explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2885: Spelling

2024-01-25T16:45:52Z

AzureArmageddon:

citing every word in an essay because I really, ''really'' don't know how to spell [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 13:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:Fungi. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.80|172.70.86.80]] 14:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) ;)
:Spore way of going about things. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.77|172.71.178.77]] 15:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, the lack of a period at the end of that sentence, makes it read "really, ''really'' don't know how to spell Mushrooms" & that works great as a sentence\statement, in this case!
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::curse my habit of not using periods online!!!! [[User:Mushrooms|Mushrooms]] ([[User talk:Mushrooms|talk]]) 07:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Boo! at the spoilsport who took out my 'dilemna' easter egg. :oP [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.101|141.101.99.101]] 16:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I like how someone misspelled "spell" until I corrected it. [[User:1234231587678|1234231587678]] ([[User talk:1234231587678|talk]]) 17:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Funny, this setting doesn't look all that much like that of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudine_Gay#Plagiarism_investigations Office of the President of Harvard University] ... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.197.133|172.69.197.133]] 17:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:Do you mean Claudine Gay, that Nazi Hamas sympathizer who couldn't answer a simple question about Harvard's code of conduct with respect to advocating for anti-Semitic genocide, and had to resign disgracefully after it was revealed she plagiarized more than half of her academic publications? Do you mean her? Yes. It looks nothing like that.

Re. the ask in the incomplete tag for citations about plajerism being mispelled - [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarism Merriam Webster] claims that common misspellings are "plagarism, plagerism, plagirism", but, uh, doesn't cite its source for that... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.254|172.69.194.254]] 10:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

;Dictionary Copyright
Citing a dictionary is a great example of attribution: A ''portion'' is directly quoted, with its source stated for verification purposes. Attribution is a great practice; copying without attribution isn't literal theft, but it ''is'' lazy & irresponsible, & actually detracts from the real value of the copy. Copying ''with'' attribution, on the other hand, is difficult to show any real harm from, & is arguably beneficial to all but rent-seekers. Attribution is essential! What other works, are cited with attribution, as consistently as a dictionary? Even scholarly papers seem oft-quoted without attribution... This is a disservice to both the listener, & anyone who might value the original, & potentially to the one copying. 'News' is another example of having less value without attribution... What's another good example of something that isn't as useful unless the source is cited?
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 16:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:On the other hand, far too many lazy presenters, speakers, and best men have included the phrase "Webster's Dictionary defines [everyday word everyone knows the meaning of but you're about to poetically but incorrectly redefine] as..." [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 04:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if many people realise that in many ways using an AI to write an essay is a type of plagiarism engine? [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 07:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

;Norway
This is probably just a coincidence (I don't think Randall has any particular ties to Norway), but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Borch_and_Ingvild_Kjerkol_plagiarism_affair is quite recent. [[User:Villemoes|Villemoes]] ([[User talk:Villemoes|talk]]) 19:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There's also this https://apnews.com/article/harvard-president-plagiarism-claudine-gay-14330935453134c7c9c9a9c496020568 and this https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/youtube-creator-james-somerton-plagiarism-accusation-response-rcna130860 which are fairly recent and in the English speaking world. I just think plagiarism is a common topic right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.241|172.70.42.241]] 23:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The explanation currently goes with the interpretation that makes sense based on the title text, but based on the drawing alone I figured Cueball didn't want "plagiarism" to appear on the search history of a shared computer or on shared network logs or something leading to him being circumstantially implicated in looking up ways to get away with plagiarism. Hence Cueball's concern with the location being "here" rather than the morals of the deed itself. AzureArmageddon 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

2861: X Value

2023-11-30T14:31:47Z

AzureArmageddon: 3dp 4sf

{{comic
| number = 2861
| date = November 29, 2023
| title = X Value
| image = x_value_2x.png
| imagesize = 291x192px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The value of n is still unknown, but new results constrain it to fall between 8 and 10^500, ruling out popular 'n=1' and 'n=2' theories.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A SET OF N MATHEMATICIANS TRYING TO FIND THE VALUE OF Y - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In algebra, a {{w|Variable (mathematics)|variable}} is any symbol used to represent a number that has not been defined. The most familiar algebraic variable is ''x'' (the unknown input), with ''y'' often being the yet to be determined output (its value being dependant upon that of the ''x''), often plotted onto a graph as a line. Or, with ''z'', a 3D surface. According to the comic, the value of ''x'' has finally been found, being 4.1083. The joke is that a general-purpose variable, which may take different values in different scenarios, turns out to have a specific value, as though it were a constant. Constants in mathematics and other scientific fields are also often represented by a single symbol - some of the most well-known are {{w|Pi|''π''}}, ''e'' (for {{w|E (mathematical constant)|Euler's number}}) and ''c'' (for the {{w|Speed of light}}).

The specific number 4.1083 does not have any notable significance or special role in the contexts of physics, chemistry, finance, astronomy or cryptography. 4.1083 (Correct to 3 decimal places or 4 significant figures, 4.108) has been referenced previously in comic [[899: Number Line]].

The title text declares the value of ''n'' is unknown. ''n'' is often used as an unknown/undetermined ''integer'' value, such as how many items the equation might apply for, either as a number yet to be provided (as input) or one yet to be discovered (as output). For example, it might be used in {{w|Sampling (statistics)|statistics}} to specify the length of a list. For example, a list where ''n = 50'' would mean the list contains 50 data points, for which that number of iterations or a larger number of cross-comparisons would be expected.

According to the title text, however, the value ''has'' been narrowed down to somewhere between 8 and 10^500, or one hundred quinsexagintacentillion. Allegedly, therefore, it cannot be the (usually) simplest value of '1', or the simplest multiple of '2'. It also means that the narrowing-down isn't particular narrow, although it is perhaps quite specific compared to the 'pre-narrowing' possibilities of being absolutely any finite value at all.

==Transcript==
:[A math formula is circled.]
:<big><big>x = 4.1083</big></big>

:[Caption below the panel:]
: Big math news: They finally figured out the value of x.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

Talk:2843: Professional Oaths

2023-10-19T07:38:41Z

AzureArmageddon:

added transcript [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 05:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

every /^H.*ic$/ would be 4 syllables if it wasn't for hydroelectric [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 05:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Clearly some lone editor had a grudge against hermeneutics, putting 'study' in scare quotes like that. AzureArmageddon 07:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:270: Merlin

2023-10-07T08:31:58Z

AzureArmageddon:

Immediately after watching Memento, I spliced it together in chronological order and watched it again. Definitely straightforward, and much more boring that way. [[User:Wotpsycho|Wotpsycho]] ([[User talk:Wotpsycho|talk]]) 02:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If this Merlin experiences time backwards, then he should remember watching the film before doing so (as he will do it later). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.63|173.245.55.63]] 12:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
:Yes this is a plot hole. Mentioned it in the explain. Also he lived 1400 years before the invention of the DVD ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 15:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::Doesn't the "living backward" thing just mean that he remembers the future (his past) but not the past (his future)? So, for example, from his perspective, he would meet someone he didn't know, but for the other person it would be a final goodbye, and when Merlin says goodbye forever, he remembers the friend, but for the friend it's a first hello and the friend doesn't know Merlin. (Sorry if this is confusing, but the concept of living backwards is confusing.) If this is true, then Memento would be straightforward, except for the black-and-white bits. [[User:Cheese Lord Eggplant|Cheese Lord Eggplant]] ([[User talk:Cheese Lord Eggplant|talk]]) 23:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
:::Based on the second panel, Merlin remembers the future, but not the past. This would mean that he is born knowing his whole life, along with every person he will meet. Once he meets that person, he will have forgotten meeting that person. When that person says goodbye to Merlin for the last time, Merlin will have forgotten completely. It would not be a first meeting as time still progresses chronologically for Merlin. Only his memories are reversed. {{unsigned|Flewk}}

Remembering the future would be a weird way to live. He would be destined to perform every action as it is all planned out in his memory from birth. The other weird part would be that he would have no recollection of anything he has ever done. So the last panel is definitely a plot hole. He would know for a fact that the movie is straight forward until he watches it; at which point he will have forgotten about the movie entirely. [[User:Flewk|Flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 09:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
: Yeah it's pretty weird. But also what if he had meticulously kept magical records of everything as it happened and reviewed them every now and then? Since he'd keep doing it into the future he'd always at least remember the facts if not the feelings of past moments. AzureArmageddon 08:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The comic does not speculate on the other effects of Merlin experiencing a time reversed existence. For example the effect as considered on a feynman diagram, where particles travelling backwards in time are antimatter, which may lead to very unfortunate results at any handshake Merlin attempts to make.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91|162.158.154.91]] 23:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

275: Thoughts

2023-10-07T07:53:08Z

AzureArmageddon: /* Explanation */ Grammar

{{comic
| number = 275
| date = June 11, 2007
| title = Thoughts
| image = thoughts.png
| titletext = And now I might never get to again.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic relates to the situation of getting introduced to the parents of one's girlfriend, which is often felt to be rather awkward. The parents tend to scrutinize and question the aspirant in order to find out if he is a good catch. A particularly delicate issue is the fact that the suitor may have had sexual intercourse with their daughter. This topic is almost never openly addressed, but can sometimes be felt in the subtext of the conversation. This makes the scenario somewhat susceptible to a so-called {{w|Freudian slip}}. The term describes a common psychological phenomenon where a subconscious thought bursts through and induces, for example, a slip of the tongue.

In the comic, [[Cueball]] tries to repress any thoughts of sexual nature while talking to her parents [[Blondie]] and [[Blondie]]'s Cueball-like man. He promptly utters the sentence "I have licked your daughter's nipples." and thus involuntarily addresses the topic he tried to avoid.

The title text suggests that either the parents do not want their daughter to meet him again, or that the girlfriend interdicts his licking her nipples again because of the embarrassing scene.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball talking with his girlfriend's parents represented by Blondie, holding a hand up in greeting and a larger version of Cueball. Above them there is a caption:]
:When meeting a girlfriend's family, I have to suppress the weirdest thoughts.
:Cueball: Hi!
:Blondie: Hi! It's so nice to finally meet you!
:Cueball: I have licked your daughter's nipples.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Sex]]

Talk:338: Future

2023-10-06T02:26:35Z

AzureArmageddon:

I think the explanation with Megan not able becuase she could be dead wrong. It is because she is in love with Hairy. Cueball is in my oppinion just in the other side of a larg frame that has been split to make the time issue clear. The future is what Cueball wish to enter together with Megan but she do not wish to do so. I have written an alternative explanation - but will leave it to other to decide which is more true to the intent of the comic. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
:Please discuss this first before editing the explain. And try to understand the explain first. I'm doing a revert on your edit. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::{{w|WP:BOLD}}. I'm reverting your autorevert. You've already been warned about this in the past. At least try to understand the content of an edit before undoing it. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Please let's do discuss major edits BEFORE it's included into the explain. This one wasn't helpful. I do change AND not undo by always all my edits. And I did mention that edit here at the discussion page right before.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Your unwillingness to read/disagreement with the content does not make his additions valueless. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 21:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Please let's do discuss major edits BEFORE it's included into the explain. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

She says "I can't" not "we can't"

Imo, this comic needs two axes of time to make sense lol. AzureArmageddon 02:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:357: Flies

2023-10-05T16:08:42Z

AzureArmageddon:

Actually, the saying was originally “A watched pot never boils ''over''.” This means that you should watch a pot to make sure the water doesn't spill out.[[Special:Contributions/68.195.76.173|68.195.76.173]] 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
:Nope. The phrase did not originate with the word "over", which makes less sense anyway, defeating the purpose.<ref>[https://knowyourphrase.com/a-watched-pot-never-boils The Origin Of ‘A Watched Pot Never Boils’]</ref> — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 05:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure that '''A watched pot never boils''' is an expression unto its own. If you sat and watched a pot long enough it would still boil over, on the macro scale there is no effect on observing something. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 09:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that this expression meant that the water boiling process have a Murphy law like property in it: that the pot tends to boil over when you turn away from it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

CLEARLY the idea is that you are waiting for the pot to boil so that you can add something to it. You are not waiting for it to boil over; you are waiting for it to boil. The point is that many things that you want in life take longer to eventuate than you think, and sitting there fixating on them doesn't actually help and is a waste of time. Do something else useful in the meantime; the pot will boil when it's ready. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.58|108.162.219.58]] 19:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Honey has a much higher sugar content than Balsamic vinegar. My hypothesis for this is that the real draw fro the flies is related to fragrance [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 19:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
: I agree on this and updated the explanation. [[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 14:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Could this be a metaphor for trolling?
[[User:Richmond tudor|Richmond tudor]] ([[User talk:Richmond tudor|talk]]) 00:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was actually waiting for the day I'd be able to use the knowledge this strip has bestowed onto me. Unfortunately I'm such a slob that there are just WAY too many. But it *certainly* seems to be working so far! I also did some research and found out the flies I'm having are called vinegar flies. What's funny is that when I searched for Florida [insert insect name here], it turns out my college (UF) has pretty much the entire field of Florida entomology covered, and I doubt it's because I'm using the school network.

But I've been living in a dumpster-quality environment for weeks and haven't gotten remotely sick. My immune system is *crazy* good, haha! But there comes a point where it's just plain disgusting and the flies get annoying, so I am in the process of cleaning up, not so much because of the health hazard as much as it is just the smell and how I'm tired of getting hundreds of flies in my face. Also a few of them bite, and they're starting to spread throughout the rest of the dorms so... yeah. If UF's Lakeside building 3 dorm ends up getting fumigated... it's my fault entirely.

STILL I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW CRAZY MY IMMUNE SYSTEM IS.

Also I don't want to wake up to find my bed crawling with maggots. IDK where they laid eggs and the RA is forbidding me to use Raid. IDK why they'd sell it in the PODs (UF's convenience store) if we're not allowed to use them. [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 07:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

--- Is an ''unwatched'' pot in a superposition of boiling and not boiling? --- [[User:Ruffy314|Ruffy314]] ([[User talk:Ruffy314|talk]]) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In English, the acid in vinegar is called "acetic acid". IIRC, "ethanoic acid" makes sense from the IUPAC rules for forming chemical names, so perhaps the writer speaks a language that uses that term.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a note - white vinegar doesn't work well. Apple cider vinegar is much more effective. Add a little dish soap, put it in a narrow-mouth bottle (like 20oz soda bottle), and it'll catch a LOT of gnats or fruit flies. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.80|108.162.219.80]] 14:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

wait, do people actually refer to their mom as "mother???" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.191|172.70.34.191]] 12:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Bumpf

: Not usually, no. Hence the humour. AzureArmageddon 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Has anyone actually verified the claim that vinegar catches more fruit flies? AzureArmageddon 16:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

==References==

2730: Code Lifespan

2023-10-05T16:04:10Z

AzureArmageddon: /* Explanation */ Grammar

{{comic
| number = 2730
| date = January 27, 2023
| title = Code Lifespan
| image = code_lifespan_2x.png
| imagesize = 377x307px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Surely (no one/everyone) will (recognize how flexible and useful this architecture is/spend a huge amount of effort painstakingly preserving and updating this garbage I wrote in 20 minutes)
}}

==Explanation==

This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panel note that, ironically, code that ''was'' written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used, defeating the purpose of future-proofing, while the code that was ''not'' will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended. This is a {{w|Catch-22 (logic)|''Catch-22''}} situation that many developers have experienced; the first one even has a name, {{w|YAGNI}}.

The second panel could be an allusion to the {{w|Year 2000 problem}}, although it is important to note that problem was not simply due to developers not thinking ahead but also because the developers were working with extremely limited computer resources at the time, promoting the use of 2-digit years.

The title text is a modular sentence with two parentheticals, each containing two alternative phrases. This allows for four permutations of the sentence, each of which may be said by programmers. The following two permutations may be the hoped-for ideals of software developers:

* "Surely everyone will recognize how flexible and useful this architecture is."
* "Surely no one will spend a huge amount of effort painstakingly preserving and updating this garbage I wrote in 20 minutes."

However, reality often falls short of such hopes, in that insufficient numbers of people recognize code intended for re-use, and far more people than intended will attempt to maintain and adapt sloppy work. The former can occur because of uncertain or unclear assumptions which aren't clear when the time comes to re-use code capable of it, and the latter sometimes happens because the corner-cutting peculiarities of hasty work are often seen as far deeper necessities than they actually are. The remaining two permutations express these far less hopeful outlooks:

* "Surely no one will recognize how flexible and useful this architecture is."
* "Surely everyone will spend a huge amount of effort painstakingly preserving and updating this garbage I wrote in 20 minutes."

==Transcript==

:[Two almost identical panels side by side depict a conversation between Ponytail and Cueball.]

:[Ponytail standing next to Cueball, with her palm raised.]
:Ponytail: It took some extra work to build, but now we'll be able to use it for all our future projects.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to ensure your code is never reused

:[Nearly identical situation to the first, but with the arm raised slightly less emphatically.]
:Ponytail: Let's not overthink it; if this code is still in use '''''that''''' far in the future, we'll have bigger problems.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to ensure your code lives forever

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Programming]]

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-10-05T15:58:16Z

AzureArmageddon: fix typo

Number systems aren't real math, at least not serious math. They're an affectation. 99.9% of math is number-system-independent, so nobody should care about them. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.108|172.70.46.108]] 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

: Of course it's "real math." There aren't that many applications, but so what? Math isn't about applications. Besides, there are some. Maybe not specifically for factorial base, but for some place systems. The only thing "dirty" about decimal is the arbitrariness of ten. Considering place systems in general is just considering special kinds of sums. Certainly, "serious" mathematicians are interested in proving numbers normal in specific bases, or in every base. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: A great deal of interesting maths can be found in and around he various arrangements of digits in number systems, surely. AzureArmageddon 07:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a complete joke, until coming here. The "factorial number system" exists?! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.249|162.158.90.249]] 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Yup, complete news to me too... What's REALLY weird: the night before this comic I was tutoring a friend's daughter in math, and I happened to teach her what factorials are! (News to me there's a number system, though)... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to a converter, but the one I found is https://www.dcode.fr/factorial-base which is quite ugly with lots of adds and a bit counter-intuitive.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 23:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This needs simplifying a bit. Came here because I had no idea what was going on, and after a quick scroll through the prose, the main thing I learned was "it's 'cause you're dumb". May be true but I still don't get what Randall's factorial system is....[[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Factorial base also allows to finitely represent all rational numbers - no constant base is capable of that! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.238.76|172.68.238.76]] 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Unless you use a division sign. But yes, only radix numerals of a variable base with infinite series of factors of every prime can even theoretically finitely represent arbitrary rationals without invoking existential quantifiers. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.26|172.71.147.26]] 06:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like Michael when Oscar is trying to explain what a “surplus” is.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.241|162.158.186.241]] 04:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:Bruh, same, and I'm a stats major. This "explanation" sorely needs a couple paragraphs of ELI5 introductory exposition for English majors between the first and second sentences. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.16|172.69.134.16]] 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

== The warning is complete nonsense, just remove it ==

bots cant be escorted out of somewhere just remove the stupid warning [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.109|162.158.203.109]] 04:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: you must be new here - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.143|108.162.216.143]] 15:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The nonsense is part of the fun. AzureArmageddon 07:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

::im deleting it {{unsigned ip|162.158.203.80|11:16, 30 September 2023}}‎

:::Premature elision. Still has a purpose (as does signing your contributions here). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.208|172.71.178.208]] 14:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* As has been stated, you MUST be new here. The "incomplete" tag goes on new comics while their descriptions are still in flux. When the bot creates the empty description page, it does so with the Incomplete warning, labelled with its name. On the first edit, someone ALWAYS changes the name to some silly gag that's related to the comic, often pretending it's the name of the bot that created the page for us. In this case the comic shows Cueball being escorted out, so the joke is the bot is being escorted out. If you're not going to have a sense of humour, why are you here? Just leave the editing to others in the meantime. :) (Oh, and as the user above noted, make sure to end your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (4 tildes), like it says at the top of the editing text box you type in). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:Okay, now the Incomplete warning needs to stay up forever. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

:In case you weren’t aware, this wiki has a tradition of humor. This is one of its examples. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.134|172.68.58.134]] 12:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

== The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers ==

It's not explicitly mentioned in the comic but the "adic" in the name "Factor''adic''™" implies that the number system extends the factorial number system by being in some way "adic" as discussed in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=tRaq4aYPzCc this YouTube video on the Veritasium channel] and so negative numbers would have a truly wacky representation that violates the intent of the title text's pronouncement by requiring an infinitely long representation requiring infinite digits (1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 9, A, B, C, ..., ''infinite digits''). AzureArmageddon 08:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The "adic" in factoradic doesn't actually relate to p-adic numbers of any kind. Rather, both factoradic and p-adic numbers use the suffix -adic to refer to the concept of adicity, which is "The number of arguments or operands a function or operation takes" according to Wiktionary. Each place value of a p-adic number had p possibilities, and each place value in the factoradic system has a number of possible arguments determined by the factorial of the place. Factoradic would be better called "factorary" since it's more similar to ordinary n-ary number systems, but I guess it just isn't. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.205.130|172.69.205.130]] 20:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

:: Ah, today I learned. AzureArmageddon 15:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

== Title text ==
The title text references that 10! = 3,628,800 (base 10), and so for numbers greater than or equal to that, you would have to add a tenth digit in order to display them in this system. The question is asking whether you would then proceed to using letters of the alphabet such as one does in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal hexadecimal] to which the reply is that numbers above this amount are simply illegal. The trouble comes when you try to write down the number 10 * 10! = 36,288,000 (base 10) in this system. For 10!, the notation is 1000000000 , so 9 * 10! would be 9000000000, and then to get 10 * 10!, you would have to write A000000000 because 10 * 10! < 11!. In fact, since this is the first "illegal" number, you could "legally" allow up to 10 * 10! - 1 = 36,287,999 (base 10) in the system (which would be written as 9987654321 = 9 * 10! + 9 * 9! + 8 * 8! + ... + 2 * 1! + 1 * 1!) without the need to introduce any letters. I also want to point out that the reference in the comic to 9 being reserved for big numbers is due to no number needing a 9 to write it down in this system until 9 * 9! = 3265920 which is written 900000000. Since numbers above 10! are not allowed, this means that only the 9! digit is legally allowed to hold a 9, and it only applies to numbers in that high range of 3265920 to 3628799.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.230|172.71.166.230]] 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:I feel the current in-Explanation explanation about that already covers this, with the addition of the validity that the digit that could need to be >9 could still be any digit 0..9 without needing to invoke the 11th digit. (Maybe a few tweaks, but not sure what you're trying to add here.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.148|172.70.86.148]] 15:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

== Radix Economy ==
Someone got in there just before I did, about (from a quick scan of what's been added) "economical" use of Factorial-based variable radices. (I was planning both the test code and the explanation for this, whilst travelling.) My short way of putting it is that (apart from values of zero or one, which represent identically in Factorial-based notation to any other notation in base of 2+) the Factorialised method initially is using up 'places' quicker until the point at which it has reached a 'magnitude' equal to its base-normal 'original' (i.e. only when there are N glyphs made available under Factoradic notation does it not rush through the 'magnitude' quicker than the base-N number). And ''then'', it needs to work up into the more 'efficient' higher-order digits in order to pull back the disadvantages of its lower-order ones and equal, then be shorter than, any given value's respective base-N form. 
Now, I've done some very rough calculations (started hitting numbers for which I really need to convert everything into high-precision large-number data types, which needs me to rewrite one or two elements of my existing code) and looked at the successive changes of magnitude, in each base, and checked the calculated Factoradic length (with the assumption that there are enough extended glyphs to represent every digit singly, unlike the comic Title Text speculation). 
By my reckoning, Base-2 is more efficient at 20fact (compare with 1002, =410); Base-3 breaks better at
3111fact (100003, =81); Base-4: 540220fact (10000004, =4096); Base-5: 533340021fact (10000000005, =1953125); Base-6: 90967344000fact(1000000000006, =362797056); Base-7: 7ABAA086002001fact(1000000000000007, =678223072849); Base-8: D73A256860540220fact(100000000000000008, =281474976710656); Base-9: B1HEA65678836651220fact(100000000000000008119, =1350851717672992000) ...but at this point, the conversion of decimal to its base-9 form (and that powers of 9 should ''never'' have trailing zeros!) shows I may very well have hit a limit to normal large-number precision, so I really can't trust the subsequently derived base-10 values. 
But, in case anyone wants it, the following is my (Perl, but should be easily convertible into most medium-to-high level code dialevts) en-Factoriadialising function.
sub factadic { my ($n,$place)=(@_,1);
return () unless $place;
if ($n>=fact($place+1)) { return factadic($n,++$place) }
my $digit=0; my $base=fact($place);
while ($n>=$base) { $digit++; $n-=$base; }
my @return=($digit,factadic($n,$place-1));
return @return;
}
You call it as <code>factadic(''<value>'')</code>. Or <code>factadic(''<value>'',''<minimum_digits>'')</code> to start with the assumption of at least a minimum number of digits, but it'll start by shifting the default minimum of 1 into the <script>$place</script> variable if you don't give it that (there are other ways that you can/must do that, of course), and it will still always expand that to the degree necessary in the first phase of 'diving in' as far as it needs to in order to agree with the <code>fact()</code> function (factorial calculator, a trivial coding issue that I only use here like this because I alreadu set it up for another bit of code). 
It returns an array (@-variable, in Perl) of digits, in standard most-to-least-significance order, that you can convert to a glyphwise notation in any way that you wish (or do a string conversion within the function, at each stage of building it up). ...and I'm presenting a ''slightly'' less optimised version of it here (some of the Perl-tricks I originally used don't translate well into some non-Perl) and, yes, the <code>while ($n>=$base)</code> loop could be done using modulus and integer-division, but it's a fairly trivial part of the looping process. 
If you have any ''real'' problems with it, it's probably going to be if you're hitting any recursion-depth limits (especially as it uses roughly twice as many recursive calls as the eventual notation-length it produces). I also have a 'stack-based' version (loops round as it shifts in enough 'slots', then works back down again assigning the place-values) which avoids such trouble, but that's coded in a slightly esoteric Perlish way that I'm not sure most of you'd appreciate. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.77|141.101.76.77]] 20:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Probably a double precision floating point accuracy limitation, you can only get up to 2^53 = 9007199254740992 before many modern programs start getting numerically fuzzy. But what weirds me out is you seem to have gotten 1350851717672992900 out of what should have been 9^19 = 1350851717672992089, instead of a nearby float of 1350851717672992768 or 1350851717672993024. What is it with things rounding to decimal like that? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.84|172.71.147.84]] 11:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::One 'solution' is to <code>use Math::BigFloat</code> (or similar), in the Perl, and make hold such sensitive and large-tending values. Alternately, implement an array of digits in a raw manner (can be of entirely arbitrary base, explicitly, plus arbitrarily long; well, as long as one doesn't hit ''other'' data limits!) and make your own long-division/etc algorithms. Or pack bitwise/bytewise data as a 'string', with suitable overloaded/replacement mathematical functions. But it all adds extra coding effort, of course. And I rarely share my various hacked-together bits of Perl, because they either work but look horrible or they don't work (and probably look strange, even to me - hence why I've failed to discover why they don't work!). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.87|172.71.98.87]] 19:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
: Just analyzed the growth rate; For base x, the length can be estimated by 1/2+e*x-e-1.487*ln(x). Maybe a more sniped nerd can get more precision, or even an exact solution; but this is within a digit of the result up to around base 10^13, and then I start running into precision problems in general, so I'm just putting this here as a good enough guess. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.129|172.71.146.129]] 13:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Factorial numbers is new to me... It sounds more like a coding system than a number system, LOL! "The door code is 4503 in factorial! Figure it out!" (I'd write this on the bottom of the comments as usual, but I don't want to get mixed up with that ill-thought out and unsigned coding sample Algorithm and table that I KNOW must be mangled when published because the wiki refuses to honour single Newlines. Clearly the author didn't take a peek at what it looks like when published EDIT: Correction, wow, the wiki spotted the code and marked it as such automatically (for now), wow!) :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

All the stuff about economy / efficiency doesn't seem to really have any direct relation to the comic, so I'd suggest it doesn't really belong in the explanation, but should be confined to the comments, or at least to a trivia section. Not least because it dives off into a lot of technical stuff that ''itself'' requires explanation for a significant part of the readership. As it is, it's doing more to confuse than to explain.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:I sort of agree, in that I had planned something similar about 'notation economy' as a Trivia-like addendum, before others got there before me. But there could at least be something to be said that by reserving higher-digits(/dissalowing them in lower values), Cueball/Randall is sacrificing conciseness for (one idea of) aestheticism. (And that's without going into 'how much storage it takes to store each digit', which I wasn't going into. So rather than the idealised radix being base-'e', I would have said the idealised base was whatever base-number exceeded the highest value, so it was just one (different) single squiggle for ''everything''. Obviously, there's necessary entropy in the choice of differentiatable squiggles/encoding, though, which is why I also appreciate the current Explanation's blurb.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.52|172.70.90.52]] 10:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

NiceGuy1 the wiki uses standard markdown, if you preface with 6 spaces, it will automatically recognize it as a code snippit. I appologize if my contribution was ill-thought out, though i have gone back and signed it. [[User:Drinkcoffeeandcode|Drinkcoffeeandcode]] ([[User talk:Drinkcoffeeandcode|talk]]) 20:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

== Factoradic Algorithms ==

there are several ways to compute the factoradic of a base 10 number, depending on the choice of language
the length of the program will be demonstrably bigger. Dynamically typed languages, like perl can likely
perform this in one or two lines, where as a language like c++ will be longer.

The simplest algorithm is to generate the digits from right to left one at time by dividing the number by a per-iteration-incrementing radix starting from 2 (because 1 is simply '0', we start from 2), taking the result and repeating until the quotient reaches zero:

#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int factoradic(int num) {
string digits;
int radix = 2;
while (num != 0) {
digits.push_back(((num % radix)-'0'));
num /= radix++;
}
reverse(digits.begin(), digits.end());
return atoi(digits.c_str());
}

Using Randall's values we can confirm it is correct:

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
for (int i = 21; i < 26; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 5038; i < 5042; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 999998; i < 1000002; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
return 0;
}

max@laptop:~/$ ./factoradic
21 - 311
22 - 320
23 - 321
24 - 1000
25 - 1001
5038 - 654320
5039 - 654321
5040 - 1000000
5041 - 1000001
999998 - 266251210
999999 - 266251211
1000000 - 266251220
1000001 - 266251221

Came back to sign code sample after seeing NiceGuy1's comment. [[User:Drinkcoffeeandcode|Drinkcoffeeandcode]] ([[User talk:Drinkcoffeeandcode|talk]]) 20:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would love to have some kind of explanation as to why this number system exists/what it's used for in the real world. (Even if that explanation is just "there's no practical purpose, mathematicians just love doing this stuff".) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.87|172.70.134.87]] 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too much of a fandom crossover to edit / annotate the last word of the explanation (at time of commenting, the word "senary") to "seximal"? Or, given that we are discussing intentionally silly base systems, just the '''right''' amount of a fandom crossover? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.176|172.71.242.176]] 08:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-10-05T15:57:46Z

AzureArmageddon: Fix typo

Number systems aren't real math, at least not serious math. They're an affectation. 99.9% of math is number-system-independent, so nobody should care about them. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.108|172.70.46.108]] 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

: Of course it's "real math." There aren't that many applications, but so what? Math isn't about applications. Besides, there are some. Maybe not specifically for factorial base, but for some place systems. The only thing "dirty" about decimal is the arbitrariness of ten. Considering place systems in general is just considering special kinds of sums. Certainly, "serious" mathematicians are interested in proving numbers normal in specific bases, or in every base. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: A great deal of interesting maths can be found in and around he various arrangements of digits in numbers systems, surely. AzureArmageddon 07:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a complete joke, until coming here. The "factorial number system" exists?! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.249|162.158.90.249]] 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Yup, complete news to me too... What's REALLY weird: the night before this comic I was tutoring a friend's daughter in math, and I happened to teach her what factorials are! (News to me there's a number system, though)... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to a converter, but the one I found is https://www.dcode.fr/factorial-base which is quite ugly with lots of adds and a bit counter-intuitive.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 23:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This needs simplifying a bit. Came here because I had no idea what was going on, and after a quick scroll through the prose, the main thing I learned was "it's 'cause you're dumb". May be true but I still don't get what Randall's factorial system is....[[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Factorial base also allows to finitely represent all rational numbers - no constant base is capable of that! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.238.76|172.68.238.76]] 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Unless you use a division sign. But yes, only radix numerals of a variable base with infinite series of factors of every prime can even theoretically finitely represent arbitrary rationals without invoking existential quantifiers. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.26|172.71.147.26]] 06:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like Michael when Oscar is trying to explain what a “surplus” is.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.241|162.158.186.241]] 04:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:Bruh, same, and I'm a stats major. This "explanation" sorely needs a couple paragraphs of ELI5 introductory exposition for English majors between the first and second sentences. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.16|172.69.134.16]] 13:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

== The warning is complete nonsense, just remove it ==

bots cant be escorted out of somewhere just remove the stupid warning [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.109|162.158.203.109]] 04:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: you must be new here - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.143|108.162.216.143]] 15:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The nonsense is part of the fun. AzureArmageddon 07:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

::im deleting it {{unsigned ip|162.158.203.80|11:16, 30 September 2023}}‎

:::Premature elision. Still has a purpose (as does signing your contributions here). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.208|172.71.178.208]] 14:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* As has been stated, you MUST be new here. The "incomplete" tag goes on new comics while their descriptions are still in flux. When the bot creates the empty description page, it does so with the Incomplete warning, labelled with its name. On the first edit, someone ALWAYS changes the name to some silly gag that's related to the comic, often pretending it's the name of the bot that created the page for us. In this case the comic shows Cueball being escorted out, so the joke is the bot is being escorted out. If you're not going to have a sense of humour, why are you here? Just leave the editing to others in the meantime. :) (Oh, and as the user above noted, make sure to end your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (4 tildes), like it says at the top of the editing text box you type in). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:Okay, now the Incomplete warning needs to stay up forever. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

:In case you weren’t aware, this wiki has a tradition of humor. This is one of its examples. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.134|172.68.58.134]] 12:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

== The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers ==

It's not explicitly mentioned in the comic but the "adic" in the name "Factor''adic''™" implies that the number system extends the factorial number system by being in some way "adic" as discussed in [https://youtube.com/watch?v=tRaq4aYPzCc this YouTube video on the Veritasium channel] and so negative numbers would have a truly wacky representation that violates the intent of the title text's pronouncement by requiring an infinitely long representation requiring infinite digits (1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 9, A, B, C, ..., ''infinite digits''). AzureArmageddon 08:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The "adic" in factoradic doesn't actually relate to p-adic numbers of any kind. Rather, both factoradic and p-adic numbers use the suffix -adic to refer to the concept of adicity, which is "The number of arguments or operands a function or operation takes" according to Wiktionary. Each place value of a p-adic number had p possibilities, and each place value in the factoradic system has a number of possible arguments determined by the factorial of the place. Factoradic would be better called "factorary" since it's more similar to ordinary n-ary number systems, but I guess it just isn't. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.205.130|172.69.205.130]] 20:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

:: Ah, today I learned. AzureArmageddon 15:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

== Title text ==
The title text references that 10! = 3,628,800 (base 10), and so for numbers greater than or equal to that, you would have to add a tenth digit in order to display them in this system. The question is asking whether you would then proceed to using letters of the alphabet such as one does in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal hexadecimal] to which the reply is that numbers above this amount are simply illegal. The trouble comes when you try to write down the number 10 * 10! = 36,288,000 (base 10) in this system. For 10!, the notation is 1000000000 , so 9 * 10! would be 9000000000, and then to get 10 * 10!, you would have to write A000000000 because 10 * 10! < 11!. In fact, since this is the first "illegal" number, you could "legally" allow up to 10 * 10! - 1 = 36,287,999 (base 10) in the system (which would be written as 9987654321 = 9 * 10! + 9 * 9! + 8 * 8! + ... + 2 * 1! + 1 * 1!) without the need to introduce any letters. I also want to point out that the reference in the comic to 9 being reserved for big numbers is due to no number needing a 9 to write it down in this system until 9 * 9! = 3265920 which is written 900000000. Since numbers above 10! are not allowed, this means that only the 9! digit is legally allowed to hold a 9, and it only applies to numbers in that high range of 3265920 to 3628799.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.230|172.71.166.230]] 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:I feel the current in-Explanation explanation about that already covers this, with the addition of the validity that the digit that could need to be >9 could still be any digit 0..9 without needing to invoke the 11th digit. (Maybe a few tweaks, but not sure what you're trying to add here.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.148|172.70.86.148]] 15:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

== Radix Economy ==
Someone got in there just before I did, about (from a quick scan of what's been added) "economical" use of Factorial-based variable radices. (I was planning both the test code and the explanation for this, whilst travelling.) My short way of putting it is that (apart from values of zero or one, which represent identically in Factorial-based notation to any other notation in base of 2+) the Factorialised method initially is using up 'places' quicker until the point at which it has reached a 'magnitude' equal to its base-normal 'original' (i.e. only when there are N glyphs made available under Factoradic notation does it not rush through the 'magnitude' quicker than the base-N number). And ''then'', it needs to work up into the more 'efficient' higher-order digits in order to pull back the disadvantages of its lower-order ones and equal, then be shorter than, any given value's respective base-N form. 
Now, I've done some very rough calculations (started hitting numbers for which I really need to convert everything into high-precision large-number data types, which needs me to rewrite one or two elements of my existing code) and looked at the successive changes of magnitude, in each base, and checked the calculated Factoradic length (with the assumption that there are enough extended glyphs to represent every digit singly, unlike the comic Title Text speculation). 
By my reckoning, Base-2 is more efficient at 20fact (compare with 1002, =410); Base-3 breaks better at
3111fact (100003, =81); Base-4: 540220fact (10000004, =4096); Base-5: 533340021fact (10000000005, =1953125); Base-6: 90967344000fact(1000000000006, =362797056); Base-7: 7ABAA086002001fact(1000000000000007, =678223072849); Base-8: D73A256860540220fact(100000000000000008, =281474976710656); Base-9: B1HEA65678836651220fact(100000000000000008119, =1350851717672992000) ...but at this point, the conversion of decimal to its base-9 form (and that powers of 9 should ''never'' have trailing zeros!) shows I may very well have hit a limit to normal large-number precision, so I really can't trust the subsequently derived base-10 values. 
But, in case anyone wants it, the following is my (Perl, but should be easily convertible into most medium-to-high level code dialevts) en-Factoriadialising function.
sub factadic { my ($n,$place)=(@_,1);
return () unless $place;
if ($n>=fact($place+1)) { return factadic($n,++$place) }
my $digit=0; my $base=fact($place);
while ($n>=$base) { $digit++; $n-=$base; }
my @return=($digit,factadic($n,$place-1));
return @return;
}
You call it as <code>factadic(''<value>'')</code>. Or <code>factadic(''<value>'',''<minimum_digits>'')</code> to start with the assumption of at least a minimum number of digits, but it'll start by shifting the default minimum of 1 into the <script>$place</script> variable if you don't give it that (there are other ways that you can/must do that, of course), and it will still always expand that to the degree necessary in the first phase of 'diving in' as far as it needs to in order to agree with the <code>fact()</code> function (factorial calculator, a trivial coding issue that I only use here like this because I alreadu set it up for another bit of code). 
It returns an array (@-variable, in Perl) of digits, in standard most-to-least-significance order, that you can convert to a glyphwise notation in any way that you wish (or do a string conversion within the function, at each stage of building it up). ...and I'm presenting a ''slightly'' less optimised version of it here (some of the Perl-tricks I originally used don't translate well into some non-Perl) and, yes, the <code>while ($n>=$base)</code> loop could be done using modulus and integer-division, but it's a fairly trivial part of the looping process. 
If you have any ''real'' problems with it, it's probably going to be if you're hitting any recursion-depth limits (especially as it uses roughly twice as many recursive calls as the eventual notation-length it produces). I also have a 'stack-based' version (loops round as it shifts in enough 'slots', then works back down again assigning the place-values) which avoids such trouble, but that's coded in a slightly esoteric Perlish way that I'm not sure most of you'd appreciate. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.77|141.101.76.77]] 20:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Probably a double precision floating point accuracy limitation, you can only get up to 2^53 = 9007199254740992 before many modern programs start getting numerically fuzzy. But what weirds me out is you seem to have gotten 1350851717672992900 out of what should have been 9^19 = 1350851717672992089, instead of a nearby float of 1350851717672992768 or 1350851717672993024. What is it with things rounding to decimal like that? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.84|172.71.147.84]] 11:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::One 'solution' is to <code>use Math::BigFloat</code> (or similar), in the Perl, and make hold such sensitive and large-tending values. Alternately, implement an array of digits in a raw manner (can be of entirely arbitrary base, explicitly, plus arbitrarily long; well, as long as one doesn't hit ''other'' data limits!) and make your own long-division/etc algorithms. Or pack bitwise/bytewise data as a 'string', with suitable overloaded/replacement mathematical functions. But it all adds extra coding effort, of course. And I rarely share my various hacked-together bits of Perl, because they either work but look horrible or they don't work (and probably look strange, even to me - hence why I've failed to discover why they don't work!). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.98.87|172.71.98.87]] 19:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
: Just analyzed the growth rate; For base x, the length can be estimated by 1/2+e*x-e-1.487*ln(x). Maybe a more sniped nerd can get more precision, or even an exact solution; but this is within a digit of the result up to around base 10^13, and then I start running into precision problems in general, so I'm just putting this here as a good enough guess. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.129|172.71.146.129]] 13:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Factorial numbers is new to me... It sounds more like a coding system than a number system, LOL! "The door code is 4503 in factorial! Figure it out!" (I'd write this on the bottom of the comments as usual, but I don't want to get mixed up with that ill-thought out and unsigned coding sample Algorithm and table that I KNOW must be mangled when published because the wiki refuses to honour single Newlines. Clearly the author didn't take a peek at what it looks like when published EDIT: Correction, wow, the wiki spotted the code and marked it as such automatically (for now), wow!) :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

All the stuff about economy / efficiency doesn't seem to really have any direct relation to the comic, so I'd suggest it doesn't really belong in the explanation, but should be confined to the comments, or at least to a trivia section. Not least because it dives off into a lot of technical stuff that ''itself'' requires explanation for a significant part of the readership. As it is, it's doing more to confuse than to explain.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.218|172.70.85.218]] 09:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:I sort of agree, in that I had planned something similar about 'notation economy' as a Trivia-like addendum, before others got there before me. But there could at least be something to be said that by reserving higher-digits(/dissalowing them in lower values), Cueball/Randall is sacrificing conciseness for (one idea of) aestheticism. (And that's without going into 'how much storage it takes to store each digit', which I wasn't going into. So rather than the idealised radix being base-'e', I would have said the idealised base was whatever base-number exceeded the highest value, so it was just one (different) single squiggle for ''everything''. Obviously, there's necessary entropy in the choice of differentiatable squiggles/encoding, though, which is why I also appreciate the current Explanation's blurb.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.52|172.70.90.52]] 10:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

NiceGuy1 the wiki uses standard markdown, if you preface with 6 spaces, it will automatically recognize it as a code snippit. I appologize if my contribution was ill-thought out, though i have gone back and signed it. [[User:Drinkcoffeeandcode|Drinkcoffeeandcode]] ([[User talk:Drinkcoffeeandcode|talk]]) 20:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

== Factoradic Algorithms ==

there are several ways to compute the factoradic of a base 10 number, depending on the choice of language
the length of the program will be demonstrably bigger. Dynamically typed languages, like perl can likely
perform this in one or two lines, where as a language like c++ will be longer.

The simplest algorithm is to generate the digits from right to left one at time by dividing the number by a per-iteration-incrementing radix starting from 2 (because 1 is simply '0', we start from 2), taking the result and repeating until the quotient reaches zero:

#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int factoradic(int num) {
string digits;
int radix = 2;
while (num != 0) {
digits.push_back(((num % radix)-'0'));
num /= radix++;
}
reverse(digits.begin(), digits.end());
return atoi(digits.c_str());
}

Using Randall's values we can confirm it is correct:

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
for (int i = 21; i < 26; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 5038; i < 5042; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 999998; i < 1000002; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
return 0;
}

max@laptop:~/$ ./factoradic
21 - 311
22 - 320
23 - 321
24 - 1000
25 - 1001
5038 - 654320
5039 - 654321
5040 - 1000000
5041 - 1000001
999998 - 266251210
999999 - 266251211
1000000 - 266251220
1000001 - 266251221

Came back to sign code sample after seeing NiceGuy1's comment. [[User:Drinkcoffeeandcode|Drinkcoffeeandcode]] ([[User talk:Drinkcoffeeandcode|talk]]) 20:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would love to have some kind of explanation as to why this number system exists/what it's used for in the real world. (Even if that explanation is just "there's no practical purpose, mathematicians just love doing this stuff".) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.87|172.70.134.87]] 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too much of a fandom crossover to edit / annotate the last word of the explanation (at time of commenting, the word "senary") to "seximal"? Or, given that we are discussing intentionally silly base systems, just the '''right''' amount of a fandom crossover? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.176|172.71.242.176]] 08:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:394: Kilobyte

2023-10-05T15:56:39Z

AzureArmageddon: /* What is the source of the "official" definition of the kilobyte? */

The drivemaker's version here does 'depreciate' their kilobyte, indeed, but rather than based on slipping food-standards (which are often highly regulated) I think this is actually based upon the actual age-old practice of them sometimes using 103n (1,000s, 1,000,000s, etc) measures of byte-multiplies in preference to 210n ones (1,024, 1,048,576, etc) in order to get a better figure. For example 20MB drives (back in the old days, this is) with 971,520 bytes (almost 1Mb, by either measure) ''less'' than the true binary-matching 20MiB value which various computer OSes would work with. (Or a 'binarily' 20MB drive gets advertised as "20.1MB" one.) On the other hand, something that "needs 20Mb of installation space" might have deliberately been given the binary-divisible version of the unit to make it look marginally less resource-hungry than the decimalised measure would have indicated. Minor differences in their own right, on a bad day when the competing standards mesh badly you might find yourself just short of storage space when you thought you'd be Ok.

Although in real-life the difference between any given unit's interpretation has ''not'' changed, as equipment capacities increases and we start to use increasing degrees of prefix upwards, any discrepancy becomes more significant. 1KB is plus or minus 24 bytes (~2%), 1MB is plus or minus around 48KB (~5%), 1GB is plus or minus 73MB (~7%) and 1TB could be very nearly 100Gb short (~10%). For those that care about these things that's at the very least annoying. Like with CRT monitor sizes that were often more an indicator of tube-end size than the true size of the visible/illuminatable portion, giving them an inch or two less of effective display than you might expect. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 13:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:Just to follow-up to myself, based upon a unit capitalisation discrepancy that I only spotted post-posting, but that I won't bother fixing, there's also the old confusion between "kilobits-per-second" and "kilo''bytes''-per-second" (and mega- and giga- versions, more recently with broadband and more advanced ethernets/etc) when it comes to bandwidths and expected speeds. Although you don't necessarily expect to exactly hit the stated limit (with contentions and collisions and latencies and overheads), getting a factor of 8 less than you might have expected has caught people out before, thinking they're getting a far poorer service than advertised... (Not that this has much to do with the above comic, just saying. And, oh lookie here on my desk. A 28,800 'Sportster' PCMCIA faxmodem card (V34, V32bis) with an XJACK® pop-out socket. Why have I still got that?) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This table fails to mention, of course, that while a Baker's Kilobyte is 1152 bytes normally, it's 1125 on leap years. [[User:Hppavilion1|Hppavilion1]] ([[User talk:Hppavilion1|talk]]) 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

== What is the source of the "official" definition of the kilobyte? ==

From the article at time of creating this topic: "the official definition now states that 1 kilobyte is 1000 bytes". This is official according to whom exactly? I may have missed a citation somewhere but I think this clause needs a citation in the text of the the article. AzureArmageddon 13:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:Well, SI and IEC either state or 'recommend' that a kilobyte (kB) is 10³ bytes, while tradition has tended to use KB (capital-K) for 2¹⁰ bytes (obviously open for confusion) while IEC defines this as a 'kibibyte' (KiB). There's several possible cites for that, one really would need to decide which look best/official.
:As a general hint to people, though, I think that makes it probably best to just always use explicit KiBs, and mibi/gibi/tebi/etc equivalents, in full or as unit abbreviations, because there might be people who haven't got the memo/don't know whether ''you'' got the memo, otherwise. And at least there's a chance that even those unaware of "FOObibytes" will try to find out what these are... unless they just mistake them for typos or read them unconsciously wrongly, but then there's probably more problems than just assuming the wrong base-multiple... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.54|172.70.86.54]] 17:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
::I agree with you on that best practice for sure. I don't feel qualified to determine which authority is most authoritative, though. Hoping someone with relevant industry credentials can make a qualified opinion. AzureArmageddon 15:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:372: To Be Wanted

2023-10-04T10:40:17Z

AzureArmageddon:

The previous explanation was:

<blockquote>
The comic is about perspective. The person on the ship dreams of working in an office while the person in the office is dreaming of being on a ship.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The ship and office are perhaps metaphors for freedom and structure. The comic may be trying to convey that those people who have a highly structured life desire more freedom while those with too much freedom desire structure.
</blockquote>

While interesting, I felt it missed the boat.
--[[User:MisterSpike|MisterSpike]] ([[User talk:MisterSpike|talk]]) 05:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems that Randall has invented a new rigging system for boats. A triangular foresail on a bowsprit with a large sqaure sail just behind it blocking its wind. The square seems attached to the mizzenmast behind. Wouldn't quite work I don't think. Deliberate symbolism? [[User:Kevin McCready|Kevin McCready]] ([[User talk:Kevin McCready|talk]]) 12:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

::The foresail appears to be attached in a similar way as jib sails in small boats. Should work well enough if the boat is on a beam reach. [[User:RedHatGuy68|RedHatGuy68]] ([[User talk:RedHatGuy68|talk]]) 00:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

;Random thoughts
The grainy background does not have to suggest something is not right. Randall has gone with different backgrounds several times. I took it to show the difference between how Randall sees a representation of himself and a representation of the girl he likes. He sees himself as a nerd working in front of a computer in a monochrome setting. He sees Megan sailing, wind blowing in her face, full of contrast and texture. I believe he wanted both of them to think about each other.

To be wanted also includes wanting others to be wanted by you. Relationships are cyclic, much like the panels.

On a completely different note, it seems like Megan sailing off screen in the last panel might have something to do with the act of moving on. This is a complete ass pull, but I think it might have something to do with Randall's actual relationship with whoever Megan represents. It is ''hinted'' that they broke up. Perhaps Randall is hoping that even as she moves on (sails off the screen), she still thinks about him and knows that he still thinks about her.

[[User:Flewk|Flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 22:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any sort of consistency between strips, since it was just two weeks prior that we had a strip of Megan leaving Cueball [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Your_Mom 366:Your Mom].

So could this entire strip being one of them wishing that had not happened as one of them, it could be either depending on whose thoughts you believe are being portrayed is doing nothing but thinking of the other that they just lost? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.231|162.158.62.231]] 11:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't interpret [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Your_Mom 366:Your Mom] as Megan leaving the relationship entirely, necessarily - just that she was leaving that specific situation. I interpret this one to mean that Cueball is thinking of Megan, and hoping that she is thinking of him, too. [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 17:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
:<s>Ok, now that I'm up to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Forgetting 379:_Forgetting], I think that she did, in fact, leave him entirely. [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 13:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)</s>
::Further comics suggest they are still together . . . [[User:L-Space Traveler|L-Space Traveler]] ([[User talk:L-Space Traveler|talk]]) 03:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It's really beautiful imo how this comic can be interpreted both ways as both people missing each other dearly. AzureArmageddon 10:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:372: To Be Wanted

2023-10-04T10:37:18Z

AzureArmageddon:

Talk:394: Kilobyte

2023-10-03T13:50:49Z

AzureArmageddon: /* What is the source of the "official" definition of the kilobyte? */ Edit for clarity

Talk:394: Kilobyte

2023-10-03T13:50:13Z

AzureArmageddon: /* What is the source of the "official" definition of the kilobyte? */ new section

The drivemaker's version here does 'depreciate' their kilobyte, indeed, but rather than based on slipping food-standards (which are often highly regulated) I think this is actually based upon the actual age-old practice of them sometimes using 103n (1,000s, 1,000,000s, etc) measures of byte-multiplies in preference to 210n ones (1,024, 1,048,576, etc) in order to get a better figure. For example 20MB drives (back in the old days, this is) with 971,520 bytes (almost 1Mb, by either measure) ''less'' than the true binary-matching 20MiB value which various computer OSes would work with. (Or a 'binarily' 20MB drive gets advertised as "20.1MB" one.) On the other hand, something that "needs 20Mb of installation space" might have deliberately been given the binary-divisible version of the unit to make it look marginally less resource-hungry than the decimalised measure would have indicated. Minor differences in their own right, on a bad day when the competing standards mesh badly you might find yourself just short of storage space when you thought you'd be Ok.

Although in real-life the difference between any given unit's interpretation has ''not'' changed, as equipment capacities increases and we start to use increasing degrees of prefix upwards, any discrepancy becomes more significant. 1KB is plus or minus 24 bytes (~2%), 1MB is plus or minus around 48KB (~5%), 1GB is plus or minus 73MB (~7%) and 1TB could be very nearly 100Gb short (~10%). For those that care about these things that's at the very least annoying. Like with CRT monitor sizes that were often more an indicator of tube-end size than the true size of the visible/illuminatable portion, giving them an inch or two less of effective display than you might expect. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 13:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

:Just to follow-up to myself, based upon a unit capitalisation discrepancy that I only spotted post-posting, but that I won't bother fixing, there's also the old confusion between "kilobits-per-second" and "kilo''bytes''-per-second" (and mega- and giga- versions, more recently with broadband and more advanced ethernets/etc) when it comes to bandwidths and expected speeds. Although you don't necessarily expect to exactly hit the stated limit (with contentions and collisions and latencies and overheads), getting a factor of 8 less than you might have expected has caught people out before, thinking they're getting a far poorer service than advertised... (Not that this has much to do with the above comic, just saying. And, oh lookie here on my desk. A 28,800 'Sportster' PCMCIA faxmodem card (V34, V32bis) with an XJACK® pop-out socket. Why have I still got that?) [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This table fails to mention, of course, that while a Baker's Kilobyte is 1152 bytes normally, it's 1125 on leap years. [[User:Hppavilion1|Hppavilion1]] ([[User talk:Hppavilion1|talk]]) 23:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

== What is the source of the "official" definition of the kilobyte? ==

From the article at time of writing: "the official definition now states that 1 kilobyte is 1000 bytes". This is official according to whom exactly? I may have missed a citation somewhere but I think this clause needs a citation in the text of the the article. AzureArmageddon 13:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:424: Security Holes

2023-10-01T15:40:37Z

AzureArmageddon:

Could the Slackware one imply that harder nerds/geeks are more fond of this specific Linux distro? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 01:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he's also implying aliens use OLPC? {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.45}}

I think the Xandros/EEE PC vulnerability "gives access if asked in a stern voice" is a reference to comic [[413: New Pet]], where Cueball and Megan made a pet out of a EEE PC on wheels inside a hamster ball. Pets sometimes need to be talked to sternly if they're unwilling to obey commands; in this case, a EEE PC needs to be talked to sternly in order to give the commander root access. [[User:Codefreak5|Codefreak5]] ([[User talk:Codefreak5|talk]]) 21:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

: I like to think teh "exploit" is just <code>sudo sudo [arbitrary command]</code>. AzureArmageddon 15:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The Gentoo explanation does not make sense. Gentoos succumbing to flattery should mean the users use flattery on the Gentoo, not the other way around. --[[User:Flewk|flewk]] ([[User talk:Flewk|talk]]) 16:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Crippling Crypto (the first article mentioned as offering more detail on the Debian-OpenSSL vulnerability) analogises the resulting problem by partly reproducing [[221: Random Number]]. Should this be mentioned in this article or in 221, or both, or not mentioned in either? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.87|108.162.250.87]] 09:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-10-01T15:35:08Z

AzureArmageddon: /* The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers */

Number systems aren't real math, at least not serious math. They're an affectation. 99.9% of math is number-system-independent, so nobody should care about them. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.108|172.70.46.108]] 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

: Of course it's "real math." There aren't that many applications, but so what? Math isn't about applications. Besides, there are some. Maybe not specifically for factorial base, but for some place systems. The only thing "dirty" about decimal is the arbitrariness of ten. Considering place systems in general is just considering special kinds of sums. Certainly, "serious" mathematicians are interested in proving numbers normal in specific bases, or in every base. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: A great deal of interesting maths can be found in and around the various arrangements of digits in numbers systems, surely. AzureArmageddon 07:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a complete joke, until coming here. The "factorial number system" exists?! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.249|162.158.90.249]] 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Yup, complete news to me too... What's REALLY weird: the night before this comic I was tutoring a friend's daughter in math, and I happened to teach her what factorials are! (News to me there's a number system, though)... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to add a link to a converter, but the one I found is https://www.dcode.fr/factorial-base which is quite ugly with lots of adds and a bit counter-intuitive.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 23:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This needs simplifying a bit. Came here because I had no idea what was going on, and after a quick scroll through the prose, the main thing I learned was "it's 'cause you're dumb". May be true but I still don't get what Randall's factorial system is....[[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 01:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Factorial base also allows to finitely represent all rational numbers - no constant base is capable of that! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.238.76|172.68.238.76]] 01:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Unless you use a division sign. But yes, only radix numerals of a variable base with infinite series of factors of every prime can even theoretically finitely represent arbitrary rationals without invoking existential quantifiers. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.26|172.71.147.26]] 06:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like Michael when Oscar is trying to explain what a “surplus” is.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.241|162.158.186.241]] 04:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

== The warning is complete nonsense, just remove it ==

bots cant be escorted out of somewhere just remove the stupid warning [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.109|162.158.203.109]] 04:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: you must be new here - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.143|108.162.216.143]] 15:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The nonsense is part of the fun. AzureArmageddon 07:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

::im deleting it {{unsigned ip|162.158.203.80|11:16, 30 September 2023}}‎

:::Premature elision. Still has a purpose (as does signing your contributions here). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.208|172.71.178.208]] 14:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh* As has been stated, you MUST be new here. The "incomplete" tag goes on new comics while their descriptions are still in flux. When the bot creates the empty description page, it does so with the Incomplete warning, labelled with its name. On the first edit, someone ALWAYS changes the name to some silly gag that's related to the comic, often pretending it's the name of the bot that created the page for us. In this case the comic shows Cueball being escorted out, so the joke is the bot is being escorted out. If you're not going to have a sense of humour, why are you here? Just leave the editing to others in the meantime. :) (Oh, and as the user above noted, make sure to end your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (4 tildes), like it says at the top of the editing text box you type in). :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:Okay, now the Incomplete warning needs to stay up forever. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

== The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers ==

It's not explicitly mentioned in the comic but the "adic" in the name "Factor''adic''™" implies that the number system extends the factorial number system by being in some way "adic" as discussed in [https://youtu.be/tRaq4aYPzCc this YouTube video on the Veritasium channel] and so negative numbers would have a truly wacky representation that violates the intent of the title text's pronouncement by requiring an infinitely long representation requiring infinite digits (1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 9, A, B, C, ..., ''infinite digits''). AzureArmageddon 08:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

: The "adic" in factoradic doesn't actually relate to p-adic numbers of any kind. Rather, both factoradic and p-adic numbers use the suffix -adic to refer to the concept of adicity, which is "The number of arguments or operands a function or operation takes" according to Wiktionary. Each place value of a p-adic number had p possibilities, and each place value in the factoradic system has a number of possible arguments determined by the factorial of the place. Factoradic would be better called "factorary" since it's more similar to ordinary n-ary number systems, but I guess it just isn't. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.205.130|172.69.205.130]] 20:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

:: Ah, today I learned. AzureArmageddon 15:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

== Title text ==
The title text references that 10! = 3,628,800 (base 10), and so for numbers greater than or equal to that, you would have to add a tenth digit in order to display them in this system. The question is asking whether you would then proceed to using letters of the alphabet such as one does in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal hexadecimal] to which the reply is that numbers above this amount are simply illegal. The trouble comes when you try to write down the number 10 * 10! = 36,288,000 (base 10) in this system. For 10!, the notation is 1000000000 , so 9 * 10! would be 9000000000, and then to get 10 * 10!, you would have to write A000000000 because 10 * 10! < 11!. In fact, since this is the first "illegal" number, you could "legally" allow up to 10 * 10! - 1 = 36,287,999 (base 10) in the system (which would be written as 9987654321 = 9 * 10! + 9 * 9! + 8 * 8! + ... + 2 * 1! + 1 * 1!) without the need to introduce any letters. I also want to point out that the reference in the comic to 9 being reserved for big numbers is due to no number needing a 9 to write it down in this system until 9 * 9! = 3265920 which is written 900000000. Since numbers above 10! are not allowed, this means that only the 9! digit is legally allowed to hold a 9, and it only applies to numbers in that high range of 3265920 to 3628799.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.166.230|172.71.166.230]] 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:I feel the current in-Explanation explanation about that already covers this, with the addition of the validity that the digit that could need to be >9 could still be any digit 0..9 without needing to invoke the 11th digit. (Maybe a few tweaks, but not sure what you're trying to add here.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.148|172.70.86.148]] 15:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

== Radix Economy ==
Someone got in there just before I did, about (from a quick scan of what's been added) "economical" use of Factorial-based variable radices. (I was planning both the test code and the explanation for this, whilst travelling.) My short way of putting it is that (apart from values of zero or one, which represent identically in Factorial-based notation to any other notation in base of 2+) the Factorialised method initially is using up 'places' quicker until the point at which it has reached a 'magnitude' equal to its base-normal 'original' (i.e. only when there are N glyphs made available under Factoradic notation does it not rush through the 'magnitude' quicker than the base-N number). And ''then'', it needs to work up into the more 'efficient' higher-order digits in order to pull back the disadvantages of its lower-order ones and equal, then be shorter than, any given value's respective base-N form. 
Now, I've done some very rough calculations (started hitting numbers for which I really need to convert everything into high-precision large-number data types, which needs me to rewrite one or two elements of my existing code) and looked at the successive changes of magnitude, in each base, and checked the calculated Factoradic length (with the assumption that there are enough extended glyphs to represent every digit singly, unlike the comic Title Text speculation). 
By my reckoning, Base-2 is more efficient at 20fact (compare with 1002, =410); Base-3 breaks better at
3111fact (100003, =81); Base-4: 540220fact (10000004, =4096); Base-5: 533340021fact (10000000005, =1953125); Base-6: 90967344000fact(1000000000006, =362797056); Base-7: 7ABAA086002001fact(1000000000000007, =678223072849); Base-8: D73A256860540220fact(100000000000000008, =281474976710656); Base-9: B1HEA65678836651220fact(100000000000000008119, =1350851717672992000) ...but at this point, the conversion of decimal to its base-9 form (and that powers of 9 should ''never'' have trailing zeros!) shows I may very well have hit a limit to normal large-number precision, so I really can't trust the subsequently derived base-10 values. 
But, in case anyone wants it, the following is my (Perl, but should be easily convertible into most medium-to-high level code dialevts) en-Factoriadialising function.
sub factadic { my ($n,$place)=(@_,1);
return () unless $place;
if ($n>=fact($place+1)) { return factadic($n,++$place) }
my $digit=0; my $base=fact($place);
while ($n>=$base) { $digit++; $n-=$base; }
my @return=($digit,factadic($n,$place-1));
return @return;
}
You call it as <code>factadic(''<value>'')</code>. Or <code>factadic(''<value>'',''<minimum_digits>'')</code> to start with the assumption of at least a minimum number of digits, but it'll start by shifting the default minimum of 1 into the <script>$place</script> variable if you don't give it that (there are other ways that you can/must do that, of course), and it will still always expand that to the degree necessary in the first phase of 'diving in' as far as it needs to in order to agree with the <code>fact()</code> function (factorial calculator, a trivial coding issue that I only use here like this because I alreadu set it up for another bit of code). 
It returns an array (@-variable, in Perl) of digits, in standard most-to-least-significance order, that you can convert to a glyphwise notation in any way that you wish (or do a string conversion within the function, at each stage of building it up). ...and I'm presenting a ''slightly'' less optimised version of it here (some of the Perl-tricks I originally used don't translate well into some non-Perl) and, yes, the <code>while ($n>=$base)</code> loop could be done using modulus and integer-division, but it's a fairly trivial part of the looping process. 
If you have any ''real'' problems with it, it's probably going to be if you're hitting any recursion-depth limits (especially as it uses roughly twice as many recursive calls as the eventual notation-length it produces). I also have a 'stack-based' version (loops round as it shifts in enough 'slots', then works back down again assigning the place-values) which avoids such trouble, but that's coded in a slightly esoteric Perlish way that I'm not sure most of you'd appreciate. ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.77|141.101.76.77]] 20:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
: Probably a double precision floating point accuracy limitation, you can only get up to 2^53 = 9007199254740992 before many modern programs start getting numerically fuzzy. But what weirds me out is you seem to have gotten 1350851717672992900 out of what should have been 9^19 = 1350851717672992089, instead of a nearby float of 1350851717672992768 or 1350851717672993024. What is it with things rounding to decimal like that? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.84|172.71.147.84]] 11:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
: Just analyzed the growth rate; For base x, the length can be estimated by 1/2+e*x-e-1.487*ln(x). Maybe a more sniped nerd can get more precision, or even an exact solution; but this is within a digit of the result up to around base 10^13, and then I start running into precision problems in general, so I'm just putting this here as a good enough guess. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.129|172.71.146.129]] 13:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Factorial numbers is new to me... It sounds more like a coding system than a number system, LOL! "The door code is 4503 in factorial! Figure it out!" (I'd write this on the bottom of the comments as usual, but I don't want to get mixed up with that ill-thought out and unsigned coding sample Algorithm and table that I KNOW must be mangled when published because the wiki refuses to honour single Newlines. Clearly the author didn't take a peek at what it looks like when published EDIT: Correction, wow, the wiki spotted the code and marked it as such automatically (for now), wow!) :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

== Factoradic Algorithms ==

there are several ways to compute the factoradic of a base 10 number, depending on the choice of language
the length of the program will be demonstrably bigger. Dynamically typed languages, like perl can likely
perform this in one or two lines, where as a language like c++ will be longer.

The simplest algorithm is to generate the digits from right to left one at time by dividing the number by the radix until the quotient reaches zero:

#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
int factoradic(int num) {
string digits;
int radix = 2;
while (num != 0) {
digits.push_back(to_string(num % radix)[0]);
num /= radix++;
}
reverse(digits.begin(), digits.end());
return atoi(digits.c_str());
}

Using Randall's values we can confirm it is correct:

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
for (int i = 21; i < 26; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 5038; i < 5042; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
for (int i = 999998; i < 1000002; i++)
cout<<i<<" - "<<factoradic(i)<<endl;
return 0;
}

max@laptop:~/$ ./factoradic
21 - 311
22 - 320
23 - 321
24 - 1000
25 - 1001
5038 - 654320
5039 - 654321
5040 - 1000000
5041 - 1000001
999998 - 266251210
999999 - 266251211
1000000 - 266251220
1000001 - 266251221

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-09-30T08:03:43Z

AzureArmageddon: /* The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers */ Edit for clarity

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-09-30T08:01:25Z

AzureArmageddon: /* The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers */ edit for clarity

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-09-30T08:00:35Z

AzureArmageddon: /* The "adic" part of factor-adic numbers */ new section

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-09-30T07:54:59Z

AzureArmageddon:

Talk:2835: Factorial Numbers

2023-09-30T07:52:34Z

AzureArmageddon:

Talk:428: Starwatching

2023-09-30T07:48:44Z

AzureArmageddon:

An interesting interpretation. I thought Cueball was just referencing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King The Lion King]. [[Special:Contributions/184.41.49.246|184.41.49.246]] 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. "Great kings of the past," "great bloggers of the past"... I don't think there was any intended reference to Christianity.{{unsigned ip|24.20.112.104}}

I think the word "blog" is more an elision than a portmanteau, since it's not a conflation (e.g. mansplain, muppet, or smog) of two words, here "web" and "log," but rather a shortening (or eliding) of the same. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.21|108.162.219.21]] 12:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is the transcript marked incomplete? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

:Fixed a typo and grammar for tag cloud. It was a little cumbersome before, but I think I wound up using bigger words. The part about "or less" seems a little clunky also, but not quite sure how to fix it. [[User:Vorik111|Vorik111]] ([[User talk:Vorik111|talk]]) 18:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be a running count somewhere on the wiki of how many times the word blogosphere appears in xkcd and how it tracks over time. If Randall reads the wiki perhaps it will induce a spiteful uptick. AzureArmageddon 07:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

435: Purity

2023-09-28T07:54:00Z

AzureArmageddon: /* Explanation */ Joke edit but with a hint of truth, surely?

{{comic
| number = 435
| date = June 11, 2008
| title = Purity
| image = purity.png
| titletext = On the other hand, physicists like to say physics is to math as sex is to masturbation.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Mathematics}} is the abstract study of topics encompassing quantity, structure, space, change, and others. {{w|Physics}} is a natural science that involves the study of matter-energy and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as forces. Physics is described using mathematics. {{w|Chemistry}} is the science of matter, especially its chemical reactions, but also its composition, structure, and properties. As chemical reactions are governed by physical laws (electromagnetism being particularly important), one could say that chemists are studying a subset of physics. {{w|Biology}} is the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy. As biological life is the result of a large number of complex chemical reactions, one could say that it is studying a subset of chemistry. {{w|Psychology}} is the study of mental functions and behaviors, why thinking beings do what they do. As thought is (currently) a capability exclusive to living things, one could say that it is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN7YOsmGl4 a subset of biology]. {{w|Sociology}} is the study of society, or the study of groups of people and their interactions. Since a group of people is composed of many individuals, one could say that it is an application of psychology. Of course, one could also say that the fields are all independent, as deriving one from another would require not only good, but perfect understanding of the more fundamental field.

Mathematics has two classifications: {{w|pure mathematics}} (mathematics for its own sake, without any real-world interpretation) and {{w|applied mathematics}} (mathematics intended to solve real-world problems). It is not uncommon for scientists to formulate a problem that can be reduced to a problem already solved by pure mathematicians. Taking this to its logical extreme, the comic arranges the six scientific fields according to the {{w|Hierarchy of the sciences}}, represented by a person on a chart of purity, saying that a field is 'more pure' than the fields depending on it. This is a topic often used in jokes between scientists of various fields as to who is more important. The physicist, [[Cueball]], feels that he is at the top, that all other fields are based upon his... but is ultimately upstaged by the mathematician, [[Blondie]], whose field is so pure that its relationship to more applied fields can be distant or nonexistent. Unlike the others, however, the mathematician notably does not claim that physics is merely applied mathematics, because that claim would be categorically untrue. While physics makes extensive use of applied mathematical methods, physics (and, by extension, all the other sciences) are based on the analysis of experimental data collected about the universe—data which mathematics does not and cannot on its own provide. Later a similar setup was used in [[2057: Internal Monologues]], although here the different science fields are not ranked against each other, and only the physicist is represented in both comics (although as Cueball in both).

Philosophy is presumably not pictured as it would be so far off to the right end of the image it would require a scroll bar, not that Randall has shied away from large format strips. {{citation needed}}

The title text indicates that physicists like to repeat the following quote attributed to Richard Feynman: "Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation.". This ties the title of the comic, "Purity," to tie between various fields, to the topic of sex, as measured by the {{w|Purity Test}}.

==Transcript==

:[Six characters are standing on a line with small ticks under each person. Above the two persons most central in the comic is an arrow pointing right. There are labels both above and below the arrow. Beneath each tick is a label. All the labels are listed here in order.]
:<big>Fields</big> arranged by <big>purity</big>
:::More pure

:Sociologists
:Psychologists
:Biologists
:Chemists
:Physicists
:Mathematicians

:[Above each of the six ticks, there is a person. The last person to the right is the mathematician. She stands at the far right edge of the comic, with much farther distance between her and the second to last person going right. The first four spaces between the first five people are of equal distance. Except for the least pure sociologist, they all say something addressed to the less pure person(s) on their left. The first mute person above the Sociologists tick is Megan. The second person above the Psychologists tick is a bald man with glasses and a goatee beard holding a book under one arm. The third person above the Biologists tick is a Cueball-like guy with a squirming octopus in his hand. The fourth person above the Chemists tick is Ponytail holding up a test tube with bubbles coming out of the top. The fifth person above the Physicists tick is Cueball standing with his hands in his sides. Farthest out, the sixth and final person above the Mathematicians tick is Blondie. She waves to the other five.]

:Psychologist: Sociology is just applied psychology.

:Biologist: Psychology is just applied biology.

:Chemist: Biology is just applied chemistry

:Physicist: Which is just applied physics. It's nice to be on top.

:Mathematician: Oh, hey, I didn't see you guys all the way over there.

==Trivia==
This comic used to be [https://web.archive.org/web/20220125023401/https://store.xkcd.com/products/signed-prints available as a signed print] in the xkcd store before it was [[Store|shut down]].

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Sex]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Comics with xkcd store products]]

Talk:2761: 1-to-1 Scale

2023-04-12T08:48:38Z

AzureArmageddon:

Really want an explanation for this one. [[User:JobbieJimmies|Melomaniac]] ([[User talk:JobbieJimmies|talk]]) 03:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My comment got deleted by a bot!!! [[User:Unreliable Connection|2659: Unreliable Connection]] ([[User talk:Unreliable Connection|talk]]) 03:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:RIP... [[User:JobbieJimmies|Melomaniac]] ([[User talk:JobbieJimmies|talk]]) 03:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:No, UC, it just got overwritten by the 'bot, when it did its job and (re)created the whole initial state of the various pages to depict the new comic coming out. (Noting that you'd not set them all up fully/correctly.)
:That you had spotted it already and had ''just'' gotten in ahead of the 'bot clearly isn't something it was prepared to handle. But as someone spotting it can usually wait a short while for the 'bot to catch up, I don't think it's a problem. In fact, you could have just copied your old contributions into the now receptive page(s), with nary any comment. Too late now. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.101|172.70.90.101]] 03:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:: This may have broken the next link on the previous page. --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.36|172.71.160.36]] 06:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The lines represent the surfaces of the planets I think, so it's basically all the planets overlaid on top of each other. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.35|172.71.142.35]] 03:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:Yup, I think it's what he meant - but I find it unlikely that the gas giants would have this clear cutoff of a "surface". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.189.241|162.158.189.241]] 03:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::If there is a gas - liquid phase transition (and I think at least the gas giants have them): Why not? OK, you could see "rain" as blurring a clear cutoff, but wouldn't that also apply to Earth, then?[[User:Tier666|Tier666]] ([[User talk:Tier666|talk]]) 08:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I’d think the same citation as stands for ridiculously large would also cover larger than currently exists on earth, and his that citation is not in fact needed? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.186|162.158.174.186]] 06:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

:It seems like the gas-covered worlds are explicitly those with clearly cutoff "surfaces," so maybe in those cases the cutoff is some specific gas density -- which occurs at a consistent radius throughout the planet, thus creating a flat surface. While for rocky worlds (except Venus, which is treated like a gas planet here), a density cutoff can lead to bumpiness due to terrain. [[User:Trimeta|Trimeta]] ([[User talk:Trimeta|talk]]) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:: just to be very clear (this being a explanation site!) that Venus is "treated like a gas giant" because of it's thick atmosphere. It would be just as correct to say "All the gas giants are treated like Venus" After all, ordinary telescopes couldn't take a picture that sees through any atmospheres, except Earth, where you'd see clouds but often surface where clouds don't appear. Sorry if that's an overexplanation [[User:Cuvtixo|Cuvtixo]] ([[User talk:Cuvtixo|talk]]) 19:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

On Twitter there seems to be concern that all planets are depicted flat. This may make this a contribution/mockery of the ongoing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth Flat Earth] discussions in some corners of the internet. --[[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.132|198.41.242.132]] 06:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:You can't see the curvature of the Earth when standing on it; doesn't mean it's flat. Since we're looking at the planets at a 1:1 scale, we're literally only seeing a couple of inches of each of their edges (notwithstanding the whole gas-giants-don't-have-a-sharp-edge issue). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.239.20|162.158.239.20]] 12:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:actually you can see it, standing on the shore of any large lake on a calm day looking at a shore that's ~6.5 miles (10.5km) away. You'll lose ~8ft (2.5m) below the horizon - [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.213|162.158.186.213]] 13:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The display for an uncropped version of the image would not only be larger than any display on earth. It would be larger than earth. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.243|162.158.86.243]] 06:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:By necessity, at least as large as Jupiter. Maybe slightly above two Jupiters (max dimension squared compared to display height*width of any common aspect ratio) if you wanted to not overlay any of the others at all. And make the lower limit a packing-problem, then add a buffer so there isn't the actual need for any to touch. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.253|172.70.90.253]] 10:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::I'm going to add that. Someone was confused enough to put {{cite needed}} there, which may be a joke onto itself?, I can't tell. I've removed the cite needed, but I guess it needs to be more clear why it's totally nonsensical and doesn't need a citation? [[User:Cuvtixo|Cuvtixo]] ([[User talk:Cuvtixo|talk]]) 19:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:::The four inner planets are small enough to fit the upper left corner of any display big enough for Jupiter. As Uranus and Neptune are smaller than the latter one, they cannot extend past its top, bottom or right edge in the constellation shown, so they will not need additonal screen space either. Only Saturn is shifted so far to the left that he will require more width than Jupiter itself, but will still fit within the same height. Knowing Randall, the shown angles are not random, but were calculated to match a commercial available display ratio with Saturn placed touching the left edge and Jupiter touching the top, bottom and right edges. 16:9 or 16:10 at 142 km hight would be a fair guess, so I would not rule out 4:3 resulting in total width significantly smaller than two Jupiters. Of course Randall might also be playing hardcore nerd: The outer diameter of Saturns F ring, which is almost always included in representations, has almost exactly a ratio of 32:9 to Jupiters polar diameter, making a picture showing the former in front of the latter a perfect match for those new fancy double wide monitors. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.111.77|162.158.111.77]] 00:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

1-to-1 scale means 'assume all planets are the same size,' right? I see Earth's grass is shown to be as large as Martian rocks, because Earth is a third again as large. (At the scale where grass is visible, Earth looks flat.) At first I thought the point was that altitude variation in cloud-tops varied so little that a gas giant shrunk down to Earth size would be featureless and have a distinct edge, but that's wrong. Ground isn't cloud-tops. Do gas giants have any solid ground? We've seen Jupiter eat comets, and it makes sense they would've collected at least some minerals and metals. According to [[https://www.teachastronomy.com/textbook/The-Giant-Planets-and-Their-Moons/Internal-Structure-of-the-Gas-Giant-Planets/|Teach Astronomy]], gas giants have Earth-sized solid cores. I'm guessing gas giants' immense gravity compresses their cores into featureless spheres, which, if scaled to Earth-size and viewed at the scale where one could see grass, would look flat. Yes?
[[User:EllenNB|EllenNB]] ([[User talk:EllenNB|talk]]) 10:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:Gravity itself won't compress (and 'flatten') the cores. "Shell theory" shows that gravitational force only counts from the proportion of the body that is within the radius of the bit you're concerned with. But there'll also be the external pressure (from being at the bottom of a thick atmosphere that ultimately ''is'' above far more of the planetary mass) and possibly a degree of compression density to make any Earth-sized core slightly heavier than if it was just a bare core of the same size but shorn of outer layers.
:As to flatness, I can take you to very flat stretches of Earth and very lumpy bits (depends which direction I go, from where I am now), all within 30 minutes' drive. We can'teven know how representative a sample of planetary cross-sections we are seeing (once we get over the issues of gas/space boundaries for gas-giants), but I bet there are bits that resemble the diagram... If you ''really'' want it to be so real. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.87|172.71.242.87]] 11:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:No, 1-to-1 means that they are actual size, not the same size. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 13:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

There are several pieces of information here that are featured but don't make sense to me. What's the function of the dark polygon in the center? Why are the lines showing each surface going in random directions? Why is the surface of each planet so flat at a full scale rendition? When I look out my window at full sized Earth, it's not flat. It's quite bumpy, actually. But perhaps he doesn't mean these are full size, he might be saying that they're all shrunk, but the same amount, so 1:1:1:1:1... but even then, I'm totally lost.

"What's the function of the dark polygon in the center?"
I think it is a view of the dark sky, "above" the surface of the Earth, Mars, etc. [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 11:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:I think the "polygon" is a grassy Earth itself, with the white above it sky. Earth is the rearmost planet pictured. Then in front of Earth, on all sides except the top, are the overlays of the various planets, what little of each one as can fit. But then maybe the polygon is night starry sky, and Earth is the white area above it. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 14:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
::No, the polygon is the sky. Zoom in and you see the Milky Way and stars and other space stuff. And the ant on the Earth has its legs pointing upwards (in the reference frame of the image). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.239.26|162.158.239.26]] 03:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this an ant on earth, over the letters "EA" ? On my monitor, set for my less-than-perfect vision, it is 15mm long, which (at a 1:1 scale) makes it a cow ant, or a large african ant. I guess people with normal vision get fire and carpenter ants instead? And those on smartphones get pavement ants?[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.73|172.68.50.73]] 11:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:I do believe it is! It's 6 mm on my desktop monitor and 3 mm on my phone. We also don't know what side of the Earth we're looking at, so I suppose it could really be any ant, including the one in your local area. I like to think it's a black garden ant (''Lasius niger''), since I'm most familiar with those :) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.239.25|162.158.239.25]] 12:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It took me a good while to figure out this one; I don't normally need to come here, but this one stumped me at first. (The comments as of right now weren't too illuminating either.) I think the lack of color was an issue; I first thought the black polygon in the center was the earth, and then interpreted the various lines as a really weird diagram type I'd never seen before, like a phase diagram or something; I also considered one-dimensional planets. [https://imgur.com/a/yJOYvk1 I colored in the planets to aid me.] The way I now interpret this one is thus: imagine an observer sitting a tremendous distance away from the solar system, and they have a camera with an extremely supremely highly zooming telephoto lens. Then a lining-up of all eight planets happens – I believe this is impossible IRL (because of resonances or something), but just go with it. The observer manages to snap this incredible image of a teeny tiny spot of the sky, which simultaneously manages to include the very very edges of all the planets as well as some of the sky behind them all. The sky is the black polygon: it has nebulae and stars. Neptune is in front of Uranus, and that as well as Mercury are in front of Saturn, which is in front of both Jupiter and Mars; Venus is between Mercury, Mars and the Earth, and the Earth is also behind Jupiter. The reason why these are all so smooth is because it's such a small area: we're literally only seeing a couple of square inches of the surface of each of the rocky planets. (See, you can see an individual ant on the Earth. Go to the most rugged mountain range you can find and observe a couple of square inches; it'll be locally flat.) The lack of atmospheres on the rocky planets as well as the hard edges of the gas giants are artistic license. This one is a member of the genre of "true yet unhelpful diagrams"; I'm surprised that isn't a category on this wiki. – [[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.4|162.158.238.4]] 12:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

((Written whilst 162.158.238.4 was editing, above, and I got an edit conflict on that. The editor concerned touches on this ordering business, but I'm pasting my original in unaltered, not rejigged as a more focused reply.)) I was wondering abut the "overlap order" for a while, until I twigged it. May not be worth officially documenting, but my analysis, showing that (perhaps depending upon specific orbital positions, during a given range of times, which can of course be checked) it's ''probably'' based upon distance away from Earth.
*Earth is bottom-most. Could be 1st/2nd, shared with Mars, as their overlap isn't shown.
*Mars is our nearest neighbour. (As above, could be 1st ''or'' 2nd on stack.)
*Venus next. Although it could be 7th (only obscured by Mercury) or anywhere else down to 3rd.
*Jupiter as 4th from bottom. (''Could'' be 3rd..5th, though.)
*Saturn takes 5th-up position. (4th..6th)
*Mercury as 6th. (Or all the way to topmost, but I made an assumption about its relationship to the last two.)
*Uranus as 7th. (6th/7th a possibility, depends on Mercury)
*Neptune as 8th. (7th/8th possible, Mercury again.)
...or at least that's what my mental notes tell me. Not helped by starting off counting from near to far and possibly messing up my numbers when I realised it made sense to flip them. It could also be "delta-V needed to reach the planet concerned" (either without or ''including'' flyby slingshot momentum borrowing/burning), but that's something I'd also need to check. I doubt it really needs tying down/Explaining, and when I edited the Transcript I decided not to record every nuance of the "variously orientated surfaces", as I think it adds nothing so long as the description gives the general idea. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.121|141.101.98.121]] 13:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

So no one is going to mention that for the clarity depicted you'd need to literally place the planets inside of each other, or have some sort of focal length from zero to infinity? I'm not sure if that bothers me more or less than the missed trick of making the length of ground shown relate to some comparative parameter (albedo might have been a fun one) - [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.213|162.158.186.213]] 13:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
:To be fair, you're also going to have to choose a "flat" few inches of surface that stands proud of the local geography (such that anything higher is below the curvature of the Earth for its proximity), and deal with an impossible resolution of an impossibly zoomed telephoto shot from a viewpoint unimaginably distant (''whilst'' a near-enough non-Solar conjunction/asterism is happening, or at least was, when the light passed each body), without significant atmospheric distortion (which is a relatively minor issue, compared with the scarcity of photons that reach the camera ''anyway'').
:Can we perhaps instead assume that these are just individual 1:1-scale cross-sectional diagrams (or even carefully curated local photos) drawn together into a hybrid image to accurately retain the scaling verisimilitude, and individual contexts, but happily faking the relative positions? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.56|172.70.85.56]] 15:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It would take some work to check, but I'm wondering if the angle of the horizons of the various planets are perpendicular to the line made between the earth and the planet in question [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.141|162.158.154.141]] 15:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This is how I interpret this image: [https://imgur.com/a/WwdbXkN I didn't want to make the black dot as small as in the picture so dimensions are insanely larger] [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.80|172.69.194.80]] 20:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
: that is a very clarifying picture, thank you! Shall we include it on the explanation page? It belongs there IMO [[User:Flekkie|Flekkie]] ([[User talk:Flekkie|talk]]) 22:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
: Is this right though? Based off the image Mercury is in front of Saturn. For this to happen, Mercury has to be closer distance wise, so Saturn has to be on the opposite side of the sun. But that can't be true if Saturn is in front of Jupiter and behind Uranus/Neptune?

I don't like the current explanation, since the planets never line up like this. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.40|162.158.203.40]] 07:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This is truly one of the comics of all time. AzureArmageddon 08:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

667: SkiFree

2023-03-01T12:53:21Z

AzureArmageddon: /* Explanation */ grammar

{{comic
| number = 667
| date = November 25, 2009
| title = SkiFree
| image = skifree.png
| titletext = And from that day on, I wore this little 'F' key pendant everywhere I went.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|SkiFree}}'' is a video game released in 1991 which enjoyed popularity on the desktop computers of the time. In the game, you're a downhill skier who attempts to ski down a hill while avoiding obstacles which cause you to crash (which slows you down). At the start of the game, you can choose to go down three different timed/scored courses, or ignore them all and ski freely. Beyond the end of the courses you can continue skiing downhill. You can also move (slowly) uphill and sideways.

If you ski too far down the hill a monster similar to one in the comic will begin to chase you; contact with the monster ends the game. Since it's much faster than you normally, you'll get caught. The monster also appears if you travel too far in the sideways or upwards directions.

One of the lesser known commands in SkiFree is the 'F' key, which speeds you up, even faster than the monster. A second monster appears slightly further down the hill but by skiing downhill diagonally with the F key it is possible to evade both.

The joke here is that [[Megan]] has thought long and hard about the concept of the monster, relating it to the inevitability of death, and is nonplussed by the revelation that there is a simple mechanism that may allow her to escape it, thus ruining the poetic metaphor.

The title text refers to pendants or talismans that are worn to protect oneself from harm or to remind oneself of an important truth. Megan, seeing that the F key allowed her to evade inevitable death in the game, comes to believe that the F key confers some sort of immortality.
Alternatively, it may be symbolic as the monster in SkiFree seemed insurmountable (just like death) but might have a discovery in the future (the 'F' key) that can overcome it.

An additional layer of anachronistic humour may be found for the future reader due to the significance of the 'F' key here differing from in a [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/press-f-to-pay-respects more recent meme] the reader may be familiar with where the 'F' key represents mourning instead of an easy escape from death as seen here.

==Transcript==
:[A screenshot of SkiFree, with the abominable snowman running towards the player.]

:[Megan is sitting at her computer with her hands on the keyboard and thinking to herself:]
:Megan (thought bubble): I've always thought of the SkiFree monster as a metaphor for the inevitability of death.

:[Cueball comes up behind her in a frameless panel.]
:Cueball: SkiFree, huh? You know, you can press "F" to go faster than the monster and escape.

:[The screenshot again. The player is zooming away from the monster.]

:[Megan sits at her computer in silence, with her hands now down to to her side.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Video games]]

667: SkiFree

2023-03-01T12:52:30Z

AzureArmageddon: rephrase last paragraph

{{comic
| number = 667
| date = November 25, 2009
| title = SkiFree
| image = skifree.png
| titletext = And from that day on, I wore this little 'F' key pendant everywhere I went.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|SkiFree}}'' is a video game released in 1991 which enjoyed popularity on the desktop computers of the time. In the game, you're a downhill skier who attempts to ski down a hill while avoiding obstacles which cause you to crash (which slows you down). At the start of the game, you can choose to go down three different timed/scored courses, or ignore them all and ski freely. Beyond the end of the courses you can continue skiing downhill. You can also move (slowly) uphill and sideways.

If you ski too far down the hill a monster similar to one in the comic will begin to chase you; contact with the monster ends the game. Since it's much faster than you normally, you'll get caught. The monster also appears if you travel too far in the sideways or upwards directions.

One of the lesser known commands in SkiFree is the 'F' key, which speeds you up, even faster than the monster. A second monster appears slightly further down the hill but by skiing downhill diagonally with the F key it is possible to evade both.

The joke here is that [[Megan]] has thought long and hard about the concept of the monster, relating it to the inevitability of death, and is nonplussed by the revelation that there is a simple mechanism that may allow her to escape it, thus ruining the poetic metaphor.

The title text refers to pendants or talismans that are worn to protect oneself from harm or to remind oneself of an important truth. Megan, seeing that the F key allowed her to evade inevitable death in the game, comes to believe that the F key confers some sort of immortality.
Alternatively, it may be symbolic as the monster in SkiFree seemed insurmountable (just like death) but might have a discovery in the future (the 'F' key) that can overcome it.

An additional layer of anachronistic humour may be found for the future reader due to the significance of the 'F' key here differing from a [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/press-f-to-pay-respects more recent meme] the reader may be familiar with where the 'F' key represents mourning instead of an easy escape from death as seen here.

==Transcript==
:[A screenshot of SkiFree, with the abominable snowman running towards the player.]

:[Megan is sitting at her computer with her hands on the keyboard and thinking to herself:]
:Megan (thought bubble): I've always thought of the SkiFree monster as a metaphor for the inevitability of death.

:[Cueball comes up behind her in a frameless panel.]
:Cueball: SkiFree, huh? You know, you can press "F" to go faster than the monster and escape.

:[The screenshot again. The player is zooming away from the monster.]

:[Megan sits at her computer in silence, with her hands now down to to her side.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Video games]]

667: SkiFree

2023-03-01T12:51:15Z

AzureArmageddon: +Press f to pay respects

{{comic
| number = 667
| date = November 25, 2009
| title = SkiFree
| image = skifree.png
| titletext = And from that day on, I wore this little 'F' key pendant everywhere I went.
}}

==Explanation==
''{{w|SkiFree}}'' is a video game released in 1991 which enjoyed popularity on the desktop computers of the time. In the game, you're a downhill skier who attempts to ski down a hill while avoiding obstacles which cause you to crash (which slows you down). At the start of the game, you can choose to go down three different timed/scored courses, or ignore them all and ski freely. Beyond the end of the courses you can continue skiing downhill. You can also move (slowly) uphill and sideways.

If you ski too far down the hill a monster similar to one in the comic will begin to chase you; contact with the monster ends the game. Since it's much faster than you normally, you'll get caught. The monster also appears if you travel too far in the sideways or upwards directions.

One of the lesser known commands in SkiFree is the 'F' key, which speeds you up, even faster than the monster. A second monster appears slightly further down the hill but by skiing downhill diagonally with the F key it is possible to evade both.

The joke here is that [[Megan]] has thought long and hard about the concept of the monster, relating it to the inevitability of death, and is nonplussed by the revelation that there is a simple mechanism that may allow her to escape it, thus ruining the poetic metaphor.

The title text refers to pendants or talismans that are worn to protect oneself from harm or to remind oneself of an important truth. Megan, seeing that the F key allowed her to evade inevitable death in the game, comes to believe that the F key confers some sort of immortality.
Alternatively, it may be symbolic as the monster in SkiFree seemed insurmountable (just like death) but might have a discovery in the future (the 'F' key) that can overcome it.

An additional layer of retrospective humour may be found for the anachronistic reader from the different significance of the 'F' key from a [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/press-f-to-pay-respects more recent meme] the reader may be familiar with where the 'F' key represents mourning instead of an easy escape from death as seen here.

==Transcript==
:[A screenshot of SkiFree, with the abominable snowman running towards the player.]

:[Megan is sitting at her computer with her hands on the keyboard and thinking to herself:]
:Megan (thought bubble): I've always thought of the SkiFree monster as a metaphor for the inevitability of death.

:[Cueball comes up behind her in a frameless panel.]
:Cueball: SkiFree, huh? You know, you can press "F" to go faster than the monster and escape.

:[The screenshot again. The player is zooming away from the monster.]

:[Megan sits at her computer in silence, with her hands now down to to her side.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Video games]]

1835: Random Obsessions

2023-01-28T17:37:38Z

AzureArmageddon: remove extra blank line

{{comic
| number = 1835
| date = May 10, 2017
| title = Random Obsessions
| image = random obsessions.png
| titletext = I take the view that "open-faced sandwiches" are not sandwiches, but all other physical objects are.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic is formatted as a graph showing various Internet trends over the years according to [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=robot%20monkeys,pirates%20vs%20ninjas,zombies,bacon,definition%20of%20sandwich Google Trends]. The caption states that these "random obsessions," as stated in the title, have 9-10 year cycles, and so predicts that the sandwich debate will be over by around 2024.

Discussions about the definition of "sandwich" are surprisingly common on the web, such as "Is hot dog a sandwich?" (See this [https://www.reddit.com/r/Sandwiches/comments/6587ub/what_is_a_sandwich_debate/ discussion] on Reddit)

The title text is a joke based on the debate over the definition of a sandwich. The speaker, presumably [[Randall]], starts out with the fairly reasonable stance that open-faced sandwiches are not true sandwiches, but then veers off into the absurd by claiming that literally every other physical object in the universe ''is'' a sandwich. We can only hope that Randall does not extend this view to {{w|Cannibalism|human beings}}. (On the other hand, Randall may simply be defining a sandwich in an unusual way without implying that all other items are edible, or that all objects "sandwiched" between two of the same thing (such as air, vacuum, laptops, or slices of bread) constitute a "sandwiched item" which is not necessarily edible. Such strange definitions have been seen before, in the title text of [[1405: Meteor]].)

The other obsessions mentioned are, in order: robot monkeys, pirates vs ninjas, zombies, and bacon.

"Robot Monkeys" likely refers to people being obsessed with a movie or robots of some kind. It may specifically refer to the American/Japanese animated TV series, {{w|Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!}}, which aired from September 18, 2004 to December 16, 2006. It is possible that, based on this, that the trend curve does not actually begin in 2001, but does actually begin in 2004 as shown.

"Pirates vs Ninjas" refers to a longstanding internet meme, popular in roughly the years shown on the chart, that held that ninjas and Caribbean pirates were arch-enemies.

"Zombies" refers to the recent occurrence of zombie themed television shows (The Walking Dead) and movies (World War Z etc).

Though the trend is dying out, as seen by the fact the graph is past the peak, there has been an explosion in bacon flavored/scented products as well as items of clothing and decor that look like bacon. The YouTube channel Epic Meal Time was also part of the bacon fad, as adding large quantities of bacon to the meal being prepared was one of the running gags of the channel.

==Transcript==
:[The comic shows curves plotted in an (x,y)-plane. The x-axis shows years from 2004 to 2017, with every even year labeled. The y-axis is labeled "popularity relative to peak (based on google trends)". There are five vaguely bell-shaped curves, each stretching over 9-10 years. It is implied that they rise from a value close to zero, to which they also return.]

:The curve labeled "robot monkeys" peaks in early 2005 and ends near the x-axis in late 2011.
:The curve labeled "pirates vs ninjas" peaks in late 2008 and ends in late 2014.
:[The remaining three curves all end in mid 2017, the comic release date. ]
:The curve labeled "zombies" starts in late 2007 and peaks in early 2013. By 2017 it has fallen to about 30% of its peak value.
:The curve labeled "bacon" starts in late 2009 and peaks in mid-2015. By 2017 it shows a value of about 90% of its peak value.
:The curve labeled "definition of a sandwich" starts in late 2013 and in 2017 it has reached approximately half its peak value.

:[Text below the panel:]
:Judging from Google Trends, these random semi-ironic obsessions seem to last about nine or ten years, so we should be done with the sandwich thing by 2024.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Zombies]]

2730: Code Lifespan

2023-01-28T17:33:35Z

AzureArmageddon: Rephrase, reformat for clarity

{{comic
| number = 2730
| date = January 27, 2023
| title = Code Lifespan
| image = code_lifespan_2x.png
| imagesize = 377x307px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Surely (no one/everyone) will (recognize how flexible and useful this architecture is/spend a huge amount of effort painstakingly preserving and updating this garbage I wrote in 20 minutes)
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT PROGRAMMED 50 YEARS AGO. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic contrasts two scenarios involving [[Ponytail]] writing a computer program: in the first panel, she has taken great care to future-proof her code, while in the second, she decides not to under the assumption it will soon be deprecated and/or replaced. The captions below each panels note that, ironically, code written with future-proofing in mind will often quickly cease to be used — defeating the purpose of future-proofing — while the code that was not will often be used much longer than the original programmer(s) intended.

The second panel is an allusion to the {{w|Year 2000 problem}}, although it is important to note that the problem was not simply due to developers not thinking ahead but also because the developers were working with extremely limited computer resources at the time, promoting the use of 2-digit years.

The title text is a modular sentence with two parentheticals, each containing two alternative phrases. This allows for four permutations of the sentence, each of which may be said by programmers. The following two permutations may be the hoped-for ideals of software developers:

* "Surely everyone will recognize how flexible and useful this architecture is."
* "Surely no one will spend a huge amount of effort painstakingly preserving and updating this garbage I wrote in 20 minutes."

However, reality often falls short of such hopes, in that insufficient numbers of people recognize code intended for re-use, and far more people than intended will attempt to maintain and adapt sloppy work. The latter sometimes happens because the corner-cutting peculiarities of hasty work are often seen as far deeper necessities than they actually are. The remaining two permutations of the title text sentence express this far less hopeful outlook:

* "Surely no one will recognize how flexible and useful this architecture is."
* "Surely everyone will spend a huge amount of effort painstakingly preserving and updating this garbage I wrote in 20 minutes."

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

:[Two situations are depicted between Ponytail and Cueball.]

:[Ponytail standing next to Cueball, with her palm raised.]
:Ponytail: It took some extra work to build, but now we'll be able to use it for all our future projects.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to ensure your code is never reused

:[Nearly identical situation to the first, but with the arm raised slightly less emphatically.]
:Ponytail: Let's not overthink it; if this code is still in use '''''that''''' far in the future, we'll have bigger problems.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:How to ensure your code lives forever

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Programming]]

1835: Random Obsessions

2022-06-05T08:08:23Z

AzureArmageddon: /* +Additional Interpretation of title text. */