explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2045: Social Media Announcement

2018-09-12T07:27:05Z

AtrumMessor:

{{comic
| number = 2045
| date = September 12, 2018
| title = Social Media Announcement
| image = social_media_announcement.png
| titletext = Why I'm Moving Most of My Social Activity to Slack, Then Creating a Second Slack to Avoid the People in the First One, Then Giving Up on Social Interaction Completely, Then Going Back to Texting
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Everyone left explainxkcd for xkcdsucks.com. Don't worry, though--they'll be back. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Could be a reference to Wil Wheaton. Refer to https://news.avclub.com/wil-wheaton-on-quitting-social-media-i-don-t-deserve-1828743467

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

==Trivia==

* Mastodon was originally misspelt as "Mastadon"

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-09T06:46:25Z

AtrumMessor:

Now we wait for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroes_theorem. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.165|172.69.54.165]] 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:Can't wait to see how long it takes to remove the article. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:I do not have the time to do it good, so here a suggestion: Would someone go to the wikipedia page of Rolle's theorem and add a "in popular culture" section? may be a first? Not even "Nash equilibrum" has that :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.16|162.158.234.16]] 08:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::Speaking of popular culture, there's a (moderately) well known Ballad of Rolle's theorem [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0BXv90MlhA Balada o vete Rolleovej] ("moderately" meaning some people who studied at Faculty of mathematics in Bratislava might have heard (of) it) --[[User:Kventin|Kventin]] ([[User talk:Kventin|talk]]) 07:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like Euclid beat Randall to the punch here, a couple millennia. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that Thales has proven Randall's theorem. Do not to be confused with {{w|Thales's theorem}}, that's about right angles. Maybe I'm blind or just dumb, but if so it has to be explained with more traceable background. I just believe that this diagonal is so trivial that even the ancient Greeks weren't engaged on a proof. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
* From {{w|Thales|Wikipedia}}: Other quotes from Proclus list more of Thales' mathematical achievements: "They say that Thales was the first to demonstrate that the circle is bisected by the diameter, the cause of the bisection being the unimpeded passage of the straight line through the centre." [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
* On the other hand not all historian believe Proclus. But van der Waerden does: [https://books.google.com/books?id=HK3vCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false]. [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?'''

Isn't the TAN(x) function a counterexample to this? Starting at a given point, it rises to infinity, then returns from negative infinity to the same point without ever having a slope of zero. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:TAN(x) isn't differentiable at pi/2, hence the theorem doesn't apply--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.40|162.158.92.40]] 07:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::And tan(x) has a slope of 0 at pi, so even if it applied, it wouldn't prove it wrong. A better example would be 1/x, but still invalid. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Nope: tan(x) has a slope of 1 at pi, and its slope is never less than 1. Of course, that doesn't make it a counterexample. Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Clueless Museum Visitor'''

The math in the comic is well explained, but shouldn't there be something about the "math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor..." part? Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: Seconded, all the argument here is about math that isn't even *in* the comic, whereas the bit that confuses me is the cultural metaphor... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.235|162.158.154.235]] 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
: I had a go.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 08:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, while the proof of Rolle's theorem is not completely trivial, neither is it difficult by any means. Proving it seems to be a pretty common homework assignment in undergrad math classes, for example, so one might legitimately ask why it deserved to be named. Perhaps it's simply that it's old enough that the methods at the time were crappy, and so modern proofs are much easier. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.140|172.69.22.140]]
: It is named because it's a very important theorem in calculus, used to prove many other theorems or results. So when you need to prove something using this property, instead of re-demonstrating it or merely saying "it is well known that..." (which often raises alarm bells in the mind of the reader/corrector), all you have to do is reference Rolle's theorem.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.158|162.158.155.158]] 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: When I am teaching Rolle's theorem, I always make it a point to draw the link to reals. Rolle's theorem fails when the output is complex valued. Then you can see for yourself how non-trivial this is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the irony of having a wiki page to explain a comic whose subject is how some things are self-evident? [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the Kepler Conjecture actually belong on that list at the end? Most of the others are "derp" level intuitively obvious and/or essentially tautological on a very basic level, but the Kepler Conjecture couldn't actually be exhaustively proven until machine computation, nor is it intuitively definitive--if you've ever stacked round things into a box you've noticed that it feels like you're wasting a lot of space at the edges. So...? [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:I would also argue against most of the other examples. Neither the isoperimetric inequality nor the hairy ball theorem are obviously true and their proof is quite a bit more involved than the one of Rolle's theorem. The Jordan curve theorem sounds obvious but then the proof definitely isn't. The parallel postulate isn't even a theorem. The only real good example in the list is the pigeonhole principle.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.155|162.158.91.155]] 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:I have removed all but that, as it is the only one comparable to Rolle's in simplicity to understand without understanding math. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I agree, Randall mentions nothing like that and a simple parallel is enough. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I would argue that a lot of them could have stayed. Just because some of the examples given do have a lot of "hidden" mathematical complexity and are important bases for mathematical fields does not mean they are not useful parallels to the comic's example. In fact, one that comes to mind is the infamous 300-page Russell/Whitehead proof of 1+1=2. If anything, the more axiomatically complex but intuitively, even stupidly obvious something is, the BETTER it fits. My original point was that the Kepler Conjecture felt like a "which one of these things is not like the others" situation in the original list, as it was not at all easily proven, nor is it intuitively obvious. Some of these were actually pretty useful examples and should have been left, no matter how foundational they are to calculus ;) [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 06:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus be removed from this list. Firstly, the beginner student, just introduced to derivatives and antiderivatives, will not easily see that antiderivatives are the same as finding areas under curves. Instead, it is only obvious upon hindsight, after instruction. More importantly, a restriction of the FTC to better-behaved spaces shows a far greater insanity: the restricted FTC is a consequence of generalised Stokes's theorem '''applied twice'''. This operation is so highly unintuitive, that one simply cannot claim that this is in any way, shape, or form, trivial. I think that trying to pretend that anything in beginning calculus is obvious to students is just going to alienate them rather than soothe their worries. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:Ehh what? No, FTC restricted to smooth functions is simply a special-case of Stokes' Theorem. This is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem#Introduction here]. I don't even know what you could possibly mean by applying Stokes' theorem twice, in any context. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:: ``FTC restricted to smooth function is simply a special case of Stokes's theorem"" is basically what I said, although FTC proper applies to a wider range of functions. As to applying Stokes's theorem twice, remember that the differential form for areas is A = iint dw, where dw = dx ^ dy. You apply once to get that A = oint w, where oint runs around the entire boundary of the area to be considered. Then you have to use some smarts to zero the contributions from 3 of the 4 sides, leaving just the contribution from the x-axis. Then the boundary, which is supposed to have no boundary itself, gets two new boundaries, of which then you can apply another Stokes's theorem to get the F(b)-F(a) result. Again, this process is highly non-trivial, as evidenced by your failure to see what I meant from the first time talking about it. Pardon if the IP changed, it is me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.60|162.158.167.60]] 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.57}}

Since I'm half a mathematician, I did the math. I looked up Rolle's theorem and it uses the theorem of Weierstraß. I looked up the theorem of Weierstraß (better known as extreme value theorem) and it uses the theorem of Bolzano-Weierstraß. I looked up...why am I suddenly reminded of https://xkcd.com/609 ? :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What goes up must come down. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.64|198.41.238.64]] 05:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-09T06:39:54Z

AtrumMessor:

Now we wait for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroes_theorem. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.165|172.69.54.165]] 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:Can't wait to see how long it takes to remove the article. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:I do not have the time to do it good, so here a suggestion: Would someone go to the wikipedia page of Rolle's theorem and add a "in popular culture" section? may be a first? Not even "Nash equilibrum" has that :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.16|162.158.234.16]] 08:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::Speaking of popular culture, there's a (moderately) well known Ballad of Rolle's theorem [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0BXv90MlhA Balada o vete Rolleovej] ("moderately" meaning some people who studied at Faculty of mathematics in Bratislava might have heard (of) it) --[[User:Kventin|Kventin]] ([[User talk:Kventin|talk]]) 07:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like Euclid beat Randall to the punch here, a couple millennia. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that Thales has proven Randall's theorem. Do not to be confused with {{w|Thales's theorem}}, that's about right angles. Maybe I'm blind or just dumb, but if so it has to be explained with more traceable background. I just believe that this diagonal is so trivial that even the ancient Greeks weren't engaged on a proof. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
* From {{w|Thales|Wikipedia}}: Other quotes from Proclus list more of Thales' mathematical achievements: "They say that Thales was the first to demonstrate that the circle is bisected by the diameter, the cause of the bisection being the unimpeded passage of the straight line through the centre." [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
* On the other hand not all historian believe Proclus. But van der Waerden does: [https://books.google.com/books?id=HK3vCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false]. [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?'''

Isn't the TAN(x) function a counterexample to this? Starting at a given point, it rises to infinity, then returns from negative infinity to the same point without ever having a slope of zero. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:TAN(x) isn't differentiable at pi/2, hence the theorem doesn't apply--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.40|162.158.92.40]] 07:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::And tan(x) has a slope of 0 at pi, so even if it applied, it wouldn't prove it wrong. A better example would be 1/x, but still invalid. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Nope: tan(x) has a slope of 1 at pi, and its slope is never less than 1. Of course, that doesn't make it a counterexample. Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Clueless Museum Visitor'''

The math in the comic is well explained, but shouldn't there be something about the "math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor..." part? Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: Seconded, all the argument here is about math that isn't even *in* the comic, whereas the bit that confuses me is the cultural metaphor... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.235|162.158.154.235]] 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
: I had a go.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 08:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, while the proof of Rolle's theorem is not completely trivial, neither is it difficult by any means. Proving it seems to be a pretty common homework assignment in undergrad math classes, for example, so one might legitimately ask why it deserved to be named. Perhaps it's simply that it's old enough that the methods at the time were crappy, and so modern proofs are much easier. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.140|172.69.22.140]]
: It is named because it's a very important theorem in calculus, used to prove many other theorems or results. So when you need to prove something using this property, instead of re-demonstrating it or merely saying "it is well known that..." (which often raises alarm bells in the mind of the reader/corrector), all you have to do is reference Rolle's theorem.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.158|162.158.155.158]] 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: When I am teaching Rolle's theorem, I always make it a point to draw the link to reals. Rolle's theorem fails when the output is complex valued. Then you can see for yourself how non-trivial this is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the irony of having a wiki page to explain a comic whose subject is how some things are self-evident? [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the Kepler Conjecture actually belong on that list at the end? Most of the others are "derp" level intuitively obvious and/or essentially tautological on a very basic level, but the Kepler Conjecture couldn't actually be exhaustively proven until machine computation, nor is it intuitively definitive--if you've ever stacked round things into a box you've noticed that it feels like you're wasting a lot of space at the edges. So...? [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:I would also argue against most of the other examples. Neither the isoperimetric inequality nor the hairy ball theorem are obviously true and their proof is quite a bit more involved than the one of Rolle's theorem. The Jordan curve theorem sounds obvious but then the proof definitely isn't. The parallel postulate isn't even a theorem. The only real good example in the list is the pigeonhole principle.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.155|162.158.91.155]] 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:I have removed all but that, as it is the only one comparable to Rolle's in simplicity to understand without understanding math. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I agree, Randall mentions nothing like that and a simple parallel is enough. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I would argue that a lot of them could have stayed. Just because some of the examples given do have a lot of "hidden" mathematical complexity and are important bases for mathematical fields does not mean they are not useful parallels to the comic's example. In fact, one that comes to mind is the infamous 300-page Russell/Whitehead proof of 1+1=2. If anything, the more something is axiomatically complex but intuitively, even stupidly obvious something is, the BETTER it fits. My original point was that the Kepler Conjecture felt like a "which one of these things is not like the others" situation in the original list, as it was not at all easily proven, nor is it intuitively obvious. Some of these were actually pretty useful examples and should have been left, no matter how foundational they are to calculus ;) [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 06:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus be removed from this list. Firstly, the beginner student, just introduced to derivatives and antiderivatives, will not easily see that antiderivatives are the same as finding areas under curves. Instead, it is only obvious upon hindsight, after instruction. More importantly, a restriction of the FTC to better-behaved spaces shows a far greater insanity: the restricted FTC is a consequence of generalised Stokes's theorem '''applied twice'''. This operation is so highly unintuitive, that one simply cannot claim that this is in any way, shape, or form, trivial. I think that trying to pretend that anything in beginning calculus is obvious to students is just going to alienate them rather than soothe their worries. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:Ehh what? No, FTC restricted to smooth functions is simply a special-case of Stokes' Theorem. This is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem#Introduction here]. I don't even know what you could possibly mean by applying Stokes' theorem twice, in any context. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:: ``FTC restricted to smooth function is simply a special case of Stokes's theorem"" is basically what I said, although FTC proper applies to a wider range of functions. As to applying Stokes's theorem twice, remember that the differential form for areas is A = iint dw, where dw = dx ^ dy. You apply once to get that A = oint w, where oint runs around the entire boundary of the area to be considered. Then you have to use some smarts to zero the contributions from 3 of the 4 sides, leaving just the contribution from the x-axis. Then the boundary, which is supposed to have no boundary itself, gets two new boundaries, of which then you can apply another Stokes's theorem to get the F(b)-F(a) result. Again, this process is highly non-trivial, as evidenced by your failure to see what I meant from the first time talking about it. Pardon if the IP changed, it is me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.60|162.158.167.60]] 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.57}}

Since I'm half a mathematician, I did the math. I looked up Rolle's theorem and it uses the theorem of Weierstraß. I looked up the theorem of Weierstraß (better known as extreme value theorem) and it uses the theorem of Bolzano-Weierstraß. I looked up...why am I suddenly reminded of https://xkcd.com/609 ? :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What goes up must come down. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.64|198.41.238.64]] 05:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-06T21:37:04Z

AtrumMessor:

1920: Emoji Sports

2017-11-27T21:28:18Z

AtrumMessor: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1920
| date = November 24, 2017
| title = Emoji Sports
| image = emoji_sports.png
| titletext = No horse has yet managed the elusive Quadruple Crown—winning the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, the Belmont Stakes, and the Missouri Horse Hole.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Still needs more explanation and a less humorous explanation of each sport concept - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic, as the heading indicates, arbitrarily selects emoji and uses them to make up very bizarre sports. Although some of these might be completely normal, most of them take things to a completely absurd level.

The title text is a reference to the triple crown, which is an highly prestigious award given to a three-year-old thoroughbred horse who wins the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes, the first three of the four listed events. The joke is that if Horse Hole was a real sport, then one who won a major competition for it, the Missouri Horse Hole, in addition to the three main horse racing events, would win a “Quadruple Crown".
{| class="wikitable"
!scope="col" style="width: 100px;" |Emoji
!scope="col" style="width: 150px;" |Sport
!scope="col" |Description
|-
|🤽‍♂️🌋
|Lavaball
|Sets the sport of water polo around or inside an active volcano. If the water is simply replaced with lava, the players would asphyxiate from the toxic fumes long before they burned to death in the molten rock. If a typical pool of water is involved, the introduction of lava would cause rapid evaporation and the release of {{w|Chlorine#Use_as_a_weapon|chlorine gas}}, which is destructive to living tissue. In any case, this game is not a good time.
|-
|🤾‍♀️🤺
|Bladeball
|Using a fencing foil to hit a ball would not only be inefficient, but would easily lead to the destruction of the ball instead.
|-
|💃💃⚽
|Fancyball
|High-heeled soccer would be a problem for both kicking and running, and would lead to frequent injury.
|-
|🕳️🏇🏇🏇
|Horse hole
| Jockeys ride their horses into a large pit. Needless to say, such a sport would constitute blatant animal abuse; the ensuing fall would seriously injure competing equines (as well as their jockeys if they don't bail out beforehand). If the horse's self-preservation instinct kicks in before reaching the edge, the jockey will likely be severely injured in the process, an outcome which would likely garner a lot less pity.<br/> Both this segment and the title text may relate to Episode 354 of My Brother My Brother And Me, "Beanfreak", where a potential punishment for losing horses in a race is described as a trapdoor leading to a "pony pile" beneath the track. (Many of the podcast's episodes deal with horse racing and horse behavior, including some impassioned conversations on the performance of specific horses and the unregulated nature of the widely recognized Triple Crown achievement.)
|-
|🔪🏀⛏️
|Basketball shredding
|The apparent point of this sport is to compete to destroy basketballs as quickly and/or as thoroughly as possible. There is some transgressive appeal in mistreating sports equipment, but hardly enough to keep a captive audience.
|-
|🥚🔭🕵️‍♀️
|Eggspotting
|This could be a combination of {{w|Egg_hunt|egg hunting}} and {{w|birdwatching}}. The emojis imply that said eggs would have to be found alone in nature, as if they were wild animals. This is unlikely, to say the least.
|-
|⛷️🐊
|Alligator jumping
|An unusual combination of attributes, and to get the alligators to adapt to a cold environment might be a challenge. The emoji is actually a crocodile.
|-
|👩🎣🧜‍♂️
|Merfishing
|Unless humans volunteer to get in costume, this sport is unlikely to have any successes, due to the nonexistence of {{w|Mermaid|mermaids}}.
|-
|👨🏸🧚🏸👩
|Tinkerball
|Playing badminton with a fairy, named after [[wikipedia:Tinker Bell|Tinker Bell]]. Likely to injure the fairy.
|-
|🥌🦔🥌
|Hedgehog curling
|Hedgehogs are not ideal projectiles for sports, as ''Alice in Wonderland'' has already demonstrated, and such an idea would likely be considered animal abuse on top of the impracticality.
|-
|🗜️🍔
|Burger clamping
|Perhaps a challenge to fit a tall burger into a bite-sized height, though said clamp is more likely to pierce the burger than to flatten it.
|-
|👩‍🚀🏹🛰️
|Consequence archery
|Archery on a space station could cause damage to its structure leading to the potentially explosive decompression of the space station, and necessitate the evacuation of the astronauts aboard.
|-
|🦉➡️📬
|Owlstuffing
|This appears to consist of attempting to stuff owls into mailboxes, which would be doubly illegal, because it would be cruel to the owls and interfere with delivery of the mail. The mailbox is shown with the flag up, which normally indicates that there is mail in it, but it appears to be empty, perhaps so that the owl can be stuffed in it. Possibly a reference to owls carrying mail in the Harry Potter series.
|-
|🍴🕯️🍴
|Candle eating
|An even more unhealthy form of {{w|competitive eating}}. Eating large amounts of candle wax can cause {{w|Bowel_obstruction|intestinal obstruction}}.
|-
|⛳💣🏌️‍♀️
|Consequence golf
|Golfing with a bomb would likely significantly reduce the par on each hole, and there would be definite damage to the course and golfers unless the holes extinguished the bombs of skilled golfers. The balance and rolling of the balls would also be impeded by the fuses and caps.
|-
|👉🐍👈
|Snake shaming
|Probably a play on snake charming. Also a possible reference to the biblical story where the snake is shamed for deceiving mankind by being doomed to crawl on its belly.
|-
|🔥🧗‍♀️🔥
|Hell escape
|Trying to escape the {{w|lake of fire}} is the pastime of damned souls.
|-
|🎮🥑🎮
|Multiplayer avocado
|Unless a game based on avocados is the subject, there is, to say the least, a hardware compatibility issue here. Very different from the adult version, multiplayer eggplant (🎮🍆🎮; see [[1870: Emoji Movie Reviews]]).
|}

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

:<big>New sports</big>
:created from random emoji

:[Man Playing Water Polo + Volcano]
:🤽‍♂️🌋 Lavaball

:[Woman Playing Handball + Person Fencing]
:🤾‍♀️🤺 Bladeball

:[Woman Dancing (2 emojis) + Soccer Ball]
:💃💃⚽ Fancyball

:[Hole + Horse Racing (3 emojis)]
:🕳️🏇🏇🏇 Horse hole

:[Kitchen Knife + Basketball + Pick]
:🔪🏀⛏️ Basketball shredding

:[Egg + Telescope + Woman Detective]
:🥚🔭🕵️‍♀️ Eggspotting

:[Skier + Crocodile]
:⛷️🐊 Alligator jumping

:[Woman + Fishing Pole + Merman]
:👩🎣🧜‍♂️ Merfishing

:[Man + Badminton + Fairy + Badminton + Woman]
:👨🏸🧚🏸👩 Tinkerball

:[Curling Stone + Hedgehog + Curling Stone]
:🥌🦔🥌 Hedgehog curling

:[Clamp + Hamburger]
:🗜️🍔 Burger clamping

:[Woman Astronaut + Bow and Arrow + Satellite]
:👩‍🚀🏹🛰️ Consequence archery

:[Owl + Right Arrow + Open Mailbox]
:🦉➡️📬 Owlstuffing

:[Fork and Knife + Candle + Fork and Knife]
:🍴🕯️🍴 Candle eating

:[Flag in Hole + Bomb + Woman Golfing]
:⛳💣🏌️‍♀️ Consequence golf

:[Pointing Right + Snake + Pointing Left]
:👉🐍👈 Snake shaming

:[Fire + Woman Climbing + Fire]
:🔥🧗‍♀️🔥 Hell escape

:[Video Game + Avocado + Video Game]
:🎮🥑🎮 Multiplayer avocado

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Emoji]]

Talk:1920: Emoji Sports

2017-11-27T21:18:57Z

AtrumMessor:

It seems like in addition to the destructive sports thing, he's also playing on the emojis made from other emojis in multi character Unicode, but as it's 3 in the morning and I can't even remember what things are called I'm not gonna even try to edit right now. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.33|162.158.62.33]] 07:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey! An early published comic! 3AM Me And Randall time Thursday night right now. Fun since I only read on Monday and Thursday nights. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 08:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually candle eating isn't so far out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXg3l_Lnmdo

It seems like the joke in the title is about the fact that a horse winning a HorseHole race wouldn't actually be able to compete anymore (dead or hurt). Which would explain why no horse ever won the 4 different races. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.40|162.158.150.40]] 09:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
:The horse can easily do the HorseHole last. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Re. " the mailbox seems to be missing mail" - If there was mail in there, there wouldn't be room to stuff the owl in.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.239|141.101.104.239]] 11:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

What a dumb idea for a comic. It's kinda like comedy central when they run out of ideas, they run South Park day and night, or TruTV running Impractical Jokers episodes because they ran out of other remotely funny stuff. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.113|172.68.58.113]] 11:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
: What a dumb idea for a comment. It's kinda like a kid in the playground who doesn't have the imagination to join in with the other kids' games, so decides to just try to spoil them instead.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.239|141.101.104.239]] 09:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
:: ^This guy for President [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that a version of Alligator Jumping appears in the Monty Python's Contractual Obligation Album? As befits MP, the sport involves running at a crocodile, then diving into its mouth. There is controversy in the sport regarding whether or not to coat yourself with a marinade. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.85|162.158.111.85]] 12:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
: Alligator jumping sort of reminds me of the old [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitfall! Pitfall] series of games. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 15:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that "Consequence XXXXX" is a thing; finding a reference for that would be helpful. Also, any way to increase the size of the emojis? They're pretty hard to read at the usual font size. -- [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.145|173.245.52.145]] 15:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the ball in Fancyball is supposed to be giant; they are just emoji and I don't think they're representative of the sizes of the participants/objects in the game. After all, I don't think there is a man the size of a volcano... Also, water-skiing is a sport - is the person jumping over the alligator necessarily confined to snow? Although the person in the emoji does have ski poles so perhaps that is the case. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.76|162.158.34.76]] 15:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiplayer 🥑 Might be a reference to polygamy, as there is an app called avocado that is supposed to be a safe app for couples to share within.

I wonder if it might be possible to have a fallback for Emoji that aren't as well supported. I note a few that don't work on my Firefox version. I also wonder how useful the transcripts are with the emoji: do screen readers properly handle them? [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 22:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

:I have all on palemoon, which makes me thinking it's not related to browsers, just what font you have installed. Try [https://github.com/eosrei/twemoji-color-font/releases twemoji]. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Originally though that the consequence archery is supposed to be about shooting down satellites from orbit while standing on earth, but that would be very hard to do with conventional bow (or, frankly, anything else except rocket). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Tinkerball, it can be dangerous for players too, especially if the Fae notices what they plan to do before is too beaten to cast spells. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

couldn't disagree more with this explanation [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.157|173.245.52.157]] 01:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)...

How so? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6|172.68.47.6]] 06:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we not hedge our bets with "rarity" of mermaids? I'm pretty sure that everyone on this site can agree that mermaids do not exist. Really. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.177|162.158.74.177]] 14:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
: Agreed. Editing shortly. [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Eggs most certainly are found in nature, in bird's (or reptile's) nests.

Editing "Consequence Golf"--well-cared-for lawn grass (and there's no better than on a golf course) has high water content and is a lot harder to ignite than you'd think. A detonator fuse doesn't actually throw flames (or as much heat as one would assume) so the green catching fire would (a) be very unlikely, and (b) be the absolute least of your problems. Just don't ask me how I know. [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)