLAIN could be done easy: Explain that comparing e and and pi is nonsense and explain the mistake done by Randall when using Wolfram Alpha. Everything else belongs to the trivia section. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::OK, we need to get the admins in here before we end up in a revert war. We already explained the intentional error from Randall, which is why it's in the explanation and not the trivia section. It CAN'T go in the trivia section because we're EXPLAINING what the error is. You don't put long explanations in the trivia section, you put them in the explanation section. THAT'S why the title text is getting its own header. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::All right, I've submitted a request for the admins to help up. No idea when they'll get here, but it should help smooth this big mess out. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::: [[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Admin_requests#Potential_Edit_War.3B_we_want_to_resolve_it_before_it_starts Here's what they've said so far]]. What do you think Dgbrt? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
::::After a week I haven't been here I still can say: calm down. My reasons are still at the incomplete tag — just read it.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Let's run through your arguments:
:"non Math people should also be able to understand this." I'd say the other editors did a pretty good job of that; that's the ENTIRE REASON we have an explain.
:"Randalls mistake has to be emphasised" They were. Read the explaination again.
:"everything else here is still too much, it even doesn't belong to a trivia section" But should the explanation not be as complete as possible? You underestimate just how nerdy we can get here.
:I have to side with the mods. I think this explanation was done and you're holding out for an impossible edit that will never come. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
::I will work on this, but it needs some time because I don't want to remove any of the great findings here. Non math people DON'T read all that number talks. They don't know what wolfram alpha is and that this site is sometimes WRONG. That has to be clearly explained.
::Furthermore this is NOT a nerd sniping by Randall; it's a nerd sniping ON Randall. He did use the result by wolfram alpha by error, he did figure out all that wrong "666" appearances, while he otherwise is very accurate on math.
::My idea is: Extract the essentials for the title text and add a paragraph like "Math details", "Background", or however to the bottom of the explain. In effect non math people would not read this paragraph but they can understand the essentials, other people would be happy about the deeper explain.
::I don't want to delete content, I'm just looking for a better presentation to the public. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
:::The amount of research Randal does, it's far more likely he made the mistakes on purpose in order to nerd snipe, as opposed to "he just made the mistakes on accident."
:::I agree with you on the wolfram alpha part, though, and I like your idea to summarize the errors before exploring them in full detail
:::Sorry for being so antagonizing before. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 04:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
:Just a comment here, as a non-math person, I understood all of this perfectly well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.72|108.162.221.72]] 16:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

;Tone of "Title text" section
The [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1292:_Pi_vs._Tau&oldid=66351 current] tone of the title text section is inconsistent with the rest of this site. Where else does this wiki say, "Math is hard! It's not worth your time trying to understand the concepts here."?

''It consists of some of advanced trigonometry and other assorted college-level concepts that will in all likelihood just bore you if you don't care about them already.'' Really? There is not even any elementary trigonometry involved here, other than the value of PI itself. And since when is advanced trig a college level course? What is involved is the concept of bases other than base 10, specifically octal, but that is also a secondary school subject, both in mathematics and computer science.

I propose the following outline of the section:
*State that the property given in the title text does not actually hold for 1.5 * PI, but that due to an early rounding error, it might look as if it holds when shown via Wolfram Alpha. Further state that it is not clear if Randall, in relying on Wolfram Alpha, made a mistake, or if he is partaking in nerd sniping.
*Show how close Pau is to e+2.
*Explain octal -- base 8 -- first for integers, then for fractions.
*Present the actual octal expansion and show that the property does not hold.
*Explain why the Wolfram Alpha answer is different.
*Present the Wolfram Alpha answer, and show how the property [almost?] holds with that value.
*Depending on how self-referential we wish to be, explain how it might have been a plausible mistake for Randall to have relied on Wolfram Alpha, but that if it was a case of nerd sniping, then it was highly successful.
*Mention the similarity to the Feynman point.
This wiki is about explanations. We shouldn't bemoan a subject as being more difficult than it is; we should explain. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.43|108.162.219.43]] 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

:We should have two different paragraphs here:
:*The standard explain, containing the essentials like shown by 108.162.219.43 just before.
:*A "Deeper into math" one, going into more depth.
:*The "Title text" header is wrong!
:My 2 cents --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::I tried to fix my old "Title Text" header, what do you think? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.204|199.27.130.204]] 03:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

:::I did my first attempt on a simple explain. Please do not revert this, but I would be happy about any enhancements. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
::::That is actually way better. Sorry for not giving you a chance before. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.204|199.27.130.204]] 05:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

;ATM cell size?

Is it possible that this is also a reference to the compromise ATM cell size? Americans wanted 32 bytes of data per cell, to support DS0 data rates, IIRC. Europeans wanted 64 bytes to support their smallest telecom data rate (I don't remember the designation) and to reduce "cell tax" inefficiency. Neither side would capitulate, so they went with 48 bytes, which is worse than either for both sides. Diplomacy in communications standards at work! One step above "I'll take my ball and go home!" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.41|108.162.218.41]] 21:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that while Tau simplifies circumference calculations from 2*pi*r to tau*r, that it complicates area calculations from pi*r^2 to tau/2*r^2? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 16:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The number 666 comes from the biblical explanation of alliances that are other than godly: "the number of a man," according to Wikipedia. The scripture it comes from doesn't mention the devil. Popular culture may be making it a reality the same way made up words become socially acceptable according to dictionary writers.[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 14:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

1509: Scenery Cheat Sheet

2015-04-08T19:51:49Z

173.245.48.91:

{{comic
| number = 1509
| date = April 8, 2015
| title = Scenery Cheat Sheet
| image = scenery cheat sheet.png
| titletext = At the boundary between each zone, stories blend together. Somewhere in the New Mexico desert, the Roadrunner is pursued by a tireless Anton Chigurh.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Only just started page.}}

{{w|GeoGuessr}} is a game using {{w|Google Street View|StreetView}} images that drops the player in a random location and challenges them to work out where they are. It is also referenced in [[1214: Geoguessr]].

The [[title text]] references ''{{w|Anton Chigurh}}'' (portrayed by Javier Bardem), who is the main antagonist of the film ''{{w|No Country For Old Men}}''.

Note that this is a map of where the stories are set, not where they were filmed.

==Transcript==
===Title===
:A '''cheat sheet''' for
:figuring out where in the US you are
:by recognizing the background from movies
:(for use by GeoGuessr players and crash-landed astronauts)

===Map===
[From top left, left to right, top to bottom]
{| class="wikitable"
! Movie Title
! Setting for Movie
! Actual Filming Location(s)
! Notes
|-
| {{w|Twilight (film)| Twilight}}
| Forks, WA
| Portland, OR
|
|-
| {{w|Fifty Shades of Grey (film)|50 Shades of Grey}}
| Seattle, WA
| Vancouver, BC
|
|-
| {{w|Dances with Wolves}}
| Fort Sedgwick, CO
| South Dakota and Wyoming
|
|-
| {{w|Starship Troopers (film)|Starship Troopers}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Fargo (film)|Fargo}}
| Fargo ND, Brainerd MN, Minneapolis MN
| Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN area, Hallock MN, Bathgate, ND
|
|-
| {{w|Wild Wild West|Wild Wild West}}
| The southwest area
| Tuscon, Arizona; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Pierce, Idaho
|
|-
| {{w|The Sandlot|The Sandlot}}
| Suburban Los Angeles
| Salt Lake City, Utah
|
|-
| {{w|Napoleon Dynamite|Napoleon Dynamite}}
| Preston, Idaho
| Preston, Idaho
|
|-
| {{w|Brokeback Mountain|Brokeback Mountain}}
| Wyoming
| Southern Alberta
|
|-
| {{w|Oregon Trail (video_game)|Oregon Trail}}
|
|Video Game, not a film
| Could also refer to the film "{{w|The Oregon Trail (1936 film)}}".
|-
| {{w|Interstellar (film)|Interstellar}} (Earth parts)
| {{w|Northeast_megalopolis|BosWash}} (converted to farmland), probably near former NYC
|
| "Earth Parts"
|-
| {{w|Star Trek (film)|Star Trek (2009)}} (Earth parts)
| Iowa
| Iowa
| "Earth Parts"
|-
| {{w|Field of Dreams|Field of Dreams}}
|
| Dyersville, IA
|
|-
| {{w|The Music Man (1962 film)|The Music Man}}
| River City, IA
|
|
|-
| {{w|The Blues Brothers (film)|Blues Brothers}}
| Chicago
| Chicago and Milwaukee
|
|-
| {{w|A Christmas Story|A Christmas Story}}
| Indiana
|
|
|-
| {{w|Jack & Diane|That song about Jack and Diane}}
|
|
| "In the Heartland"
|-
| {{w|8 Mile (film)|8 Mile}}
| Wayne County, Michigan
|
|
|-
| {{w|Groundhog Day (film)|Groundhog Day}}
| {{w|Punxsutawney,_Pennsylvania|Punxsutawney, PA}}, {{w|Pittsburgh|Pittsburgh}}
| Woodstock, IL
|
|-
| {{w|My Side of the Mountain|My Side of the Mountain (book)}}
| Adriondack Mountains, NY
| Catskill mountains, near Delhi, NY
| The area shown on the map is actually the Adirondack mountains, not the Catskills. I suspect this is an error.
|-
| {{w|Super Troopers|Super Troopers}}
| Vermont, NY ("Somewhere near the border")
|
|
|-
| {{w|Pet Semetary|Pet Semetary}}
| Ludlow, Maine
|Hancock, Maine
|
|-
| {{w|What About Bob?|What about Bob}}
|Lake Winnipesaukee, NH
|Smith Mountain Lake, VA
|
|-
| {{w|The Departed|The Departed}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Signs (film)|Signs}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|The Village (2004 film)|The Village}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|War of the Worlds (2005 film)|War of the Worlds (2005)}}
|
|
| Also referenced in [[556: Alternative Energy Revolution]]
|-
| {{w|Jaws (film)|Jaws}}
| Amity Island (stand-in for Martha's Vineyard)
|
|
|-
| {{w|The Rock (film)|The Rock}}
| {{w|Alcatraz Island}}
| {{W|Alcatraz Island}}
|
|-
| {{w|Zodiac (film)|Zodiac}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Sideways|That movie about wine & talking}}
| {{w|Santa Ynez Valley}}
| {{w|Santa Ynez Valley}}
| He clearly means ''Sideways''. Mapped area does not include the Santa Ynez Valley wine country, but instead shows the {{w|Central_Valley_(California)|California Central Valley}}.
|-
| {{w|Top Gun|Top Gun}}
| NAS Miramar, San Diego, CA
| Nevada, NAS Miramar, San Diego, CA
|
|-
| {{w|Independence Day (1996 film)|Part of Independence Day}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Wile E. Coyote and The Road Runner|Roadrunner cartoons}}
|
|Animated, not filmed
|
|-
| {{w|The Wizard of Oz (1939 film)|The Wizard of Oz}}
| Kansas, Oz
|
| The Judy Garland version, presumably. The earth parts.
|-
| {{w|Twister (1996 film)|Twister}}
|
|
|
|-
| Anything by {{w|Mark Twain}}
| Hannibal, MO
|
| The mapped area doesn't quite include Twain's home town of Hannibal, MO.
|-
| {{w|Walk the Line|Walk the Line}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|October Sky|October Sky}}
| Coalwood, WV
| East Tennessee
|
|-
| {{w|Dirty Dancing|Dirty Dancing}}
| {{w|Catskill Mountains|Catskill Mountains}}
|
|
|-
| [Generic City]
| Washington DC, Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia
| N/A
|
|-
| {{w|Deep Impact (film)|Deep Impact}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|The Hunt for Red October (film)|The Hunt for Red October}}
| Atlantic Ocean
|
|
|-
| {{w|Gone with the Wind (film)|Gone with the Wind}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Forrest Gump|Forrest Gump}}
| Alabama
|
|
|-
| {{w|List of most expensive films|Every movie with a big budget...}}
|
|Hollywood, CA
|
|-
| {{w|The Truman Show|The Truman Show}} but with desert in the background
|
|
| If it were filmed in Las Vegas ...
|-
| {{w|Tombstone (film)|Tombstone}}
| {{w|Tombstone, Arizona|Tombstone, AZ}}
| Arizona
|
|-
| {{w|The Mask of Zorro|The Mask of Zorro}}
| California
| Mexico
|
|-
| {{w|No Country for Old Men (film)|No Country for Old Men}}
| (West) Texas
|
|
|-
| {{w|True Grit (1969 film)|True Grit}}
| Arkansas
|New Mexico
| Or the {{w|True Grit (2010 film)|2010 version}}
|-
| {{w|Office Space|Office Space}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Dazed and Confused (film)|Dazed and Confused}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Kill Bill|Kill Bill}}
|
|
|-
| {{w|Duck Dynasty|Duck Dynasty}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|The Princess and the Frog|Princess and the Frog}}
| New Orleans
|Animated, not filmed
|
|-
| {{w|All Dogs Go to Heaven|All Dogs go to Heaven}}
| New Orleans
|Animated, not filmed
|
|-
| {{w|Big Fish|Big Fish}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|O Brother, Where Art Thou?|O Brother Where Art Thou}}
| Parchman Farm, MS
| Canton, MS; Florence, SC
|
|-
| {{w|Beasts of the Southern Wild|Beasts of the Southern Wild}}
| Louisiana
| Montegut, LA
|
|-
| {{w|The Truman Show|The Truman Show}}
| Los Angeles area
| {{w|Seaside, Florida|Seaside, FL}}
|
|-
| {{w|Adaptation (film)|Adaptation}}
|
|
|
|-
| {{w|Miami Vice|Miami Vice}}
| Miami
|
| Or the {{w|Miami Vice (film)|film}}
|}

==See also==
*[https://geoguessr.com/ GeoGuessr's official website]
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Maps]]

Talk:1472: Geography

2015-01-13T20:00:59Z

173.245.48.91:

Anybody notice that he drew an isthmus but didn't label it? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.94|108.162.221.94]] 05:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Does Randall play Dwarf Fortress? Because the perfect map to build your fort on looks about like this. Volcano near the sea is especially neat luxury. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.121|141.101.80.121]] 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

:[[1223: Dwarf Fortress]] suggests he does. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Would be nice if there could be an example of the sort of map that Randall is referring to from a textbook for people who've never seen them or don't remember. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.91}}
Yeah, shame that there isn't one in the comic itself... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 12:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear where in the world people claim matches this best. Boston...? I ain't buying that one. {{unsigned ip|108.162.225.44}}
:Southern California. We don't have glaciers. But we do have alpine permafrost. We also have no active volcanoes. Otherwise this is essentially my house on the map. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.91|173.245.48.91]] 20:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC) BLuDgeons

Examples like Randall was talking about that I found on Google images.
[http://www.aparisgarcia.net/advwebdesign/LandandWaterFeaturesmap.jpg 1]
[https://ts-cdn-teachstarterptyl.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/TeachingResources_GeographicFeatures_Poster_US.jpg 2]
These appear to be two pages of the same picture: [http://secageography.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/8/24881589/2206129_orig.jpg 3] [http://secageography.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/8/8/24881589/9094980_orig.jpg 4]
I'm not sure if they're good enough quality to add to the main article, but if someone thinks they are, feel free. For someone who's never seen them before, they're fairly common in elementary school social studies or geography textbooks; I remember seeing them multiple times in mine. [[User:Tomari7|Tomari7]] ([[User talk:Tomari7|talk]]) 11:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

:I like the second one, if only for the iceberg sitting at the bottom. [[User:Okofish|Okofish]] ([[User talk:Okofish|talk]]) 09:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, no Valley or Fjord. Damn insensitve tropical geography.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.98|108.162.254.98]] 11:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Region around Vancouver has a lot of the items in the picture. (Sandy) deserts and Mesas are the only missing. {{unsigned ip|141.101.64.137}}

Anyone else noticing the distinct lack of any buildings? I'd call that a reason not to live there...{{unsigned ip|108.162.216.109}}
:...well, there's My House.;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.191|141.101.98.191]] 13:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe a good reason TO live there! [[User:Mwburden|mwburden]] ([[User talk:Mwburden|talk]]) 14:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete these useless musings
:Some people, when seeing paintings or pictures of landscapes, tend to dream away thinking ‘Imagine I lived there…’ This may happen even (or perhaps especially) to school children looking at schematic depictions with educational purposes, as in this case one that summarizes as many as possible geographic features on a limited area.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

;Penninsula: intentional?

Since I can hardly imagine Randall doesn't know how
it's written, the n too much may be a subtle gag.
(Just think of what happens in the opposite case ;-){{unsigned ip|108.162.230.221}}
:I think it's a misspelling. However, the Penninsula would certainly be in Pennsylvania. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 14:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

''"Randall notes that he would least like to live in the farm typically depicted in the background of such diagrams [how tornadoes form]. This is likely because the farm is depicted as being on a vast, featureless stretch of flat prairie, the opposite of the rich landscape in the comic."''

Well, perhaps.... Or perhaps it's because tornadoes keep forming there!! --[[User:Ab78|Ab78]] ([[User talk:Ab78|talk]]) 08:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No one has yet mentioned how conveniently named everything in this locality is. The forest is named "Forest" and so on. Someone moving there would have no difficulty when asking for directions! [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 17:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1470: Kix

2015-01-08T03:37:44Z

173.245.48.91:

Is there a category:comics with strong language? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.71|108.162.225.71]] 11:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

From now on I don't think I'll ever see a box of Kix in the store without thinking, "Kid Tested, Mother Fucker!"[[User:Bmmarti3|Bmmarti3]] ([[User talk:Bmmarti3|talk]]) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the last item in the list seem a little out of place for something Randall would write/post? It doesn't seem to me that he normally takes to swearing (at all) in any of his strips. [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 13:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with swearing, you guys? This is XKCD; we're supposedly a mature audience who doesn't shy away from using words simply because they're about sex and sex is bad. XKCD has dealt with sexual subject matter before, I don't think Randall ever tried to market it as a 'family-oriented' webcomic. If your kid gets XKCD jokes, I think they're mature enough to learn about sex! :P [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.171|173.245.56.171]] 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
: Actually this is xkcd, and I'm not saying there's a problem - just that Randall doesn't usually directly swear in his comics. It's just an observation. BTW, where'd the sex thing come from? [[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:: I'm not entirely sure which webcomic you're thinking of... (?) because it couldn't be xkcd... I would agree that xkcd is about romance, sarcasm, math and language, and not ''about'' swearing... but by searching for your chosen epithet using the search box at the top of this page (I chose and found 27 examples of "fuck"), you can find such words used whenever he needed them (and occasionally even when they weren't ''needed'' per se) used in the titles, dialogue, labels, and title text. Please, take a couple moments and confirm for yourself. Without thorough analysis, I'd guess there was a "swear word" of one sort or another in nearly 10% of xkcd comics -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:::xkcd.com/90 "Where's my fucking jacket?" "Over there, next to your regular one" one of my favorite classic xkcd, redefined my perseption of the word "fucking" in conversation. It is perpetually hyphenated in my mind. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.91|173.245.48.91]] 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)BLuDgeons
: The word 'fucker' is traditionally considered obscene because of it refers to sexual intercourse, which is considered a taboo subject that should be approached with care and sensitivity in Western Culture. So what I meant was that unless you consider that approach to the word warranted, it's not entirely logical to proscribe saying the word either. But since you don't seem to have an issue with that, I do agree: Randall doesn't swear in excess, but he does it when the occasion calls for it (like here), and that's completely fine. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.171|173.245.56.171]] 15:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The last one sounds like something Donald Draper would come up with if he was an increasingly cynical ad exec in the 70's or 80's when this came out. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.170|108.162.216.170]] 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the use of Mother Fucker is sexual in this context, just an epithet. And Randall has used swearwords throughout the lifetime of xkcd, albeit not liberally. [[User:Mattdevney|Mattdevney]] ([[User talk:Mattdevney|talk]]) 14:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
:Maybe he has never used the mother F word - and it does only appear here if you think it through... But the F word is used several time in the comics as can be seen by a [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?search=fuck&go=Go&title=Special%3ASearch simple search]. See for instance: [[388:_Fuck_Grapefruit]]. [[114: Computational Linguists]], [[874: Time Management]], [[566: Matrix Revisited]], [[714: Porn For Women]], [[931: Lanes]] and especially the title text of [[110: Clark Gable]] [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
: I agree, it's more in the spirit of Die Hard's "Yippie ki yay, motherfucker" or the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDfZ5HmA6fs Usual Suspects]'s "Hand me the fucking keys, you fucking cocksucker". It's an additional expletive to show disrespect and contempt of the person you're talking to and about to get medieval on. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 20:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
: I also Agree that Rather then Sexual I went to more of a Samuel L. Jackson sounding tone of it. [[User:Jimmyjazzx|Jimmyjazzx]] ([[User talk:Jimmyjazzx|talk]]) 03:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
''From the xkcd website:'' '''Warning: this comic ''occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children)'', unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)'''... I do think we need a category for these occasions of strong language. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.71|108.162.225.71]] 16:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
::We should include special categories for "unusual humor" and "advanced mathematics" as well [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.180|173.245.48.180]] 20:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)BLuDgeons

In the interest of science, I have created a category for comics with strong language. [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 18:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that if you read downward (acrosticly) from the last letter in "SELECTED" you get "DEFEC" - which implies a different rhyming response.--[[User:Schnitz|Schnitz]] ([[User talk:Schnitz|talk]]) 19:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When I read "Kid tested, mother not notified" I thought more of "Kid tested for substance abuse, mother not notified of the (positive) test result". {{unsigned ip|108.162.231.50}}

I had a sometimes different take on the explanation:
:For "Mother Selected", my first thoughts were that the mother was ''herself'' selected (for unknown purposes) despite/because of the kid being the one assessed for suitability.
:"Mother Perfected" seemed to suggest that after checking the child that she created, she was tweaked (genetically?) so that future kids wouldn't perhaps have some fault discovered in the first one.
:"Mother Not Notified", as already given in this Talk section, was "not told of the result of the test".
:"Mother Watching Helplessly" - per concensus.
:"Mother Infected", someone checked the kid for some disease or other, but it was actually the mother that was ill.
:"Mother Consumed", Mommy entered the food-chain (either as too old to bother testing the same as her child, or as part of the assessment process ''by'' the child).
:And the last assessment I agree with (although was half expecting a "MILF" reference... but there's not one there that I can see).
...but I can't argue with what's already been given. Consider the above as supplementary only. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.118|141.101.99.118]] 20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe "Kid tested, Mother consumed" means that the kid tested the product and didn't want to eat it but the mother also tasted it and decided that she liked it and possibly became addicted [[User:Carlosm|Carlosm]] ([[User talk:Carlosm|talk]]) 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1162: Log Scale

2014-11-04T01:12:03Z

173.245.48.91:

The fictional notation MAY BE a parody of Knuth's up-arrow notation - and uranium MAY BE an effective energy source. By the way, labeling the energy sources just with material name is insufficient: how good energy source is hydrogen? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:It has a calorific value of about 150 kJ/gm(much higher when compared to coal,etc.) but is too explosive[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 14:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
:That is for burning it I assume? But what if you use it as fuel in a fusion reactor? Or an H-Bomb for that matter?
The calorie standard is defined by burning. So comparison doesn't fit with the graph as written. [[User:DruidDriver|DruidDriver]] ([[User talk:DruidDriver|talk]]) 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
:is it really a parody? (well, probably arrow notation grows much more, here there is just a log log log etc) --[[User:.mau,|.mau.]] ([[User talk:.mau,|talk]]) 14:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It's true that uranium has an extremely high energy density, which is of great importance for mobile power plants; however, nuclear fission has a lot of safety issues, especially for mobile power, which is why it is used only for stationary power plants and large military vessels, such as aircraft carriers and subs.

Hydrogen is pretty good when highly compressed so as to get high energy volume density as well, but that leads to problems too. Also, hydrogen leaks more easily than almost anything else. That is especially a problem for an extremely flammable gas. On the plus side for hydrogen, nothing burns more cleanly.

:"The log scale can also be abused to make data look more uniform than it really is, so on a log scale sugar and other materials would look largely equal energy density when they clearly are not."
I think this is missing the point, which I take to be that displaying the data on a log scale would understate the vast difference between ''uranium'' and the hydrocarbons/carbohydrates:
E/m log(E/m)
sugar 19 1.3 *
coal 24 1.4 *
fat 39 1.6 **
gas 46 1.7 **
uranium 76e6 7.9 ****.***
Uranium is clearly larger than the others, but only by a factor of 4, so the real magnitude of the difference may not be appreciated.
With the stack of paper, he's proposing a way to show linear values for the data without having the uranium column simply shooting off the top of the page, with an arrow and the number. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 17:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
: or, he could just print at a scale that allows 76,000,000 to fit on the page, with the other values shown as near-infinitesimally thin lines. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 18:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A googolplex in Knuth's paper stack notation (based upon 3818 chr per page, and 25,824 pages to fill up a typical 8ft tall room), would be:
96.41816408 with a 2 pinned on it.

The algorithim is:

KnuthPaperStack(N):

y = log10(N)/3818

If y >= 25824
Z = Z + 1
z = KnuthPaperStack(y)
Return z,Z
Else
Return y,Z
End if

--[[User:Markozeta|Markozeta]] ([[User talk:Markozeta|talk]]) 15:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the name "Knuth paper-stack notation" sounds like "'Nuff paper-stack notation", meaning that it is a notation in which you need "enough paper" to stack up.

--[[User:NiccoloM|NiccoloM]] ([[User talk:NiccoloM|talk]]) 00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a pun on Log which is itself an energy source as well as being the source of any reams of paper used to record values.
[[Special:Contributions/192.11.175.219|192.11.175.219]] 06:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one not seeing the glaring mistake on the comic? First thing I thought was "that stack of paper is not high enough!". Please someone double check my math: If the height has to be 6.6e6cm (stated above) at 29.7 cm each A4 (vertical), that would mean 222,222 sheets of paper one on top of another. Each stack of 100 pages is aprox 1cm high. That would represent the stack to be 2222cm high, ergo 22m, roughly a 7 story building. Unless there is the equivalent of 6 stories in the waving paper, or the length of the folding 7x that of an A4, or the stick figure is 7 times closer to the camera than the stack of paper is... '''THE HEIGHT OF THE PILE IS OH SO WRONG'''!!!!!! Please prove me wrong!

[[Special:Contributions/87.238.84.65|87.238.84.65]] 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Guest, 2nd time posting :)

Assumption #1) the graph is drawn on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of ordinary paper in landscape orientation.

Assumption #2) the graph is drawn in normal (linear) scale.

Assumption #3) Cueball is 6 feet tall.

Trusting MSPaint with the conversions, I read the first four bars to have about 5 units (megajoules per kg) per pixel. 76 million units divided by 5 units per pixel is a 15.2 million pixel tall bar.

Looking again to MSPaint, I read the 8.5" dimension of the paper to be about 193 pixels. 15.2 million pixels of graph bar divided by 193 pixels per page is 78756 pages.

Looking above, I read that 100 pages is 1cm, so our stack is going to be 787.56cm tall.

On this side of the pond, that's 310 inches, or about 25 feet.

So, the stack Cueball is looking at is too short to house an accurately long enough bar....

...IF the stack's footprint's longer dimension is only 8.5 inches. While the original graph paper appears to be 8.5x11, the ribbon of paper continuing the bar does not appear to be segmented. Again looking at MSPaint, it would seem the ribbon is about 4.75" wide. The stack is clearly much longer than it is wide. If the stack is 30" long and 4.75" wide, the stack would be whittled down to just over 6 feet tall.

So, making a gang load of assumptions, and scaling from an drawn image, it's reasonable to say the stack in the image could be accurate enough.

The explanation's assumption above that the gasoline bar is 4cm tall makes the piece of paper 96.5cm (38") tall, and that's just not practical. Using the scale I've based my statements on makes the gasoline bar just about 9mm.

-psychoboy[[Special:Contributions/70.164.66.64|70.164.66.64]] 19:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the energy density of gasoline if it undergoes nuclear fusion?

Talk:1005: SOPA

2014-08-08T22:11:55Z

173.245.48.91: added comment

Anyone try the brightness-contrast with the XKCD [[521: 2008 Christmas Special|2008 x-mas Special]]? [[Special:Contributions/66.19.70.101|66.19.70.101]] 02:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:Negative. [[Special:Contributions/108.233.253.211|108.233.253.211]] 02:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:Yes. There is NO color information in those black panels, all pixels read 0x000000. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.53|108.162.216.53]] 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What do they mean "typical XKCD fashion"? What other comics have hidden messages in them? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.91|173.245.48.91]] 22:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

232: Chess Enlightenment

2014-04-21T22:02:42Z

173.245.48.91: /* Explanation */ The title says it doesn't work, not that he particularly can't do it.

{{comic
| number = 232
| date = March 7, 2007
| title = Chess Enlightenment
| image = chess enlightenment.png
| titletext = You know that 'sweep the pieces off the board and see it in your mind' thing? Doesn't work.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Chess}} is a board game in which two players take turns to move a variety of different units to try and capture the other player's "king." Chess has a lively tournament scene, and takes much practice to attain a competent level of skill in the game. Different units can move and capture in different ways; pawns can only move forward by one square unless it's their first move, in which case they can move up two squares, but they can only capture by moving diagonally unless they perform an ''{{w|En passant|en passant}}'' in which they move around an opposing pawn that had moved forward two squares on the previous turn.

Other pieces have similar rules. {{w|Obi-Wan Kenobi}} is a character from the movie series {{w|Star Wars}} who played the mentor figure to the protagonist, {{w|Luke Skywalker}}. One of his pieces of advice to his mentee was to relax and listen to his subconscious in strenuous times.

[[Cueball]] finds his game of chess against [[Megan]] to be too difficult, and attempts to tap his subconscious to find his next move. The rules of chess are not ingrained into his subconscious however, and so his subconscious ends up feeding him invalid moves and beginner questions concerning movement rules.

The title text refers to a scene in the chess movie {{w|Searching for Bobby Fischer}}, in which Sir Ben Kingsley's character dramatically sweeps the pieces off the board and instructs his student to see the pieces in his mind, which the child proceeds to do. According to the title, is not actually possible to do that on real life.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Why is chess so hard? Maybe the answers lie within me. Maybe I just need to let go, relax, and let my instincts and subconscious speak.
:''Meditate''
:Cueball's subconscious: Knight to G-4
:Cueball: That's not even a legal move.
:Cueball's subconscious: Okay, hold on. How do the pawns capture, again?
:Cueball: Man, Obi-Wan was full of crap.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]