explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1277: Ayn Random

2022-06-08T07:22:12Z

MigB: Pun detected

I think that should be /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i.

[[Special:Contributions/173.66.108.213|173.66.108.213]] 05:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was confused for a while about what the b's were doing.

[[Special:Contributions/99.126.178.56|99.126.178.56]] 06:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to have an Ayn Rand category? --[[Special:Contributions/141.89.226.146|141.89.226.146]] 07:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to the mathematically challenged *how* the list of names fits the regular expression? [[Special:Contributions/141.2.75.23|141.2.75.23]] 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: Agreed, I would like to understand what the hell is going on with that. --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: How specific do you want it? Basically it matches two words consisting of the letters plurandy. The list of names is just a random selection of two part names that only consists of these letters. More specifically it matches: Two groups ({2}), each consisting of a word boundary (\b), followed by a non-empty sequence of the letters plurandy ([plurandy]+), followed by a word boundary (\b), finally followed by an optional space ( ?). [[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Also, the /'s on the end delimit the regex proper, and the `i` on the end denotes case insensitivity. --[[Special:Contributions/75.66.178.177|75.66.178.177]] 09:39, 14 October
2013 (UTC)
:::In the explanation of how the regex works after the explanation "'''the {2} on the end means to repeat the pattern, so it must match exactly twice'''" I think you need an explanation of how the optional space in the middle interacts with the word boundaries. I.e.
::::(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}
:::Expanding:
::::\b[plurandy]+\b ?\b[plurandy]+\b ?
:::Now the optional space at the end is redundant, and the space in the center is not optional, since if there is no space the word boundaries do not exist. If the space is present the word boundaries are redundent because letter space letter sequence always matches them.
::::\b[plurandy]+ [plurandy]+\b ?
:::And this now closely matches the text description "'''Overall, it matches two words separated by a space, composed entirely of the letters in [plurandy], which is what all the names listed have in common.'''" --[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:Some examples
:* "Ru Paul" would match, because it is two sequences, each containing only capital or lowercase versions of the listed letters.
:* "Randall Flagg" would not match, because the letters F and G are not in the bracketed list.
:* "Aura Anaya Adlar" would not match; even though the letters are all in the list, there are more than two sequences.
:Hope this helps!
:[[User:Swartzer|Swartzer]] ([[User talk:Swartzer|talk]]) 20:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/209.132.186.34|209.132.186.34]] 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think Randal would make such mistake, he would probably use \< \> anyway... unless, he wants us
to think he did mistake, or that backslash was eliminated in html/javascript... thus poining ut to
source code of the page... is there something interesting?
: I skimmed over the source and didn't see anything unusual. The '\'s are absent from the source too. I think it's just that Randall (or a tool he's using) was so affraid of [[327|Bobby Tables]] that he stripped all backslashes from the alt text. {{unsigned|Jahvascriptmaniac}}
::The title text at xkcd.com now has the missing backslashes. Do you normally update the comic here to reflect updates?--[[Special:Contributions/108.17.2.71|108.17.2.71]] 16:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Already updated. You were saying?
::::Hmm, backslashes are still missing for me when viewing the original at xkcd.com (viewing in Chrome) [[User:Brion|Brion]] ([[User talk:Brion|talk]]) 02:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me where "In their view, if some humans are born more capable of satisfying their desires than other people, they deserve to reap greater rewards from life than others" comes from? I'm somewhat familiar with objectivist philosophy and I've never heard this put forward as an actual principle. [[Special:Contributions/50.90.39.56|50.90.39.56]] 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues.{{unsigned ip|37.221.160.203}}
:In fact, this is an imprecise and, therefore, incorrect statement of Objectivist philosophy. A correct and more complete statement can be found under the entry for "Selfishness" in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.8|108.162.237.8]] 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Most people would write the regexp as /(\b[adlnpruy]+\b ?){2}/i. Using "plurandy" makes it look like a word, which is more confusing than using the letters' natural order. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it be better to identify Alan Alda not for his role as Hawkeye Pierce in MASH, but for his role in The West Wing as Arnold Vinick, a fiscally-conservative Republican presidential candidate? [[Special:Contributions/193.67.17.36|193.67.17.36]] 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

:Depends, are we trying to remind him to general audience (I think MASH is more known) or find out why he was included in list? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is probably an additional joke or three in that the regex is the minimum needed to capture the first three names together (hinted at by "plurandy" eg plural rand) , but also captures the others. on top of which all of the listed people are considered "intrinsically better" (by virtue of fame if nothing else)[[Special:Contributions/74.213.201.51|74.213.201.51]] 03:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Alan Ladd may have been a founding member of the Secret Council of /(\b[plurandy]+\b ?){2}/i. [[Special:Contributions/71.190.237.117|71.190.237.117]] 07:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably obvious to most programmers, but is it worth pointing out that part of the pun is that the random number generator function is called rand() in most C-family languages? [[Special:Contributions/130.60.156.183|130.60.156.183]] 14:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Another member of this secret society is Randall P [[Special:Contributions/79.182.178.53|79.182.178.53]] 16:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

From above: "Objectivism is the target for much scorn and ridicule in the intellectual world, for its being an inconsistent philosophy that has the sole objective of justifying selfishness and elevating it towards moral righteousness. It's used as the basis for libertarian thought and other radical capitalist economical theories and political stances which promote shameless exploitation (and this attracts further hatred). Randall is no exception to this trend of detractors, and I'd say rightfully so. Ayn Rand's writings are particularly awful, both aesthetically and content-wise, yet in the US a relatively large group of philosophers still adhere to her maxims and the debate continues." OK, but a few comments: All philosophies are inconsistent when looked at closely enough, refer Godel and others. Others do not see the inconsistency in Objectivism quite so plainly as in the quoted comment. Ayn Rand and Objectivism are not "the" basis of libertarian thought, there are far more highly thought of libertarian thinkers, a list of whom should come readily to mind to any of those occupying "the intellectual world" (sic), whether or not they have sympathy with libertarian ideas. It is also unfair to characterise Objectivism as having as its "sole" objective that as stated. Further, as a general principle, one ought not to take someone poking fun at a concept as *proof* that they are quite as opposed to it as you are. Now, whereas I would not categorise myself quite as a fellow traveller, a much fairer view of Objectivism is found at WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) [[Special:Contributions/81.135.136.159|81.135.136.159]] 11:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Other philosophies are no more consistent, agreed. But other philosophies do not claim perfect "objective" consistency as their fundamental principle. Attacking Objectivism/Objectivists for lack of internal consistency--or for not recognizing that at some, very fundamental, level it is all stacked on top of some assumptions (just like every other philosophy, and even the scientific method)--is the equivalent of attacking Christianity/Christians for lacking compassion and forgiveness. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 14:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

:Poking fun can indeed fall into the categories of self-irony or goodwill, but in this case Randall quite explicitly accuses the recipient of bias, making his disapproval pretty unequivocal. [[Special:Contributions/199.48.147.40|199.48.147.40]] 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a line about the rational numbers joke; it's definitely there, though I'm not sure if Randall intended it (probably did?). {{unsigned ip|76.124.119.161}}
:Don't think it makes much sense, because a random number generator algorithm of any kind couldn't possibly generate irrational numbers in finite time. [[Special:Contributions/77.244.254.228|77.244.254.228]] 16:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
: It does make sense, mathematically speaking a random number chosen in any open interval is irrational with probability 1, and yet any open interval contains rational numbers that could, in principal, be chosen due to density of the rationals. The joke is brilliant, if intended. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::Yes but, at that point, all random number generators are biased and not just the Ayn Random number generator. Also, the bias towards rational numbers doesn't seem to be there when your pool of numbers is just the rationals. The whole idea behind the joke seems to be more like Ayn Rand's assumptions of objectivity ending up favoring certain social groups. I dunno, it just seems forced to me. [[Special:Contributions/220.117.150.36|220.117.150.36]] 19:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Considering real numbers are well-understood mathematically this seems like a shortcoming of implementation, which isn't that interesting... the concept is there. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: The whole idea behind random number generation bias is the bugs they can create within software implementation (for example, weakening cryptography). An hypothetically generated irrational number would have to be truncated at some decimal place (thus making it rational) for it to be usable. Here it's a programming joke, not a math one. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 22:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
::::: ...unless interpreted as a math joke. I agree that the joke admits programming interpretation, but I'd never try to exclude other interpretations as well. The math interpretation is valid since one can choose not to get muddled in implementation and to instead envision a hypothetical random number generator not bound by truncation. Randall's comics certainly admit this kind of whimsy. [[Special:Contributions/76.124.119.161|76.124.119.161]] 23:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::: Well, it says "This Ayn Random number generator you wrote" so I'd take it at face value, but that's just me. [[Special:Contributions/95.229.229.31|95.229.229.31]] 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And somehow, no one's mentioned the classic cartoon ''[[221]]:Random Number'', which presents a random number generator which is heavily biased towards one number. [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the joke here not along the lines that Ayn Rand's politics, and that of Libertarianism, claim that they are fair and that they treat everyone equally - in that, supposedly, anyone can get what they want and be successful if they work hard - but the reality is that some people will fare better than others due to having certain advantages such as having been born into wealth, knowing the right people, one might even suggest that being white, middle class and male are advantageous. In a random number generator you would expect any number to be as likely to come up as any other. Similarly, Rand supporters would argue that under Objectivism, any person is by default as able to be successful as any other. The fact that some people succeed and others fail is explained as some people being inherently more able to succeed, rather than any bias in the system itself - hence she divides people into 'looters' and 'moochers'; there's also that scene I always remember in Dirty Dancing where the guy chucks a copy of The Fountainhead in Baby's direction and says 'some people count, some people don't'. Randall is mocking the idea of a system that is supposedly inherently fair and yet biases certain classes of people, with the idea of a 'random' number generator that is biased towards certain numbers not because of a problem with the system but because some numbers are supposedly 'inherently better'.[[Special:Contributions/213.86.4.78|213.86.4.78]] 15:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding rational numbers, p and q are allowed to have a common factor. 3/3 is still rational, just not reduced. Every rational number has an irreducible representation, but it doesn't have to be reduced to be part of the set of rationals. Also, since the definition is otherwise very specific, it could mention that q cannot be 0, which I don't think is mentioned. While that's a neat observation, I agree with the guy above that pointed out that no implementation of a random number generator produces irrational numbers. It isn't simply that the random number generator has to truncate the number, but you cannot fit infinite digits which neither terminate or repeat in a physical computer's finite memory. The random number generator would have to return symbolic results like "sqrt 2" or "e" instead of numerical values, but not returning actual numbers makes the idea of it being a random 'number' generator debatable. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.197}}

All numbers are random, but some numbers are more random than others. [[User:Jorgbrown|Jorgbrown]] ([[User talk:Jorgbrown|talk]]) 23:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
:Goddammit Jorgbrown, I was going to say that! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.89|108.162.237.89]] 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Computers don't store any "thing", they store a representation. Therefore, a computer can reference any "thing", because representation "sets" can be swapped out. At any given moment, if the user is aware, "1" could mean a purple flying dog. At any other given moment, "1" could mean a swimming cactus. Therefore, the number of "things" that computers can store representations for is unlimited, even if the "set" of representations it can store at any given time is limited. In our specific example, the computer can store a representation of an irrational number by collapsing the number into a recursive or incremental method of reproducing the number. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.114|108.162.216.114]] 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:"Although a computer could encode irrationals or generate them randomly if it uses another representation" - however even that is not enough. Whatever format you chooses you can only specify only definable numbers because other are... well cannot be defined. Whatever language you choose as long as you require the description to be finite you can cover only countable many of numbers. To cover all reals - including not only π or e but all of them - you need to have capability of storing infinitely large amount of memory. Similarly incremental method will give you only computable set. Either way you miss significantly large amount of numbers (ℶ₁ vs ℶ₀). This is ignoring that we cannot draw a number from natural numbers with equal probability (we would expect P(3|X) = 1/3 and P(¬3|X) = 2/3 but both sets are equal so we would expect P(3|X) = P(¬3|X)...). That's why we get random numbers for the finite set and normalize according to need. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.227|172.68.142.227]] 07:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So nobody noticed how "this ain't random" seems to be the first thing Cueball says? I think the pun "this Ayn/ain't random" is a big part of the joke. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 07:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1101: Sketchiness

2022-04-25T12:33:58Z

MigB:

The last four (crate, chute, ravine, tarp) imply the other person will be killed before/during/after sex and the body will be left in the sex (blank). [[Special:Contributions/206.39.12.245|206.39.12.245]] 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Pat

:If a woman is the speaker in this comic, the word sex ravine, chute, ... get the meaning of sexual organs --[[User:Sebastian|Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Sebastian|talk]]) 20:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually read the "AREA" as "ARENA" the first time, and thought that was a better fit. --[[User:Medotcom|Medotcom]] ([[User talk:Medotcom|talk]]) 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Could the last word "tarp" also be a reference to the trap/tarp meme [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-a-trap "It's a tarp!"]? --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 18:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

BDSM is more than just "leather and handcuffs". The acronym expands to Bondage and Discipline, Domination and Submission, and Sado-Masochism. Kink can encompass anything beyond straight-vanilla sex, though the most common connotations usually involve power dynamics and pain as pleasure. [[Special:Contributions/99.36.161.182|99.36.161.182]] 16:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

:It's enough to give people a general idea of what to imagine when they hear BDSM and just want a fast image to think of. Yes, there's more to it, and there's more to a "sex dungeon" than just BDSM as far as I know. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.179}}

Where does "lounge" fit on this scale? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.104|173.245.52.104]] 06:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be remiss if I did not suggest "tuplet" and "tant". Too bad "tant" doesn't have an English definition... [[User:Nyperold|Nyperold]] ([[User talk:Nyperold|talk]]) 22:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't a sex extractor be known as a 'sextractor'? - thejohnfan {{unsigned|Thejohnfan}}

Maybe the extractor physically extracts the sex organ(s) - remove them from the body. Possibly to sell them on the human organ black marked afterward. That would be kind of scetchy... [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1101: Sketchiness

2022-04-25T12:32:46Z

MigB: physically extracting

The last four (crate, chute, ravine, tarp) imply the other person will be killed before/during/after sex and the body will be left in the sex (blank). [[Special:Contributions/206.39.12.245|206.39.12.245]] 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Pat

:If a woman is the speaker in this comic, the word sex ravine, chute, ... get the meaning of sexual organs --[[User:Sebastian|Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Sebastian|talk]]) 20:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually read the "AREA" as "ARENA" the first time, and thought that was a better fit. --[[User:Medotcom|Medotcom]] ([[User talk:Medotcom|talk]]) 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Could the last word "tarp" also be a reference to the trap/tarp meme [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/its-a-trap "It's a tarp!"]? --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 18:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

BDSM is more than just "leather and handcuffs". The acronym expands to Bondage and Discipline, Domination and Submission, and Sado-Masochism. Kink can encompass anything beyond straight-vanilla sex, though the most common connotations usually involve power dynamics and pain as pleasure. [[Special:Contributions/99.36.161.182|99.36.161.182]] 16:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

:It's enough to give people a general idea of what to imagine when they hear BDSM and just want a fast image to think of. Yes, there's more to it, and there's more to a "sex dungeon" than just BDSM as far as I know. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.179}}

Where does "lounge" fit on this scale? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.104|173.245.52.104]] 06:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be remiss if I did not suggest "tuplet" and "tant". Too bad "tant" doesn't have an English definition... [[User:Nyperold|Nyperold]] ([[User talk:Nyperold|talk]]) 22:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't a sex extractor be known as a 'sextractor'? - thejohnfan {{unsigned|Thejohnfan}}

Maybe the extractor physically extracts the sex organ(s). That would be kind of scetchy... [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2505: News Story Reaction

2022-04-08T07:07:26Z

MigB:

It's worth mentioning that unless we're talking an industrial shredder, the Mona Lisa can't be, since unlike most stereotypical paintings, it's actually on glued together pieces of wood and not on Canvas.

Not to say that it wouldn't be damaged heavily by a band of wild rabid dogs, but not "shredded".

Why yes, I am using my art degree, why do you ask?

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.5|108.162.245.5]] 19:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Steve

: Nothing in the original says the dogs are rabid. Mind you, I would expect rabid dogs to go directly after people, not inanimate paintings. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 22:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
:: Our dog shredded our front door once when left alone during a thunderstorm or such. There was even blood left on the broken shards of wood :-(. But I don't think Randall knew that the Mona Lisa was on wood. [[User:Baffo32|Baffo32]] ([[User talk:Baffo32|talk]]) 00:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

:Re “glued together pieces of wood” — No art degree here, but I thought the “Louvre” Mona Lisa was done on a single poplar panel (with later bracing and butterfly inserts on the reverse); I know warping and cracking have been concerns. If it is glued (I assume edge-to-edge), I wonder why? Wide panels would have been quite common then, and the only glues available would have been hide glue, or perhaps fish glue. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 14:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an art degree but knew that the painting was on wood. Also, it's "J.C. Penney". I'm guessing Randall was in a hurry on this one.

Pete 19:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It make much more sense if the wild dogs didn't get in there by coincidence. Making it about himself would be acceptable if he was the indirect cause of the situation. Revenge successful? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.55|172.69.71.55]] 22:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Just checking - I'm not the only one who saw this and immediately googled to see if it was an actual news story, am I? I'm so not plugged into the news that I could honestly have believed that I missed it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.239|172.70.130.239]] 22:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
:I also cannot find anything about this. As mentioned above, the painting also cannot really be shredded, as it is on wood, rather than canvas. Edit: Can be shredded, but not really by a pack of dogs. [[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 23:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Uhh, WHAT? Wood can't be shredded?? Huh/ Tha's news to me . . . . [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.198|162.158.74.198]] 00:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it would be THAT big loss for humanity. Sure, the original has some emotional value, but I'm sure we have plenty of backup copies. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 06:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Any fule know the Jagaroth made Da Vinci paint six versions and the one in the Louvre is one of the five with Fake written on the back in felt tip by the Doctor. 08:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a coincidence, and if it's worth mentioning, but the Mona Lisa was stolen on 21 August 1911, almost exactly 90 years before the publication of this comic. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.186|141.101.69.186]] 07:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure that 2021 - 1911 equals 110 years instead of 90. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.158|162.158.183.158]] 09:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So, the most likely news story this is referring to is the Notre Dame burning down, and then, people uploading photos of them posing in front of it in the past, and then acting as though this was a personal loss for them. Dunno why it's only being made into a comic ''now'', though. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.203.22|162.158.203.22]] 13:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
:While they're similar in being about historic items in Paris being damaged, that seems like a pretty tenuous link, especially since that was almost 2.5 years ago. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 16:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's just a coincedence, but popular Youtube comedian Ryan George made a video with almost the same subject matter just a few days ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv69kcMcavg

Shouldn't we make a new 'list of all comics' page? It's another 500, but 2501 to 2505 are using the same page as 2001 to 2500. --[[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

:Glad to see that that has been done. [[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 23:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd tend to remove the very first paragraph of the current explanation. Doesn't make any sense in my opinion. Like, at all. I'm saying this with the authority of a nineties kid (I'm actually only a few days older than Randall). [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
: The new wording is even worse. I removed it. You may add it again if you can provide any evidence for this. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
:: And as it was added again I removed it again. Until you can provide any evidence for this - I'm open to facts - I consider this just as some generalized prejudice. Maybe I and all people of my age I know are the exception... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Rabid dogs can go after objects, too - haven't you ever read/seen Cujo when he goes after the telephone?? Hmmm?!!

Does anyone else think this is a stab at reporters that use the personal angle a bit too much? I doubt the Notre Dame story other people mentioned is the only example of reporters trying a bit too hard to make stories personal/relatable. This seems more like a general trend (to use personal angle) that often go overboard, more than a one-off. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 07:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1184: Circumference Formula

2021-12-07T09:04:45Z

MigB:

Tau x Radius, superscript 2
:Since tau is more commonly used for the Golden Ratio, that's a silly idea. [[Special:Contributions/121.74.169.237|121.74.169.237]] 11:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
::You may be confusing tau with phi. I've never seen the golden ratio represented by anything other than phi. I've also never seen tau representing anything other than 2pi. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.7|108.162.219.7]] 19:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|‎74.215.40.250}}
::It's 2''πr''2, '''not''' ''τr''2. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You're missing the point. ''τ'' == 2''π'' and is considered better than using ''π'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Ok so τ might make more sense than π but as comic [[1179]] pointed out, both pi-day and tau-day are wrong. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 13:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

::I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::: Surface area of a sphere is 2τr^2, or if you want to get pi in there ''π''d^2 {{unsigned ip|108.162.218.101}}

:::RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Ok, that works [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Why not just e^(tau*i) = 1. Do you routinely do 2 + 2 - 4 = 0?[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Because:
:::::* Symmetry wrt the original Euler's Identity (e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0)
:::::* According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity#Mathematical_beauty, "in algebra and other areas of mathematics, equations are commonly written with zero on one side of the equals sign."
:::::--[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think Euler only did that because he disliked negative numbers. It really is less a deal than people make of it.[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Also, it uses the five most important constants in mathematics: ''e'', ''π'' (or ''τ''), ''i'', 1, and 0. [[User:Curtmack|Curtmack]] ([[User talk:Curtmack|talk]]) 20:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
::::The tau variant of Euler's identity above, ''e^(tau*i)=1'', appears to miss the point. Normally, a positivt number to the power of any real number is positive. Thus ''i'' could be any normal number. Well, not any number. ''i'' could be 0 and the equation will hold. With pi however, ''e^(pi*i)=-1'', ''i'' must be magical. /David A [[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.111|141.101.80.111]] 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
:::[http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto The tau manifesto] fairly well convinced me that all occurances of π in mathematics utimately trace back from the formula C = 2''πr''. If so, π naturally ''enter'' calculations as 2π. Can anyone find a counterexample to this thesis? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::How could there be a counter-example? I think it is true. In complex analysis, it really should be 2π, and thus Gaussian integrals. And then number theory applications. Even [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2589152?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101976916347 this] neat result really stems from trig identities, so it really is a result for 2π. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:From what I understand, the thesis from the tau-proponents is that 2*pi is the fundamental natural constant, and that virtually ''every time'' that pi shows up without the factor 2, there originally was a factor two that was cancelled out. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
:For everyone who suddenly started a debate about 2pi and tau: http://xkcd.com/1292/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.61|108.162.222.61]] 06:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).
<blockquote>
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.714 calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."
</blockquote>
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":
<blockquote>
For example every schoolboy knows what π stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of π into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a π got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while π was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:Another good one is π as a symbol for profit in financial discussions. -[[User:DrGaellon|DrGaellon]] ([[User talk:DrGaellon|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/DrGaellon|contribs]]) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

that is so wrong, i feel my mind corrupted now. -- [[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This explanation was hillarious -- where is the up-vote button ?? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

:+1 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, where's todays comic? How many times has Randal been late?[[Special:Contributions/70.199.225.225|70.199.225.225]] 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:Today's comic was posted just a few minutes ago. I'm anxiously awaiting its explanation as it picks on a programming language I'm not familiar with (possibly SQL). [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It uses pseudocode. The new one is about sorting algorithms in general, not any particular language. [[Special:Contributions/130.245.231.101|130.245.231.101]] 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but did no one see the "square the circle" gag...? --[[Special:Contributions/128.232.142.37|128.232.142.37]] 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) No one but you saw the square-the-circle gag, because it's not there. For it to be there, it would require this: (2πr)² [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This one threw me for a loop for the longest time because I learned to use πd to find circumference, not 2πr. Anyone else learn that way? (Knowing how my brain works, it is equally possible I taught myself to use πd as a shortcut, and was in fact taught 2πr by my teachers.) [[User:Boct1584|Boct1584]] ([[User talk:Boct1584|talk]]) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought the joke in the title text was that primes can refer to successive derivatives. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.150|108.162.221.150]] 05:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

: I support this. r' can be the derivative of r = angular speed, r" the double derivative of r = angular acceleration. The joke is that r' and r" are horrible notations, because they are already have two meanings, giving them yet another meaning beyond derivative and "r measured in different frame of reference" would add to the existing confusion. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 09:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but the 2nd sentence in the explanation has a grammar mistake. The sentence reads, "Randall then makes a footnote about r, using." In this case "²" is an indication for a footnote, isn't it ? {{unsigned ip|162.158.83.240}}

Talk:710: Collatz Conjecture

2021-04-13T11:41:55Z

MigB:

Technically, the 1 should lead to the four, causeing a loop. Because (1*3)+1=4, 4/2=2, 2/2=1 xD {{unsigned|‎87.242.215.66}}
:I'm pretty sure (follow the Wiki link, perhaps, although I haven't yet) there's an implicit "...eventually lead to one, then you can stop" for this process.
:And (again without checking the Wiki link), I suppose the conjecture could fail in one of two cases. Firstly if multiplying by three and adding one would take us to another odd number. Which cannot happen, because (odd*3) will be odd, so (odd*3)+1 is even. Which leads us to the possibility that the even number leads back to a prior odd number, to circle around again. There's no trivial case of (n*3)+1 => m, (m/2) => n, although there is the case of (n*3)+1 => m, (m/2) => o, (o/2) => n, for n=1. How, though, could we evaluate f1|2(xi) => xi+1 for all countably finite limits to i, given the rules of which f() function to use, to ensure that xi never equals x0. Now, ''that's'' a question and a half. Which I suspect has already been asked. And a half. [[Special:Contributions/31.111.50.225|31.111.50.225]] 21:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:: Wonderful! "Without checking the wiki link"... The guy from [[675: Revolutionary]] in real life![[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
::: It's pretty obvious the person you replied to has a head for mathematics. If you really think this is at all similar to the Goatee Guy from [[675: Revolutionary]], then you are sorely mistaken. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.84|172.68.59.84]] 13:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
:: It seems way too general to be much more than "asked," and I am sure that it has been addressed in its simpler forms. In any case, there is enough amateur, recreational, and serious mathematical literature on it to find out that there are indeed two failure cases: a starting Collatz number results in an infinitely increasing sequence, or a loop exists apart from the 4-2-1 loop. (Curiously enough, some loops exist when negative numbers are allowed.) Stuff like this and Goldbach made me realize just how hard simple things can get. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 03:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
:: A way to ask if the trajectory eventually reach 1 is to ask if the number is increasing or decreasing. If it is decreasing, it will eventually his a number already confirmed earlier to be on the trajectory. Whenever (n*3 + 1) is applied, the result is always even, and must be divided by two. But (n*3 + 1) / 2 > n. So the value will increase unless it hit a positive value more often than every other time. If it hit even 2 out of 3 times, the value decrease as (n*3 + 1) / (2*2) < n for all values of n > 1.
::The show can go on until it eventually hit a number m for which it is true that m = 2^x for some positive integer x. This value will take it all the way to the bottom. So the way the conjecture can be untrue is if some kind of loop exist, which either blow up the value towards infinity without ever hitting a 2^x number, or just forms a loop which bring it back to previous values. Again this can only be true if no 2^x number is ever reached. [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 11:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just for fun, here's 710's Collatz Trajectory.
0: 710
1: 355
2: 1066
3: 533
4: 1600
5: 800
6: 400
7: 200
8: 100
9: 50
10: 25
11: 76
12: 38
13: 19
14: 58
15: 29
16: 88
17: 44
18: 22
19: 11
20: 34
21: 17
22: 52
23: 26
24: 13
25: 40
26: 20
27: 10
28: 5
29: 16
30: 8
31: 4
32: 2
33: 1
[[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 09:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)