explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1442: Chemistry

2014-11-03T17:33:06Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1442
| date = November 3, 2014
| title = Chemistry
| image = chemistry.png
| titletext = These are all sans-serif compounds. Serif compounds are dramatically different and usually much more reactive.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Rough draft. Need to explain why Hydrogen forms a crystal structure, the origin of "Mydrane", and title text, along with general improvements and proof reading.}}
Chemical bonding is a well-known subject which explains the formation of {{w|molecule}}s from {{w|atom}}s. This comic refers to three {{w|chemical element}}s: Carbon (C), Hydrogen (H), and Oxygen (O). In real chemistry, the formation of bonds between atoms depends on the number of valence electrons each atom has, and how accessible those electrons are for bonding. The comic jokingly replaces valence electron theory with a theory that the number of bonds an atom can form depends on the number of {{w|Leaf vertex|leaf vertices}} possessed by the chemical symbol's letter. A leaf vertex is a vertex having only one edge connecting to one other vertex. "H" for example, the chemical symbol of Hydrogen, has 4 leaf vertices. This is shown in the comic by the four half-circles placed at each leaf vertex of the "H". Thus, in the comic's theory, elemental hydrogen can form 4 bonds. Oxygen, however, having the chemical symbol "O", has no leaf vertices, and according to the comic's theory should not bond to anything, and is therefore inert.

The title text points out that the theory as presented only applies to sans-serif text. A {{w|serif}} is a small line across the end of each stroke. "H", for instance, would have four serifs, each with two leaf vertices. Thus hydrogen in a serif font would be able to form 8 bonds making it, according to the comic's theory, "more reactive".

Of course, the theory is completely inconsistent with observed chemistry. While the comic declares oxygen is inert and forms no bonds, this is not really the case: the two unpaired valence electrons in a lone oxygen atom makes oxygen reactive, and oxygen readily form molecules. Diatomic oxygen, O2, makes up about 20.9% of Earth's atmosphere, and is essential for aerobic life, including human life. Similarly, a water molecule consists of an oxygen atom tightly bonded to two hydrogen atoms.

By observing real chemical compounds, chemists have deduced that hydrogen atoms really have 1 valence electron, carbon 4 and oxygen 2, allowing Hydrogen to have up to 1 bond, carbon up to 4, and oxygen up to 2. Thus it is Carbon which can have up to four bonds, and really is {{w|graphite|often found}} in {{w|diamond|crystalline form}} in nature (e.g., diamonds, coal); Oxygen which can have up to 2 bonds, and can combine with Carbon to form CO2 (instead of C2H in the comic). We can see here that Randall is giving "typographic" Hydrogen real-life Carbon qualities, since "typographic" hydrogen can have 4 bonds, just like real-life carbon. The same goes for giving "typographic" Carbon real-life oxygen qualities, etc. "Typographic" oxygen simply takes on the properties of the real-life noble gases in the comic (Helium, etc.), which form no bonds and are inert, just like "typographic" Oxygen is in the comic.

There is an element in real life analogous to the comic's "hydrogen" - carbon atoms have four valence electrons, and can thus form lattices with other carbon atoms. Diamond consists of pure carbon in which each atom forms four tetrahedral bonds with its neighboring carbon atoms. Graphite is another form of solid carbon where the bond configuration is different. Oxygen atoms in reality have two valence electrons, and thus can form a bond to each of two hydrogen atoms to form water (H2O); alternatively two oxygen atoms can each share both their valence electrons with a carbon atom to create two "double" bonds in carbon dioxide (CO2). There are also real elements analogous to the comic's "O": atoms of the inert gas elements (sometimes called "noble gases") such as helium have no valence electrons.

==Transcript==
[The symbol for Hydrogen is shown.]

Hydrogen can form four bonds. It readily bonds with itself, and often exists as a crystal.

[A diagram with several 'H's is shown. The 'H's are connected in a pattern.]

Crystalline Hydrogen

[The symbol for Carbon is shown.]

Carbon can only form two bonds. It readily bonds with Hydrogen to form C2H (Mydrane) or itself.

[Two diagrams, one with two 'C's connected and one with two 'C's and an 'H' connected are shown.]

[The symbol for Oxygen is shown.]

Oxygen is inert, forming no bonds...

[A diagram of several 'O's is shown. None are connected to anything.]

Monoatomic Oxygen gas.

Typographic Chemistry

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1440: Geese

2014-10-29T16:45:39Z

199.27.128.146:

The mere idea of geese spontaneously exploding mid-flight makes me giggle like a madman. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.26|108.162.216.26]] 12:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
: 108.162.216.26, you're twisted. ... and now i can't stop thinking about it... and giggling. [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 16:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
: Wasn't it a goose going supernova that caused the Tunguska event? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 16:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Time Dilation? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.185|173.245.56.185]] 09:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The explanation should point out that the comic is referring to the common misconception that there is a high chance that a visible star is already dead. The facts are explained but the context is missing. This misconception was also mentioned in a what-if, but I cant find it right now.
The Milky Way is 120kly in diameter and most visible stars are much closer. With a lifetime of at least a couple millions of years the probability for a random star being dead is way below 1%. Given that there are 5000 stars visible to the naked eye (under best viewing conditions), this means that statistically there are maybe 5 stars in the entire night sky that are dead already. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.215|108.162.231.215]] 09:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
: "With a lifetime of at least a couple millions of years" True only for the most massive stars. The average star in the Milky Way is around half a solar mass and will last around 50 billion years. So the probability of one of the 5000 stars visible to the naked eye having died in the last 1000 years is even smaller than "way below 1%". [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 16:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1440: Geese

2014-10-29T16:40:47Z

199.27.128.146:

1440: Geese

2014-10-29T16:39:40Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1440
| date = October 29, 2014
| title = Geese
| image = geese.png
| titletext = Anyway, that's a common misconception. Geese live for a long time; all the ones we can see will probably keep flying around for billions of years before they explode.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] is commenting on a flock of geese passing overhead and how the light from the geese reaching their eyes now must have come from hundreds of years ago, which is a fact for stars. [[Cueball]] points out the absurdity of Megan's statement by pointing out that the geese are only a few hundred yards away rather than a few hundred light years. She continues along the same lines when she implies to Cueball that he is observing a past version of her, despite them being only a few feet apart. (Technically he ''is'' viewing a past version of her, but not one from "long ago"; if someone is two feet away from you, you are seeing them as they were roughly [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=light+travel+time+for+2+feet 2 nanoseconds ago].)

The title-text further continues Megan's treating the geese as if they were stars, which "live" for a few billion years before exploding. Most stars visible with naked eye are within a thousand light-years of Earth, (as discussed in [[1342: Ancient Stars]]), and it's unlikely that any star Megan currently sees actually exploded within the relatively short span of last few thousand years.

Megan's statement "You're hearing how they once sounded." is somewhat more justified -- sound from "a few hundred yards away" would take about one second to be heard (depending on the exact distance and the prevailing atmospheric conditions (which affect the speed of sound)). That said, the sound of a goose isn't likely to change enough over the course of a second or two to make this distinction particularly significant.

==Transcript==
:[Geese fly in V-formation. Megan and Cueball are lying on the ground, watching them.]
:Megan: To think... we're seeing light that left those geese centuries ago.
:Megan: By now, they could be long dead.
:Cueball: ... What? They're a few hundred yards away. I hear them honking.
:Megan: Ah, yes. You're hearing how they once sounded.
:Cueball: You're very weird.
:Megan: Or I was, long ago...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]

1440: Geese

2014-10-29T16:37:51Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1440
| date = October 29, 2014
| title = Geese
| image = geese.png
| titletext = Anyway, that's a common misconception. Geese live for a long time; all the ones we can see will probably keep flying around for billions of years before they explode.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] is commenting on a flock of geese passing overhead and how the light from the geese reaching their eyes now must have come from hundreds of years ago, which is a fact for stars. [[Cueball]] points out the absurdity of Megan's statement by pointing out that the geese are only a few hundred yards away rather than a few hundred light years. She continues along the same lines when she implies to Cueball that he is observing a past version of her, despite them being only a few feet apart. (Technically he ''is'' viewing a past version of her, but not one from "long ago"; if someone is two feet away from you, you are seeing them as they were roughly [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=light+travel+time+for+2+feet 2 nanoseconds ago].)

The title-text further continues Megan's treating the geese as if they were stars, which "live" for a few billion years before exploding. Most stars visible with naked eye are within a thousand light-years of Earth, (as discussed in [[1342: Ancient Stars]]), and it's unlikely that any star Megan sees exploded within the relatively short span of last few thousand years.

Megan's statement "You're hearing how they once sounded." is somewhat more justified -- sound from "a few hundred yards away" would take about one second (depending on the exact distance and exact speed of sound under prevailing atmospheric conditions) to be heard. That said, the sound of a goose isn't likely to change enough over the course of a second or two to make this distinction particularly significant.

==Transcript==
:[Geese fly in V-formation. Megan and Cueball are lying on the ground, watching them.]
:Megan: To think... we're seeing light that left those geese centuries ago.
:Megan: By now, they could be long dead.
:Cueball: ... What? They're a few hundred yards away. I hear them honking.
:Megan: Ah, yes. You're hearing how they once sounded.
:Cueball: You're very weird.
:Megan: Or I was, long ago...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]

1440: Geese

2014-10-29T16:31:13Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1440
| date = October 29, 2014
| title = Geese
| image = geese.png
| titletext = Anyway, that's a common misconception. Geese live for a long time; all the ones we can see will probably keep flying around for billions of years before they explode.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Megan]] is commenting on a flock of geese passing overhead and how the light from the geese reaching their eyes now must have come from hundreds of years ago, which is a fact for stars. [[Cueball]] points out the absurdity of Megan's statement by pointing out that the geese are only a few hundred yards away rather than a few hundred light years. She continues along the same lines when she implies to Cueball that he is observing a past version of her, despite them being only a few feet apart. (Technically he ''is'' viewing a past version of her, but not one from "long ago"; if someone is two feet away from you, you are seeing them as they were roughly [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=light+travel+time+for+2+feet 2 nanoseconds ago].)

The title-text further confirms Megan's description of the geese as if they were stars, which "live" for a few billion years before exploding, making it unlikely that any of them will have exploded within the last few hundred years. The further a star is from Earth, the longer it takes for the light emitted to reach us; but most stars visible with naked eye are within a thousand light-years of Earth, as discussed in [[1342: Ancient Stars]]. If, for example, {{w|Alpha Centauri}} were to explode, it would take about 4 years and 4 months before we witnessed it here on Earth.

Megan's statement "You're hearing how they once sounded." is somewhat more justified -- sound from "a few hundred yards away" would take about one second (depending on the exact distance and exact speed of sound under prevailing atmospheric conditions) to be heard. That said, the sound of a goose isn't likely to change enough over the course of a second or two to make this distinction particularly significant.

==Transcript==
:[Geese fly in V-formation. Megan and Cueball are lying on the ground, watching them.]
:Megan: To think... we're seeing light that left those geese centuries ago.
:Megan: By now, they could be long dead.
:Cueball: ... What? They're a few hundred yards away. I hear them honking.
:Megan: Ah, yes. You're hearing how they once sounded.
:Cueball: You're very weird.
:Megan: Or I was, long ago...

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:1438: Houston

2014-10-24T15:34:09Z

199.27.128.146:

A commentary on the nature of outsourced helpdesks, perhaps? Although, IME, the problems are more due to 'sticking to a script' (which would have given an entirely different exchange) rather than an unknowledgable and casually uninterested 'service'-person. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.247|141.101.98.247]] 05:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
:I think this is the idea behind the comic too. Kind of like a "What if it had happened today?" It sure sounds like the kind of hotline support we get today. [[User:Deantwo|Deantwo]] ([[User talk:Deantwo|talk]]) 10:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

::I agree. This is definitely comparison between the original mission control center and current outsourced helpdesk centers. Although it would be interesting to know what specific incident caused Randal to comment on it. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What is going on is this strip? Usually it's a reference to something or a commentary, but I don't get it at all. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 05:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I figured out enough of it to remove the "incomplete" tag. This is definitely one of the weird ones. [[User:Shachar|Shachar]] ([[User talk:Shachar|talk]]) 06:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Continuum? (Canadian sci-fi show)
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.106|199.27.133.106]] 06:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola? Really? Where is that..what? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.79|173.245.49.79]] 09:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there is no evidence to back up the ebola reference. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 09:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, I took it to refer to people being distracted on the phone in general (hence the title text) or generally not taking their jobs serious. Maybe the idea that for NASA, space travel has become so routine that mission control is no longer as engaged in the missions. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 09:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the guy answering the phone is called "Houston"? A misplaced Skype call from a rather shell shocked astronaut? {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.111}}
:But then it wouldn't make sense, that he says he's at work.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.29|173.245.49.29]] 13:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There are a LOT of anachronisms, or things that don't match the way things were back in the 1960's, not just the flat screens. (And I do still remember the sixties, despite "if you can remember the sixties, you wern't really there" - a reference to the drug scene.) We didn't say "cool" or "you suck at doing that" back then, and it's very unlikely that communications with the mission and a simple telephone call would be selectable from the same headset, and the michrophones on headsets were larger and probably had dangling wires back then. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 13:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It could be a commentary on privatizing space travel by NASA (among others to Boeing). Would explain, why Cueball knows it's a "airplane or whatever".--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.29|173.245.49.29]] 13:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand it's a reference, but is this supposed to actually be the Apollo 13? I understood it was just another mission happening today. I find the anachronism explanation nonsensical. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.211|108.162.212.211]] 13:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

"At first glance, this comic appears to be an "alternate reality" view at what could happen today, given that most people in the XXI century seem to suffer ADD." I don't think that we can assume this at all. Also, that's not what ADD is. [[User:Lomky|Lomky]] ([[User talk:Lomky|talk]]) 14:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
:Yeah. I think it's far more clear that Randall's commenting on unhelpful tech support than anyon'es short attention span. I've edited the explanation above. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 15:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Did Randall have a bad experience with a call center operator? [[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 14:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

1438: Houston

2014-10-24T15:33:01Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */ Based on discussion below, Randall is more likely satirizing bad customer service lines than any increase in ADD and short attention spans.

{{comic
| number = 1438
| date = October 24, 2014
| title = Houston
| image = houston.png
| titletext = 'Oh, hey Mom. No, nothing important, just at work.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Incomplete. Why is NASA unengaged in the issue? What is the relevance of prioritizing a call from mom over an exploding manned space ship? Why is the anachronistic monitor present: is NASA less responsive now?}}
{{w|Apollo 13}} was intended to be the third manned landing on the moon. On its way there, however, during a routine stirring of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks, an explosion occurred that damaged the craft. After some frantic activity by engineers at the {{w|Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center}} (located in Houston) and the crew of Apollo 13 all three astronauts returned safely to Earth. A memorable understatement was astronaut James Lovell's calm transmission to Mission Control notifying them of the problem: "Houston, we've had a problem".

This comic strip depicts that initial exchange, except with much less help from Mission Control (and current monitor technology). In reality, Mission Control worked diligently and tirelessly to solve numerous problems such as if and how to adjust the spacecraft's trajectory, how to have the astronauts jury-rig CO2 removal equipment (intended for the command module) to work with the lunar module (to which the astronauts had evacuated) using just the equipment on board and how to power equipment back up within strict limitations.

At first glance, this comic appears to be an "alternate reality" view at what could happen today, given technical customer service lines are notoriously un-helpful and/or staffed by people not well versed in the products they supposedly support. It is meant to contrast history with Cueball's (lack of) action. It leaves implicit the consequences of this inaction, for greater shock. 

==Transcript==
{{Incomplete|Name for capsule? Also, descriptions need work.}}
:[The lunar lander and module shown with debris near by in foreground, in space with the Earth in the background.]
:Lovell: Houston, we have a problem
:[Cueball sitting In front of two monitors wearing a headset.]
:Cueball: Cool.
:Lovell: ...What? Houston, we stirred our O2 tank and it exploded!
:Cueball: Sounds like you suck at stirring.
:[Capsule shown from a greater distance, with Earth beside it.]
:Lovell: ...Houston? Are you-
:Cueball: Listen, I've got another call.
:Cueball: Good luck landing your airplane or whatever.
: *click*

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1438: Houston

2014-10-24T15:30:39Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1438
| date = October 24, 2014
| title = Houston
| image = houston.png
| titletext = 'Oh, hey Mom. No, nothing important, just at work.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Incomplete. Why is NASA unengaged in the issue? What is the relevance of prioritizing a call from mom over an exploding manned space ship? Why is the anachronistic monitor present: is NASA less responsive now?}}
{{w|Apollo 13}} was intended to be the third manned landing on the moon. On its way there, however, during a routine stirring of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks, an explosion occurred that damaged the craft. After some frantic activity by engineers at the {{w|Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center}} (located in Houston) and the crew of Apollo 13 all three astronauts returned safely to Earth. A memorable understatement was astronaut James Lovell's calm transmission to Mission Control notifying them of the problem: "Houston, we've had a problem".

This comic strip depicts that initial exchange, except with much less help from Mission Control (and current monitor technology). In reality, Mission Control worked diligently and tirelessly to solve numerous problems such as if and how to adjust the spacecraft's trajectory, how to have the astronauts jury-rig CO2 removal equipment (intended for the command module) to work with the lunar module (to which the astronauts had evacuated) using just the equipment on board and how to power equipment back up within strict limitations.

At first glance, this comic appears to be an "alternate reality" view at what could happen today, given that most people in the 21st century seem to suffer ADD and/or technical customer service lines are notoriously un-helpful. It is meant to contrast history with Cueball's (lack of) action. It leaves implicit the consequences of this inaction, for greater shock. 

==Transcript==
{{Incomplete|Name for capsule? Also, descriptions need work.}}
:[The lunar lander and module shown with debris near by in foreground, in space with the Earth in the background.]
:Lovell: Houston, we have a problem
:[Cueball sitting In front of two monitors wearing a headset.]
:Cueball: Cool.
:Lovell: ...What? Houston, we stirred our O2 tank and it exploded!
:Cueball: Sounds like you suck at stirring.
:[Capsule shown from a greater distance, with Earth beside it.]
:Lovell: ...Houston? Are you-
:Cueball: Listen, I've got another call.
:Cueball: Good luck landing your airplane or whatever.
: *click*

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1438: Houston

2014-10-24T15:24:24Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */ "resulted in ... resulted in..." is clumsy construction.

{{comic
| number = 1438
| date = October 24, 2014
| title = Houston
| image = houston.png
| titletext = 'Oh, hey Mom. No, nothing important, just at work.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Incomplete. Why is NASA unengaged in the issue? What is the relevance of prioritizing a call from mom over an exploding manned space ship? Why is the anachronistic monitor present: is NASA less responsive now?}}
{{w|Apollo 13}} was intended to be the third manned landing on the moon. On its way there, however, during a routine stirring of the hydrogen and oxygen tanks, an explosion occurred that damaged the craft. After some frantic activity by engineers at the {{w|Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center}} (located in Houston) and the crew of Apollo 13 all three astronauts returned safely to Earth. A memorable understatement was astronaut James Lovell's calm transmission to Mission Control: "Houston, we've had a problem".

These are the same events, except with much less help from Mission Control (and current monitor technology). In reality, Mission Control had to figure out thousands of little problems that popped out due to the explosion, from how to get the astronauts back, to how the astronauts can jury-rig CO2 removal equipment (intended for the command module) to work with the lunar module (to which the astronauts had evacuated).

At first glance, this comic appears to be an "alternate reality" view at what could happen today, given that most people in the XXI century seem to suffer ADD. It is meant to contrast history with Cueball's (lack of) action. It leaves implicit the consequences of this inaction, for greater shock. 

==Transcript==
{{Incomplete|Name for capsule? Also, descriptions need work.}}
:[The lunar lander and module shown with debris near by in foreground, in space with the Earth in the background.]
:Lovell: Houston, we have a problem
:[Cueball sitting In front of two monitors wearing a headset.]
:Cueball: Cool.
:Lovell: ...What? Houston, we stirred our O2 tank and it exploded!
:Cueball: Sounds like you suck at stirring.
:[Capsule shown from a greater distance, with Earth beside it.]
:Lovell: ...Houston? Are you-
:Cueball: Listen, I've got another call.
:Cueball: Good luck landing your airplane or whatever.
: *click*

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1208: Footnote Labyrinths

2014-01-13T17:53:12Z

199.27.128.146:

Way to nerd-snipe me, Randall. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In the nested-footnotes interpretation, 5 has to be ignored: The 6 must be true, and the 6 says that it’s “actually a 1”, but with footnote 2+2 which says “ibid.” and thus equals footnote 3, which is true. So 6 really ''does mean'' actually a 1, which leaves 5 to be ignored. --[[Special:Contributions/77.186.8.191|77.186.8.191]] 10:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The footnote for 6 is actually 1 to the 2 to the 2 [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaination is wrong : abc = a(bc) = ab^c (confer the definition of a gogol = 10^100 = 10102, and a gogolplex = 10^gogol = 10(10100), not 10^110. So since 1^2= 1, No12 really means No1. {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:Yes, so "no1" means to ignore the "no" and the answer for the second explanation is "we found evidence for the data." By the way, it's spelled "googol." [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

;Question, alternative explination

I wasn't really satisfied with the whole discarding of the infinite loop, so I worked through the problem seperately using the nested footnotes. Then, when we hit the infinite loop I split between the two possible answers (either the infinite loop ends on true or false). As I read it, they both get the same answer:

no (3)

no (not true (5))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < 3))

no (not true (true (2 < 6 < (not true))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true 3 < 2)))))

no (not true (true (2 < (actually 1 < 2 < 2 (not true (5)))))

Split!

If 6 is false (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 2)

no (not true (7)) - meaningless, so discard

no (not true)

If 6 is true (infinite loop possibility)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 2 < 2)

no (3 < 5 < 1 < 4)

no (3 < 5 < 1)

no (3)

no (not true)

Both lead to the answer "... experiments to observe this and we found evidence for it in our data". {{unsigned|‎Urah}}

:Yes, but at each stage you may "''toggle between interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes and interpreting them as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1).''" That is, a23 may ''either'' be read as "apply note 8 (=2mod6) to text ''a''", or as "apply note 3 to text "2", then the result to text ''a''". {{unsigned ip|192.54.145.66}}
:There are differences in interpretation here. If we write "foo36", is it equal to "foo112" or "foo3112"? I assumed the former and you assumed the latter. My reasoning is that footnotes modify their arguments and not themselves. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't 5 be true (because 6 is actually 13; therefore 5 is true2133; so the 2 is ignored regardless the truth of 3) and 3 is not true? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.118.249|178.26.118.249]] 18:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

'''Yet another alternative solution:''' Footnotes should be evaluated from top to bottom, so "no12" = "no1 + 2" = "no3". We turn to the definition of 3, which is "not true32" = "not true3 + 2" = "not true5".

Now 5 is "true263". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 122 = 1(4. ibid.) = 13, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true5", getting us into an infinite loop. However, 263 must evaluate to 1, because otherwise we're incrementing "true" by 2, which is meaningless. This means that 3 must be equal "not true". 63 = "actually a 1"33 = "actually a 1". 5 becomes true1 which just says to ignore this footnote altogether and we can confirm that 3 is indeed not true (not true5 = not true). So the answer is that the "no" is not true, and the correct statement is "we found ''some'' evidence for it in our data." Phew. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 22:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not discouraging anyone from coming up with more alternate solutions, but would it be fair to say that part of the point is that there are multiple equally legit ways to run this labyrinth, and that some exit where you ignore the 'no', others exit on the other side where you don't ignore it. and then there's those who won't exit because they're busy making a map. - [[Special:Contributions/70.72.16.171|70.72.16.171]] 23:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the proof from ''This means that 3 = "true"''. Why do you assume that footnote has to be either "true" or "false? I think it could be "ignore this", "increment by three before following", "leave the whole calculation and assume we have two pieces of evidence" etc. as well. [[Special:Contributions/178.56.1.144|178.56.1.144]] 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:Given the footnotes' definitions I don't think it's possible to ever come up with "increment by three before following" ;)
:Actually the solution I gave may be not strictly formal, but it gives some intuition why it seems to be the only valid one.
:The fact that the definitions are recursive doesn't imply that the ultimate answer cannot be resolved. [[User:Ciamej|Ciamej]] ([[User talk:Ciamej|talk]]) 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So what I'm hearing is this, "No means No.", yes?[[Special:Contributions/66.88.136.254|66.88.136.254]] 19:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a real strange logic, but "No = No" means "Yes" --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

;Footnote logic:

So... I did some footnote logic, and came up with this:

This explanation will treat footnotes as footnotes, with the order of operations from top-down, with footnotes acting on only the object they are attached to, including other footnotes.

1. no^1^2

2. no^3

3. no(not true^3^2)

4. no(not (true^5))

5. no(not (true^2^6^3))

The ^6 says the ^2 is actually a 1^2^2, but the ^3 says that the ^6 is "not true^3^2". This leads us to an infinite loop, as the "not true^3^2" in step 3 led to the addition of the additional "not true^3^2".

I assume that the loop can be reduced down to either "true" or "not true", for the purposes of following this path. I will explore both options.

if infinite loop is true:

6a. no(not true^1^2^2) (replacing 2 with 1^2^2 as per 6)

7a. no(not true^1^4)

8a. no(not true(ignore(not true^3^2))) (infinite loop again)

I guess we'll split once more.

if second loop is true:

9aa. no(not (true(ignore(not true)))) (as the second loop reduced to true, we have no more footnotes)

10aa. no(not true) (since the "ignore" this exponent was not true, we can remove it)

And we finally have something simple. No is not true, so evidence was actually found.

if second loop is false:

9ab. no(not (true(ignore(not (not true))))) (again, with the second loop reduced to "not true", we have no more footnotes)

10ab. no(not (true(ignore)))

11ab. no(not)

This is a bit more confusing, as we're ignoring the true as per step 10ab, and are just left with no^not. I'm going to take this to mean true, as in, again, evidence was found.

if first loop is false:

6b. no(not (true^2)) (the ^6 which said that the ^2 was actually a 1^2^2 was negated by the ^3 (which we declared as false for this leg), therefore both the ^3 and the ^6 can be reduced to nothing.)

No idea how to proceed here, as true is not a footnote, and can't be followed or incremented.

If we just ignore the ^2, we're left with the same as 10aa. That is, evidence was again found.

Alternatively, we can say that because ^5==false led us to a nonsensical result, then ^5 must always reduce to true, meaning that the only acceptable answer is to follow the path to 10aa.

Any way you slice it, evidence was certainly found.

[[User:Kalzekdor|Kalzekdor]] ([[User talk:Kalzekdor|talk]]) 22:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

;Read the title text
The title text says that you have to toggle between interpreting footnotes and calculating them (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). And all calculations using the plus sign for exponents are wrong. 32 is 3*3 and not 3+2.

:Interpreting footnotes:
:no12 - 1ignore this
:no2 - 2increment by 2
:no4 - 4IBID -> footnote before
:no3 - 3not true32
:yes32

:Calculation:
:32 = 9 -> 9-1 = 8 -> 8 modulo 6 = 2 -> 2 plus 1 = 3
:yes3

:Interpreting footnotes is again the same as before:
:yes3
:no32

So I am also on an infinite loop and footnotes 5 and 6 are never used.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

you are all wrong and I would presume there is no solution as title popup says '''every time''' you read it you should toggle... so I'm afraid everyone could arrive to different solution.
[[Special:Contributions/87.239.45.58|87.239.45.58]] 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Cyp

(A) I don't follow the last comment. You toggle only when you read the mouseover. For most people, only once: i.e., try it the other way.
(B) Should 1 be interpreted as a message to the reader or a comment on the footnoted phrase? If the latter, then as exponents, it is 1x1=1, or ignore the "no". If the former, then as exponents, move on to footnote 2, then 4, then 3 and stop there--"not true 3x3" cannot be evaluated. When interpreting as footnotes, then the footnote on No1 also cannot be evaluated as footnote 3 is an endless loop of 3-2-4-3-2-4... There is no opportunity to arbitrarily stop at "true" or "not true" as one commenter suggests because one never reaches the point of evaluating the self-referential 3 on the third footnote. Or it so it seems to me. [[Special:Contributions/114.171.110.105|114.171.110.105]] 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

;Where is the EDIT WAR here???
There is an update here today to the latest update on November 17. 2013; where is the actual WAR??? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 01:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
:I am the anonymous editor who made the last edit before the page was protected. I suspect my frustrated summaries made the administrators believe there was a war. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.146|199.27.128.146]] 17:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

1208: Footnote Labyrinths

2014-01-08T00:19:46Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1208
| date = May 6, 2013
| title = Footnote Labyrinths
| image = footnote_labyrinths.png
| titletext = Every time you read this mouseover, toggle between interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes and interpreting them as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1).
}}

==Explanation==

This is a logic puzzle where the reader has to follow a confusing network of footnotes to determine whether the word "no" is to be ignored or not. The title text references comic [[1184]], playing on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.

In the following solutions, "right-associative" means that the footnotes are evaluated from right to left or top to bottom, and left-associative from left to right or bottom to top (e.g. (26)3 is left-associative, and 2(63) is right-associative.

===Interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes, left-associative===

no12 = (no1)2 = "ignore this" (it is meaningless to increment a phrase by 2), so the correct statement is "we found evidence for it in our data".

===Interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes, right-associative===

"no12" = "no1 + 2" = "no3". We turn to the definition of 3, which is "not true32" = "not true3 + 2" = "not true5".

Now 5 is "true263". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 122 = 1(4. ibid.) = 13, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true5", getting us into an infinite loop, meaning there is no solution.

===Interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1)===

In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. Since there are only six footnotes, the alt-text operation is equivalent to modulo 6. "no12" = "no1", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data."

Meanwhile, 3 becomes "not true3", an {{w|infinite recursion}}, and since 263 mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 14, and since 4 is "ibid.", we now get "ignore this3", so all roads but the solution lead to an infinite recursion.

"ibid." is short for "ibidem", or "at the same place", meaning the reference was noted on the same page just before.

==Transcript==
:[Excerpt from what appears to be an academic paper with footnotes.]
:experiments to observe this and we found no12 evidence for it in our data.

:1Ignore this
:2Increment by 2 before following
:3Not true32
:4Ibid.
:5True263
:6Actually a 122

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]

1208: Footnote Labyrinths

2014-01-08T00:19:24Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */ I'm settling this once and for all by adding nested footnotes as both left- and right- associative. Solutions to the loop in the comments all assume that it resolves, which it does not.

671: Stephen and Me

2013-12-29T04:00:18Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */ Wiki link fix

{{comic
| number = 671
| date = December 4, 2009
| title = Stephen and Me
| image = stephen and me.png
| titletext = Hey, let go! We were all thinking it! Someone had to speak truth to power!
}}

==Explanation==
This is a reference to the 1989 documentary ''Roger & Me'', in which director {{w|Michael Moore}} attempted to confront General Motors CEO Roger E. Smith over the company's closure of factories in his home town of Flint, Michigan. Moore uses the documentary to demonstrate his belief that the factory closures had a crippling effect on the local economy, and his objective is to ask the CEO pointedly about GM's disregard for the lives affected by their business decisions.

In this strip, [[Beret Guy]] mirrors Moore's determination to speak with the CEO of the auto company {{w|Volvo Cars}}, only to reveal that his burning question is actually trivial and juvenile in nature. "Stephen" is probably {{w|Steve Odell}}, the CEO of Volvo Cars in 2009, a subsidiary of Ford by that time, and later taken over by the Chinese company {{w|Geely|Zhejiang Geely Holding Group}}. The current CEO of Volvo Cars is {{w|Olof Persson}}

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy is speaking into a mic in front of a sign that says Volvo Cars. Ponytail is filming him, and Megan is walking by with a briefcase.]
:Beret Guy: I'm documenting my quest to meet with the CEO of Volvo.
:Megan: Get lost.
:[Security guards are attempting to restrain Beret Guy and Ponytail.]
:Beret Guy: Wait! I've come so far! Just let me see him!
:[They've reached the CEO's desk, which has the Volvo logo on it.]
:CEO: All right, you've reached me. What is it you want to talk about?
:Beret Guy: Do you realize how much your company's name sounds like "vulva"?
:CEO: Security?

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Sex]]

671: Stephen and Me

2013-12-29T03:59:30Z

199.27.128.146: /* Explanation */ Added current CEO of Volvo, Olaf Persson

{{comic
| number = 671
| date = December 4, 2009
| title = Stephen and Me
| image = stephen and me.png
| titletext = Hey, let go! We were all thinking it! Someone had to speak truth to power!
}}

==Explanation==
This is a reference to the 1989 documentary ''Roger & Me'', in which director {{w|Michael Moore}} attempted to confront General Motors CEO Roger E. Smith over the company's closure of factories in his home town of Flint, Michigan. Moore uses the documentary to demonstrate his belief that the factory closures had a crippling effect on the local economy, and his objective is to ask the CEO pointedly about GM's disregard for the lives affected by their business decisions.

In this strip, [[Beret Guy]] mirrors Moore's determination to speak with the CEO of the auto company {{w|Volvo Cars}}, only to reveal that his burning question is actually trivial and juvenile in nature. "Stephen" is probably {{w|Steve Odell}}, the CEO of Volvo Cars in 2009, a subsidiary of Ford by that time, and later taken over by the Chinese company {{w|Geely|Zhejiang Geely Holding Group}}. The current CEO of Volvo Cars is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Persson_%28businessman%29 Olaf Persson].

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy is speaking into a mic in front of a sign that says Volvo Cars. Ponytail is filming him, and Megan is walking by with a briefcase.]
:Beret Guy: I'm documenting my quest to meet with the CEO of Volvo.
:Megan: Get lost.
:[Security guards are attempting to restrain Beret Guy and Ponytail.]
:Beret Guy: Wait! I've come so far! Just let me see him!
:[They've reached the CEO's desk, which has the Volvo logo on it.]
:CEO: All right, you've reached me. What is it you want to talk about?
:Beret Guy: Do you realize how much your company's name sounds like "vulva"?
:CEO: Security?

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Sex]]

1290: Syllable Planning

2013-11-14T03:52:56Z

199.27.128.146: Added explanation of punchline

{{comic
| number = 1290
| date = November 13, 2013
| title = Syllable Planning
| image = syllable_planning.png
| titletext = You absolute-fucking-... shit.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}
[[Cueball]] wants to say ''ri-fucking-diculous'', but he inserts the ''fucking'' too late in the word. Now, he has to say ''ridicu-fucking-lous'', which sounds ridiculous.

Alternate interpretation: He has inserted the ''fucking'' too late. Now what he hears himself about to say (with the "l" sound ambiguous) is ''ridicul-fucking-us''; but ''"fucking us"'' seems a bit awkward to drop into the conversation.

This is an example of {{w|tmesis}}, the breaking up of a word to include another within it, and more specifically of {{w|expletive infixation}}. Normally, for rhythmic reasons the included word is inserted before the {{w|Stress (linguistics)|stressed}} syllable (''ri'''dic'''ulous'' becoming ''ri-fucking-'''dic'''ulous'') which is what Cueball messed up. (However in some cases it is also possible to break the word after a prefix instead, so for some words there are two ways to do it e.g. {{w|wikt:unbefuckinglievable|''unbe-fucking-lievable''}} or {{w|wikt:unfuckingbelievable|''un-fucking-believable''}}; this is probably because ''unbelievable'' is {{w|commons:File:En-us-unbelievable.ogg|pretty much pronounced flatly}}, even when said in a heated tone, unlike words like ''ridiculous'', where the stressed syllable is quite evident when the word is said angrily.)

The [[title text]] introduces a further example, with speaker inserting the ''fucking'' too late into the word ''absolutely''—which would have resulted in ''absolute-fucking-ly''—but leaving the word unfinished when they realize their mistake. The more usual tmesis here would be {{w|wikt:absofuckinglutely|''abso-fucking-lutely''}}. This mistake, and realization of it, creates a humorous alternate meaning by saying "You absolute fucking shit!"

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Man, that is '''''RIDICU'''''—fucking—... ...Hang on, I inserted "fucking" too late and now there's just one awkward syllable left. Can I back up?
:[Cueball is standing next to Megan.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Language]]