explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3223: Inflation Timeline

2026-03-24T03:44:03Z

Trimutius: Because thousand years is larger than fraction of a sedond, it makes more semse to use "at least" in this context

{{comic
| number = 3223
| date = March 23, 2026
| title = Inflation Timeline
| image = inflation_timeline_2x.png
| imagesize = 423x213px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Depending what corners of the internet you hang out on, 'regular' may at times awkwardly coexist with 'sexy.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by an INFLATIONARY BOT. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{w|Cosmic inflation}} is the theory that the very early universe briefly expanded at an enormous rate. This explains the "clumpiness" of the early universe, which is necessary to explain the formation of large-scale structures (e.g., galaxies, {{w|galaxy clusters}}, {{w|galaxy filaments}}, etc.) as the universe evolved. "Regular" {{w|inflation}} refers to the economic process in which the average price of goods and services increases over time. This is usually gradual, but can be very rapid during times of economic distress.

The comic puts both of these on the same timeline of the universe. Cosmic inflation occurs shortly (~10-35 s) after the {{w|Big Bang}}. Regular inflation occurs only during the time of human society after money started being used. Because of the logarithmic scale of the graph, the cosmic inflation period, which is only a tiny fraction of a second, looks much larger than regular inflation, which has existed for at least a few thousand years.

The title text refers to a third meaning, that of {{w|body inflation}} as a sexual fetish or kink, with no relationship to cosmology or economics.{{cn}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[Caption:] Timeline of Inflation
:[A log scale timeline marked by "Age of the Universe (Seconds)" at each factor of 1010, ranging from 10-40 to 1020. A bar labeled "Cosmic" begins off-panel to the left and continues up to roughly 10-32 seconds. A second, much thinner bar labeled "Regular" covers another period between roughly 1016 and 1018 seconds.]

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Timelines]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Sex]]

3220: Rotational Gravity

2026-03-17T11:32:44Z

Trimutius: Fixed g force for water loop, with citation.

{{comic
| number = 3220
| date = March 16, 2026
| title = Rotational Gravity
| image = rotational_gravity_2x.png
| imagesize = 303x325px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I don't get it. The peak acceleration for passengers was WAY lower than in the giant-waterslide-loop-the-loop incident the other cruise line fired me for.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by A DISMEMBERED WATERSLIDE TEST DUMMY. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
Low-gravity environments can cause humans and other animals to lose muscle mass, a serious problem for people staying for extended periods on the {{w|International Space Station}}.

[[Cueball]] at first appears to be describing his experience operating a spaceship, creating artificial gravity by rotating the ship so as to preserve the passengers' muscle mass.

However, the caption to the panel indicates that the "ship" Cueball was operating was a cruise ship, not a space ship. Since cruise ships that travel upon the seas and oceans of the Earth, experience the same gravity that they would experience at sea level on land, there is no need for "artificial gravity" aboard a cruise ship.

Furthermore, Cueball's rotation of the ship along its longitudinal axis would involve turning the ship upside down (and then right side up again). This would likely result in many people aboard drowning, as well as anything on the decks being lost that wasn't nailed down. Of course not if he did this with the angular speed required to create artificial gravity. But a cruise ship would not be build to withstand the stress imposed on it if it was rotated like this (at all, independent of the speed!)

The title text references the earlier comic [[2935: Ocean Loop]], where Cueball made an {{w|Action Park}}'s Cannonball Loop for Cruise ships. Such loops can subject riders to [https://www.wired.com/2012/04/g-forces-in-a-looping-water-slide/ over 10g] of acceleration. Cueball complains about being fired, and says he do not understand why. Since "The peak acceleration for passengers was WAY lower than in the giant-waterslide-loop-the-loop incident the other cruise line fired me for." This is thus the second comic where Cueball has been fired by a cruise line for his hazardous actions. In the first comic he similarly complains about the decision of the cruise line in the title text.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands facing Hairbun and White Hat. Hairbun has a "steaming" symbol above her head indicating anger, while White Hat is facepalming.]

:Cueball: I was able to produce artificial gravity by rotating the ship along its longitudinal axis, helping passengers maintain muscle mass on the long-duration voyage!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Well, the cruise line fired me.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-25T13:28:30Z

Trimutius:

I’ve found that when looking for an item, I’ll search harder and more thoroughly in the places where the item is supposed to be, which is just frustrating and usually unsuccessful.
Then I realized that if the item isn’t where it’s supposed to be, then it’s somewhere ''it isn’t supposed to be'' - so I start looking in those places. [[Special:Contributions/170.64.111.76|170.64.111.76]] 20:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
: So you look in the places where it's least supposed to be first - like the Gamma Quadrant? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::"I know that I didn't lose my car keys under this street light, but it's the only place I can see enough to search..." [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It also assumes exclusion of the middle. [[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:I think you're kind of right, but it's a weird situation. Disjunction elimination does not require LEM. I can imagine that we have established some list of ''n'' "possibilities" ''p''0, ''p''1, ..., ''p''''n''. What does it mean that these are the only possibilities? Naturally, it means ''p''0 ∨ ''p''1 ∨ · · · ∨ ''p''''n''. Now, if we eliminate all but the ''k''th possibility, that means we have ¬''p''0, ¬''p''1, ..., ¬''p''''k''-1, ¬''p''''k''+1, ..., ¬''p''''n''. By repeated use of disjunction elimination, this proves ''p''''k'' intuitionistically, so the ''k''th possibility ("whatever remains") is provable ("must be the truth"). The problem with this approach is proving the original disjunction. How did we show to begin with that one of those ''n'' possibilities must hold? To do that intuitionistically requires actually proving one of those statements to begin with. And since only one of them is true, we must have already proved ''p''''k'', rendering this argument pointless. Still, it technically is valid. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 14:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::I originally interpreted it as taking the collection of all (relevant?) propositions, excising the false ones, and deducing that anything that was not excised must be true. Effectively meaning that that if ¬p does not hold then p must hold, which is EM. I think your interpretation is incorrect because the comic does not require the collection of "whatever remains" to be nonempty, so we don't necessarily have the disjunction. [[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

These guys sure are some professors of logic (I'm not sure if they own any doghouses, is what I mean). [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 21:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

As and when the Explanation gets written (I imagine that someone's right in the middle of that now), it must be noted that Sherlock Holmes's self-proclaimed "Deductive reasoning" is really {{w|Abductive reasoning}}. (I actually blame Sir Arthur, rather than Sherlock (or 'narrator' Watson), for that error... But then he also believed in fairies, so obviously he's less than perfectly rational.) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:Well, nobody did do anything with it, in the last hour or so, so I scrawled something pretty basic for others to ruthlessly dismember and 'remember' in their own prefered fashion. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think its pretty nice how this comics number is a countdown from 3. [[User:Xkdvd|Xkdvd]] ([[User talk:Xkdvd|talk]]) 22:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, meant to say earlier... just today (well, the day just before the midnight just gone), I spent a few moments trying to help someone find a single glove. They'd looked various places, and I ''went out to look in the car'' (twice, actually, because first I just checked the 'normal' places, footwells, door-pockets... then realised I hadn't actually checked the glove-compartment itself (which I don't think I've ever used to store gloves, of course, but I'd have looked silly if I hadn't gone back and checked it once it had occured to me) so out I went again) in order to ''not'' find the glove. Cue, later, the revelation that it had been in a bag (in the house) all along. And this was all mere hours ''before'' Randall published this comic. So, as we all used to say on the now defunct Fora, "<abbr title="Get Out Of My Head, Randall">GOOMHR</abbr>!" [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It's also possible to miss an item in a space you've searched. For instance, as a 12- or 13-year-old I once concluded that something (I forget what it was) must not be in my room, because I'd partitioned the rectangular box defined by the walls, floor and ceiling and searched each of the partitions. It turned out to be outside that box but still inside my room, because it was on the windowsill. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually did find it in the car though.--[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75|2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75]] 02:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of this from Math Hysteria by Ian Stewart: 'As I have often stated, when you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable ... remains improbable,' said Holmes, deflated. 'There's probably something altogether different going on, and you've missed it. But don't quote me on that,' he warned. [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 09:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:I was going to get that actual book, before Christmas (after I'd decided what other book I was getting for someone else, when visiting a good bookshop with a nice selection of not-necessarily-new publications), as there's still just about space for it on my 'Pratchett-adjacent' bookshelves next to his (and specifically Jack Cohen's) other stuff. Which I'm a bit sorry now that I never got signed by them (both, where relevent) while I still could, the few times we had all crossed paths. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 14:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's not in the car, it's in the cdr. --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC|2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC]] 11:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Yeth. {{unsigned ip|174.130.97.11|14:10, 21 February 2026}}

To be fair, it is SHERLOCK HOLMES making the comment. He literally means when you have actually eliminated all other possibilities. And he was pedantic enough to be thorough about it. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Not at all; upon re-reading The Sign of the Four (his first use of the phrase) he most certainly has not eliminated all other possibilities in both his uses of the phrase. Hilariously, he then comments "I never guess" [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 22:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:: I am unsure how you make that claim. Holmes is quite pedantic in explaining the peculiarities of how he arrived at both deductions, and he is a stickler for details and minutiae of his environment — the guy studies tobacco remains to the point that he can tell you who’s buying it when he finds it someplace uncouth. Unless you suggest that Holmes should suppose Watson — a man bound by habit and practicalities — should act out of character and wander through the _peculiar reddish_ earth just to mess with Holmes, or in the second instance that we have knowledge of some _other_ method of entering that room that Doyle did not? ’Cause I don’t think that _abnormal_ behavior or circumstances qualifies as the normal possibilities being eliminated before considering the _improbable_. I will agree that Holmes was pretty full of himself, tho. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 1:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::: Holmes deduces that Watson had sent a telegraph because he had not seen Watson write a letter that morning and Watson had an adequate collection of stamps and postcards. What about the possibility then that Watson had written a letter the previous day, only to send in the morning? [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 02:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::One must also assume that someone would tread in that earth ''only'' upon entering the post office, as opposed to while passing by it, and that nobody kicked or dropped any of that earth elsewhere. That the stamps and postcards on view in the desk weren't purchased on that very trip. That Watson couldn't have bought stamps or postcards, e.g. in the mistaken belief that he'd run out. That there was no other possible reason to enter the post office, e.g. to make some inquiry. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yes, one assumes those things. You are applying modern-day logic to a different time and place, to people who knew the intimate details of each other’s lives in ways that we have long forgotten — Watson had no other place or time to write letters, whether that morning or some previous day Holmes would have plainly seen — as he points out to Watson (and to us) when making reference to the state of his desk. Watson would not be in the mistaken belief that he had run out of writing supplies — that is again a modern logic inapplicable to that time and, especially _to Watson_, whom I have already noted was not careless in his habits. And even today, when was the last time you went to the PO just to ask a question? You claim extraordinary possibilities are failures in Holmes’s logic about a creature of military routine. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 12:09, 22 February 2026
::::::I last went to a PO to make an inquiry a few months ago, when I wanted to know what the cost would be to ship a certain parcel to a certain destination. Then I brought it home without sending it, because I needed to clear up a few details before I did. Anyone can be mistaken about what they have on hand. "My constitution has not got over the Afghan campaign yet." When you object to "modern-day logic"... well, yes that's the whole point of this strip: the "logic" that Holmes applied doesn't stand up to scrutiny. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 15:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::It is ''improbable'' that those things could have happened, but it is not ''impossible'' - that's where Holmes' method falls down. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::: Holmes claims he has the power to deduce everything and clearly depends on Watsom to believe in him and to spread the word about him being as great as we as his readers want him to be.--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This comic exactly hits the spot: A guy who gets high on cocaine (at least before the Reichenbach falls incident) and hasn't slept for days comes to a crime scene, tells that within a second he has ruled out all possibilities except that somebody has trained a snake (which might have infravision, but definitely is deaf) to be controlled by music in a way that it doesn't only attack without being in danger, but also wastes all of its precious venom on a human being it will not be able to swallow. The books are great but - do we really want to believe the reasoning of such a guy? --[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 11:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
:Unless you mean a particular individual (or perhaps species of) snake with an actual deafness, they ''can'' hear. It's jawbone-based hearing (not ears), but it picks up ground vibrations as well as lower-frequency air-transmitted sounds (they can respond to human voices, with wild snakes in inhabited areas often using them as a cue to either get out of the way of any humans or making sure they're securely hidden where they are).
:Though traditional snake-charming is overwhelmingly exploiting entirely untamed snakes' response to the ''movement'' of the charmer and his instrument (the 'dancing' snake being its response to the carefully-just-out-of-range 'threat' exhibited by the charmer), no doubt it can learn to expect to be roused by lower-frequency vibrations coming from the 'pungi' that is being played.
:(The higher tones and any melody would be more just for the human audience, of course, and doesn't do much to 'charm' the snake, which may also have been fairly 'fresh caught' from the wild with nothing ''but'' instinct behind its own part of the performance; it's mostly an act by the charmer, similar to how a bull-fighter isn't expected to have changed a bull's behaviour but instead himself learn to react to a bull's natural aggressiveness. ...As it might have been said by Bluebottle in The Goon Show, if the bull charges to the left, he moves towards the matador; if it charges to the right, he moves towards the picador; and if it charges straight at him..? ...he runs to the back-a-door!)
:Ophiologists (or indeed herpetologists in general) might be able say how well snakes can be ''well trained'' to a given cue (and perform non-instinctive actions such as being sent through a grating, envenomate non-threat/non-food targets and then return), and the higher pitch instrument (a tin-whistle, if I recall the story involved) wouldn't seem to me to be suitable communicating device, but I've no doubt that it's at least partly practical, just not (trivially) possible to the full extent as asked for by the story's plot. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.165|82.132.238.165]] 16:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
: Wow! Didn't expect to learn something today. Thanks a lot!--[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
::The current phrasing seems to imply that "The Hound of the Baskervilles" involves a snake, and your previous version of that paragraph stated it outright. I haven't seen any version of that story with a snake, and Google isn't turning it up. Are you sure about that? I changed it to "Speckled Band" because that's definitely the plot of that story. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 02:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

If we're allowing quotations from British fantasy authors, how about Sir Terry Pratchett's Sir Samuel Vimes, from the Discworld series? "Samuel Vimes ... had a jaundiced view of Clues. He instinctively distrusted them. They got in the way. And he distrusted the kind of person who’d take one look at another man and say in a lordly voice to his companion, “Ah, my dear sir, I can tell you nothing except that he is a left-handed stonemason who has spent some years in the merchant navy and has recently fallen on hard times,” and then unroll a lot of supercilious commentary about calluses and stance and the state of a man’s boots, when exactly the same comments could apply to a man who was wearing his old clothes because he’d been doing a spot of home bricklaying for a new barbecue pit, and had been tattooed once when he was drunk and seventeen and in fact got seasick on a wet pavement. What arrogance! What an insult to the rich and chaotic variety of the human experience!" Whenever I run across this, I react with a strong "You tell 'em, Terry!"[[Special:Contributions/216.73.162.43|216.73.162.43]] 19:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I personally think that rejig of citation needed is in bad taste and doesn't add anything valuable to the article.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 22:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
:Bad taste? In what possible way? You do know how the Citation Needed is ''normally'' used, here (as opposed to the Actual Citation Needed), don't you? It can be discussed, if you want to, but I (for one) am not even sure from what viewpoint you're arguing. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.95|82.132.238.95]] 03:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::I know how it is used here... i am a regular here... but i mean it looks so cringe on my tablet and also not very useful for people who don't see what is happening there.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 04:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Ah, I see what you mean. So I've solved it by moving it to the right side of the comma. Happier? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.95|82.132.238.95]] 13:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
::::You also should use no line breaking spaces in such sups if you want to use them. Updated that too.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 13:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-25T13:27:58Z

Trimutius: Changed spaces to no line breaking in sup message

{{comic
| number = 3210
| date = February 20, 2026
| title = Eliminating the Impossible
| image = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was FOUND IN THE LAST PLACE YOU LOOKED. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever phrase] originating from the fictional detective {{w|Sherlock Holmes}} (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan Doyle}}) that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This describes the {{w|abductive reasoning}} Holmes uses to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, Holmes' statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], because nobody is omniscient,[{{w|omniscience|no citation needed}}] so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be {{w|quantum tunnelling}} of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle to [[Cueball]] as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is just a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball argues that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem, like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities, while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first instinct may be to search the house in which they presently are. Having seemingly exhausted this search, their assumption may be that it must be in their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, and assumed it is in the car, but that assumption has always proved to be wrong. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher never brought the item home in the first place, but mistakenly thought that they did.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved. Stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''{{w|The Sign of the Four}}'', he "deduces" that {{w|Dr._Watson|Watson}} had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had sent a letter that he had written sometime previously, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. As has been pointed out elsewhere in Holmesian works, however, Holmes knows Watson very well, and when it comes to a matter as narrow in scope as "Watson's behaviour", Holmes is better-equipped than most to eliminate impossibilities, even if these should strictly be considered ''improbabilities''.

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be a more improbable outcome".

In ''{{w|The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul}},'' Douglas Adams commented on this Holmesian maxim:<blockquote>'The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, "Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that." '

'Well, it happened to me today, in fact,' replied Kate.

'Ah, yes,' said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump, 'your girl in the wheelchair [who was constantly mumbling stock prices from the day before]—a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore ''must'' be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality.'</blockquote>

This time Cueball might have a point, since, if one really investigates Sherlock Holmes' cases, they often contain obvious mistakes, like most of "{{w|The Hound of the Baskervilles}}" or the solution of "{{w|The Adventure of the Speckled Band}}". In the latter he claims that the only solution is that someone trained a snake to be controlled by music to bite and kill someone without being attacked, claiming to have eliminated all other solutions in a real-world scenario which is too complex to allow for that, without even having taken a closer look at the bigger picture.

Knowing [[Randall]]'s work, the title text may be a jab at people who are overly quick to conclude that established results in physics are wrong, as he has done previously in [[955: Neutrinos]] and [[1621: Fixion]] (concerning a since-disproven finding that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light) and in [[2113: Physics Suppression]] and [[3155: Physics Paths]] (more generally).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]
:White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
:White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

:[Close-up of Cueball's head.]
:Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
:Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
:Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

:[Zoom back out to show both. Cueball holds his arms out.]
:White Hat: You're being pedantic.
:White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
:Cueball: But it's a '''''bad rule.'''''

:[Cueball holds up one finger.]
:Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it '''''must''''' be there."
:White Hat: ...and then it's never in the car.
:Cueball: '''''It's never in the car!'''''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

Talk:3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-25T04:38:05Z

Trimutius: My argument

Talk:3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-24T22:10:19Z

Trimutius: I don't want to fight but

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-24T12:57:08Z

Trimutius: Fix formatting of citation

{{comic
| number = 3210
| date = February 20, 2026
| title = Eliminating the Impossible
| image = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was FOUND IN THE LAST PLACE YOU LOOKED. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever phrase] originating from the fictional detective {{w|Sherlock Holmes}} (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan Doyle}}) that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This describes the {{w|abductive reasoning}} Holmes uses to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, Holmes' statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], because nobody is {{w|omniscience|omniscient}}, so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be {{w|quantum tunnelling}} of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle to [[Cueball]] as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is just a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball argues that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem, like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities, while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first instinct may be to search the house in which they presently are. Having seemingly exhausted this search, their assumption may be that it must be in their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, and assumed it is in the car, but that assumption has always proved to be wrong. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher never brought the item home in the first place, but mistakenly thought that they did.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved. Stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''{{w|The Sign of the Four}}'', he "deduces" that {{w|Dr._Watson|Watson}} had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had sent a letter that he had written sometime previously, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. As has been pointed out elsewhere in Holmesian works, however, Holmes knows Watson very well, and when it comes to a matter as narrow in scope as "Watson's behaviour", Holmes is better-equipped than most to eliminate impossibilities, even if these should strictly be considered ''improbabilities''.

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be a more improbable outcome".

In ''{{w|The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul}},'' Douglas Adams commented on this Holmesian maxim:<blockquote>'The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, "Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that." '

'Well, it happened to me today, in fact,' replied Kate.

'Ah, yes,' said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump, 'your girl in the wheelchair [who was constantly mumbling stock prices from the day before]—a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore ''must'' be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality.'</blockquote>

This time Cueball might have a point, since, if one really investigates Sherlock Holmes' cases, they often contain obvious mistakes, like most of "{{w|The Hound of the Baskervilles}}" or the solution of "{{w|The Adventure of the Speckled Band}}". In the latter he claims that the only solution is that someone trained a snake to be controlled by music to bite and kill someone without being attacked, claiming to have eliminated all other solutions in a real-world scenario which is too complex to allow for that, without even having taken a closer look at the bigger picture.

Knowing [[Randall]]'s work, the title text may be a jab at people who are overly quick to conclude that established results in physics are wrong, as he has done previously in [[955: Neutrinos]] and [[1621: Fixion]] (concerning a since-disproven finding that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light) and in [[2113: Physics Suppression]] and [[3155: Physics Paths]] (more generally).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]
:White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
:White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

:[Close-up of Cueball's head.]
:Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
:Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
:Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

:[Zoom back out to show both. Cueball holds his arms out.]
:White Hat: You're being pedantic.
:White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
:Cueball: But it's a '''''bad rule.'''''

:[Cueball holds up one finger.]
:Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it '''''must''''' be there."
:White Hat: ...and then it's never in the car.
:Cueball: '''''It's never in the car!'''''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-21T04:34:10Z

Trimutius: /* Explanation */ it is a known fallacy, provided citation

3207: Bad Map Projection: Zero Declination

2026-02-14T12:42:19Z

Trimutius: Redit

{{comic
| number = 3207
| date = February 13, 2026
| title = Bad Map Projection: Zero Declination
| image = bad_map_projection_zero_declination.png
| imagesize = 740x544px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'The zero line in WMM2025 passes through a lot of population centers; I wonder what year the largest share of the population lived in a zone of less than 5° of declination,' he thought, derailing all other tasks for the rest of the day.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently by a misaligned map. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This is the tenth comic in the [[:Category:Bad Map Projections|Bad Map Projections]] series, displaying Bad Map Projection #216: Zero Declination.

While the Earth's magnetic field is broadly aligned North-South, the actual alignment of the magnetic field varies over time and position. The difference between True North (the axis of Earth's rotation) and Magnetic North (the direction a compass will point) will vary depending on your position, and is known as the {{w|Magnetic Declination}} of that point.

The comic shows a map that has been distorted based on the Magnetic Declination such that Magnetic North for every point is pointed toward the top of the map. If this were reality, then Magnetic North would always be aligned with True North, or in other words, there would be Zero Declination at all points.

The red arrows indicate the distortions from the starting map required to make Magnetic North be at the top.

In the title text, "WMM2025" refers to the 2025 version of the {{w|World Magnetic Model}}, a representation of the Earth's magnetic field. You can see it [https://web.archive.org/web/20260212034745/https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/inline-images/D.jpg here]. The "zero line" is in green, which shows where in the world magnetic declension is 0°. [[Randall]] has presumably wasted a day trying to figure out what year has had the most population living in an area of less than 5° declension by searching through previous WMM maps. He appears to have not found the answer, so explainxkcd requests its readers to [[356|finish the job]]. Judging by magnetic declination [https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/historical-declination/ historical data] lines with 0 degree declination were near India and China at some points recently, so maybe it is reasonable to assume it happened. Unfortunately declination can easily go up to 15 degrees or even higher, so when one high population density area has declination close to 0, some other one often has an extremely high declination.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]
[[Category:Bad Map Projections]]

3207: Bad Map Projection: Zero Declination

2026-02-14T12:41:38Z

Trimutius: I got nerd sniped a bit... found website with historical data though

{{comic
| number = 3207
| date = February 13, 2026
| title = Bad Map Projection: Zero Declination
| image = bad_map_projection_zero_declination.png
| imagesize = 740x544px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'The zero line in WMM2025 passes through a lot of population centers; I wonder what year the largest share of the population lived in a zone of less than 5° of declination,' he thought, derailing all other tasks for the rest of the day.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently by a misaligned map. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This is the tenth comic in the [[:Category:Bad Map Projections|Bad Map Projections]] series, displaying Bad Map Projection #216: Zero Declination.

While the Earth's magnetic field is broadly aligned North-South, the actual alignment of the magnetic field varies over time and position. The difference between True North (the axis of Earth's rotation) and Magnetic North (the direction a compass will point) will vary depending on your position, and is known as the {{w|Magnetic Declination}} of that point.

The comic shows a map that has been distorted based on the Magnetic Declination such that Magnetic North for every point is pointed toward the top of the map. If this were reality, then Magnetic North would always be aligned with True North, or in other words, there would be Zero Declination at all points.

The red arrows indicate the distortions from the starting map required to make Magnetic North be at the top.

In the title text, "WMM2025" refers to the 2025 version of the {{w|World Magnetic Model}}, a representation of the Earth's magnetic field. You can see it [https://web.archive.org/web/20260212034745/https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/inline-images/D.jpg here]. The "zero line" is in green, which shows where in the world magnetic declension is 0°. [[Randall]] has presumably wasted a day trying to figure out what year has had the most population living in an area of less than 5° declension by searching through previous WMM maps. He appears to have not found the answer, so explainxkcd requests its readers to [[356|finish the job]]. Judging by magnetic declination [https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/historical-declination/ historical data] lines with 0 degree declination were near India and China at some points recently, so maybe it is reasonable to assume it happened, unfortunately declination can easily go up to 15 degrees or even higher. So when one high population density area has declination close to 0, some other one often has an extremely high declination.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics with red annotations]]
[[Category:Bad Map Projections]]

3206: Installation

2026-02-12T04:21:43Z

Trimutius: Title text explanation

{{comic
| number = 3206
| date = February 11, 2026
| title = Installation
| image = installation_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x272px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Do YOU remember the skylight being this big?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a house like carpet. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic refers to wall-to-wall carpeting, also known as {{w|Fitted carpet}}, which usually is carpeting that runs from wall to wall. Usually, the carpeting is on the ''inside''{{citation needed}} of the house where it is installed. However, in this example, Megan and Cueball are installing it on the ''outside'' of the house, walking a unstated distance until another wall of another building is encountered.

Title text references {{w|skylight}}, which is a window on a ceiling. This implies that they think that they can see sky not because they are outside, but because they think it is a big skylight.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

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

3203: Binary Star

2026-02-08T04:58:31Z

Trimutius: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3203
| date = February 4, 2026
| title = Binary Star
| image = binary_star_2x.png
| imagesize = 353x365px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The discovery of a fully typographical star system comes with a big asterisk.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Binary star|Binary star systems}}, where two stars orbit each other, are common throughout the universe. In some cases, these are different types of stars, such as a {{w|neutron star}} co-orbiting with a {{w|main sequence}} star. Here, however, the comic depicts a system consisting of a real celestial object (just such a main sequence star), and a star which is instead a stylised five-pointed shape in which stars are often drawn, called a {{w|pentagram}}.

Pointed stars [https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/06/16/4253961.htm do not actually exist] as astronomical bodies, as the spikes would quickly collapse under the effects of gravity. Stars seen in the night sky can sometimes appear as though they have spikes coming out of them, but these are just optical illusions caused by the {{w|diffraction spike|diffraction}} [[2762|spike]] effect, and not {{w|Inverted World|something far weirder}}. Although stars have {{w|Solar prominence|prominences}} and {{w|coronal mass ejections}}, which project from their surfaces, these are small relative to the stars themselves.

If an object was discovered that really did have that shape, emitting light consistent with the spectrum of a star, it would almost certainly have to be an enormous alien constructed device. It could not be built solely of the kinds of materials we're familiar with, in order to be of a size similar to that of a star but not collapse under its own gravitational attraction, because we don't know of any substances that would be strong enough. Its ability to emit light intensity comparable with a star's is beyond our understanding, by many orders of magnitude, especially given that the heat and radiation would weaken its structure, and the need for some power source. Another possible, albeit even more implausible, explanation is that some alien technology has somehow forced a real star to assume that shape while still doing fusion and emitting light consistent with a star's spectrum.

The title text puns on the * symbol (an {{w|asterisk}} - meaning little star), which is sometimes called a star, and is often used to indicate {{w|Note (typography)|footnotes}} in text. A "big asterisk" is used as a metaphor for a rather large caveat or significant reservations about the statement being made, suggesting that such qualifications would form a long footnote. This could be interpreted as meaning that the existence of the "typographical star system" is significantly doubtful. Alternatively, it could be read as meaning that the "big asterisk" is a physically very large (astronomical scale) symbol, which forms part of a system composed of other bodies in the form of typography.

Drawing a star as a pentagram, as shown in the comic, is referenced in [[1029: Drawing Stars]].

The orbital paths shown are anomalous. The main sequence star follows a path that's nearly circular, while the five-pointed star follows an elliptical path, and they're at different locations along their paths. If the two stars were the most massive objects in their system by a significant margin, approximating a two-body system, their paths should be the same shape (albeit at different sizes, if their masses differ) centered on opposite sides of the shared focal point of their {{w|Barycenter (astronomy)|barycenter}}, with all four of the ellipses' foci collinear. Their locations along those paths should be directly in (anti-)phase, and collinear with the barycenter. That this isn't true implies that there's at least one other massive object, which isn't shown, in the system. The much smaller path of the main sequence star suggests that it's in a (relatively) close orbit with the other massive object, with the five-pointed star being much less massive than either, and essentially orbiting them both at a greater distance. That the five-pointed star has much less mass makes sense, since it appears to consist only of five intersecting linear structures, with large empty spaces in between.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Graphical depiction of a binary star system. The orbits are shown with dashed lines. One star is revolving circularly close to the center of mass and is shown as a filled circle. The other has a very elliptic orbit further out. It is currently close to its furthest point from the other star. This star is depicted as a pentagram.]
:[Caption below the image:]
:Space news: astronomers have found the first known system with a main-sequence star orbited by a five-pointed one.
{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:News]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

3203: Binary Star

2026-02-05T13:00:36Z

Trimutius: Diffraction spike

{{comic
| number = 3203
| date = February 4, 2026
| title = Binary Star
| image = binary_star_2x.png
| imagesize = 353x365px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The discovery of a fully typographical star system comes with a big asterisk.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a TV star. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
While a "main sequence star" is a real celestial object, a five-pointed star is how stars are often drawn. The comic uses a drawn star shape to be a part of a celestial star system.

In reality pointed stars do not actually exist, it is just an optical illusion caused by the {{w|diffraction spike}} effect.

The title text similarly uses the * symbol (an asterisk - meaning little star), which is sometimes called a star, to be another real celestial star. A "big asterisk" is used as a metaphor for a rather large caveat, symbolizing a long footnote.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Graphical depiction of a binary star system. One star is revolving circularly close to the center of mass and is shown as a dot. The other has a visibly elliptic orbit located further and is currently close to its apastron. It's depicted as a pentagram.]
:[Caption below the image:]
:Space news: astronomers have found the first known system with a main-sequence star orbited by a five-pointed one.
{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics with inverted brightness]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]

3201: Proof Without Content

2026-01-31T20:29:12Z

Trimutius: Wrong word

{{comic
| number = 3201
| date = January 30, 2026
| title = Proof Without Content
| image = proof_without_content_2x.png
| imagesize = 259x353px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's also a proof without content of a conjecture without content, but it's left as an exercise for the reader.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created as an exercise for the reader. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This comic refers to a {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. The comic gives an example of a proof without any content at all, which proves its own existence.

This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.

This can also be a parody on scientists doing empty papers sometimes as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products] – the point with that paper being that the {{wiktionary|chemical#Usage notes|lay meaning}} behind "chemical-free" can be considered technically nonsensical given that anything physical contains chemical elements, so no products can be free of them. (And, even in the various more vague senses that may be intended, it {{w|Appeal to nature#Examples|isn't necessarily}} as good a selling point as it may try to indicate.)

The title text refers to another proof without content, that a conjecture without content could exist. This would imply a conjecture-proof pair with no content whatsoever. This could only be discussed indirectly, which is why it is mentioned and left as an {{w|Proof by Intimidation|exercise for the reader}}. Alternatively, the exercise could be forming the conjecture and proof itself if the comic is interpreted as a blank sheet of paper.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[Within a panel, two boxes stacked vertically. Each one has a label above it.]
:Conjecture:
:[Within the box]
:It's possible to construct a convincing proof without words, pictures, or content of any kind.
:[The next label]
:Proof:
:[The box underneath this label is empty.]
:[Caption under the panel]
:Proofs without words are cool, but we can go further.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Math]]

3201: Proof Without Content

2026-01-31T02:19:37Z

Trimutius: There are some empty joke papers, added one such paper as an example

{{comic
| number = 3201
| date = January 30, 2026
| title = Proof Without Content
| image = proof_without_content_2x.png
| imagesize = 259x353px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's also a proof without content of a conjecture without content, but it's left as an exercise for the reader.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created as an exercise for the reader. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This comic refers to a {{w|Proof without words|proofs without words}}, which rely on images or other geometric tools to visually demonstrate a concept without further explanation. The comic gives an example of a proof without any content at all, which proves its own existence.

This proof requires the conjecture to be stated, which could be construed as content.

This can also be a parody on scientists doing empty papers sometimes as an inside joke, such as [https://ciencias.ulisboa.pt/sites/default/files/fcul/outros/Chemical-Free.pdf a comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products].

The title text refers to another proof without content, that a conjecture without content could exist. This would imply a conjecture-proof pair with no content whatsoever. This could only be discussed indirectly, which is why it is mentioned and left as an {{w|Proof by Intimidation|exercise for the reader}}. Alternatively, the exercise could be forming the conjecture and proof itself if the comic is interpreted as a blank sheet of paper.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[Within a panel, two boxes stacked vertically. Each one has a label above it.]
:Conjecture:
:[Within the box]
:It's possible to construct a convincing proof without words, pictures, or content of any kind.
:[The next label]
:Proof:
:[The box underneath this label is empty.]
:[Caption under the panel]
:Proofs without words are cool, but we can go further.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Math]]

3200: Chemical Formula

2026-01-29T04:01:31Z

Trimutius: Title text Explanation

{{comic
| number = 3200
| date = January 28, 2026
| title = Chemical Formula
| image = chemical_formula_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x225px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Some of the atoms in the molecule are very weakly bound.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the carbon in the universe . Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The supposed "chemical formula for the universe" merely lists the numbers of atoms of each element. As is common practice for real compounds that contain organic structures or substructures, the numbers of atoms of carbon and hydrogen are listed before all of the others; the others are listed in alphabetical order. There are estimated to be 1080 atoms of hydrogen (H), by far the most common element in the universe. The next most common element, helium (He), is a long way to the right in the list, and out of view, but would be about a third as many as the hydrogens.

These numbers are large, but they are not nameless. Using the {{w|long and short scales}}, these numbers can be described as:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Pos!!Symb!!Name !!Quantity !!Short Scale name !!Long Scale name(s) !!Ranked quantity*
|-
| 1|| C ||Carbon ||data-sort-value="1e76"|1076 ||Ten quattuorvigintillion ||Ten thousand duodecillion Ten duodecilliard ||4
|-
| 2|| H ||Hydrogen ||data-sort-value="1e80"|1080 ||One hundred quinvigintillion ||One hundred tridecilllion ||1
|-
| 3|| Ac ||Actinium ||data-sort-value="1e67"|1067 ||Ten unvigintillion ||Ten undecillion ||data-sort-value="84"|≈84
|-
| 4|| Ag ||Silver ||data-sort-value="1e69"|1069 ||One duovigintillion ||One thousand undecillion One undecilliard ||data-sort-value="68"|≈68
|-
| 5|| Al ||Aluminium Aluminum||data-sort-value="1e75"|1075 ||One quattuorvigintillion ||One thousand duodecillion One duodecilliard ||14
|-
| 6|| Am ||Americium ||data-sort-value="1e26"|1026 ||One hundred septillion ||One hundred quadrillion ||data-sort-value="84"|≈84
|-
| 7|| Ar ||Argon ||data-sort-value="1e75"|1075 ||One quattuorvigintillion ||One thousand duodecillion One duodecilliard ||11
|-
| 8|| As ||Arsenic ||data-sort-value="1e70"|1070 ||Ten duovigintillion ||Ten thousand undecillion Ten undecilliard ||data-sort-value="40"|≈40
|-
| 9|| At ||Astatine ||data-sort-value="1e47"|1047 ||One hundred quattuordecillion||One hundred thousand septillion One hundred septilliard ||data-sort-value="84"|≈84
|-
| 10|| Au ||Gold ||data-sort-value="1e69"|1069 ||One duovigintillion ||One thousand undecillion One undecilliard ||data-sort-value="68"|≈68
|-
| 11|| B ||Boron ||data-sort-value="1e71"|1071 ||One hundred duovigintillion ||One hundred thousand undecillion One hundred undecilliard||data-sort-value="61"|≈61
|-
| 12|| Ba ||Barium ||data-sort-value="1e70"|1070 ||Ten duovigintillion ||Ten thousand undecillion Ten undecilliard ||data-sort-value="33"|≈33
|-
| 13|| Be ||Beryllium ||data-sort-value="1e71"|1071*||One hundred duovigintillion ||One hundred thousand undecillion One hundred undecilliard||data-sort-value="61"|≈61
|-
|data-sort-value="43"|43*||He||Helium||data-sort-value="3e79"|1079*||Ten quinvigintillion ||Ten tridecilllion ||2
|-
|data-sort-value="73"|73*||O ||Oxygen||data-sort-value="1e78"|1078*||One quinvigintillion ||One tridecilllion ||3
|}
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> - Information not provided by the comic; Source for ranked data, in particular, does not 'entirely' agree with the quantities that are given in the comic.

The matter originally created in the Big Bang was unbound protons and neutrons. In the first few minutes, {{w|Big Bang nucleosynthesis|some of these combined to form lightweight nuclei}}, but most remained as protons, i.e. the nuclei of hydrogen atoms. Other, more complex atoms formed later as a result of {{w|stellar nucleosynthesis}}, up to atomic mass 56. Still more massive nuclei have been formed via {{w|supernova nucleosynthesis}}. Although the proportions of these atoms depend in a complex way on the fusion processes involved, and on the stabilities of those nuclei, the most massive atoms are generally both less favored to form and short-lived, so their elemental abundances in the universe are very small. As shown above, the number of americium (Am) atoms is much smaller than those of any other element in the visible part of the "formula". There are slightly fewer atoms of americium in the entire universe than the total number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in 1.0 L of liquid water.

This may be poking some fun at the relative usefulness (or rather, uselessness) of chemical formulas for large organic molecules. While it is a useful concept for teaching people about chemistry and balancing equations, and it was useful in the early days of chemistry to try to categorize and learn about molecules via stoichiometry - it does not give much useful information. For example even the simple formula C11H15NO2 has 302 registered isomers.{{actual citation needed}} Many of them are NOT good to eat.{{cn}}

The formula as it appears in the comic is truncated. The complete formula of the universe in this style (but arranged in order of abundance after carbon) would be C₁₀⁷⁷H₁₀⁸⁰ He₁₀⁷⁹ O₁₀⁷⁸ Ne₁₀⁷⁶ N₁₀⁷⁶ Mg₁₀⁷⁵ Si₁₀⁷⁵ Fe₁₀⁷⁴ S₁₀⁷³Ni₁₀⁷² Ca₁₀⁷² Al₁₀⁷¹ Na₁₀⁷⁰ Cr₁₀⁶⁹ Ti₁₀⁶⁸ Mn₁₀⁶⁸ P₁₀⁶⁷ K₁₀⁶⁶ V₁₀⁶⁵ Cl₁₀⁶⁴ F₁₀⁶³ Sc₁₀⁶² Co₁₀⁶² Cu₁₀⁶¹ Zn₁₀⁶⁰ Ga₁₀⁵⁹ Ge₁₀⁵⁸ Se₁₀⁵⁷ Kr₁₀⁵⁶ Rb₁₀⁵⁵ Sr₁₀⁵⁴ Y₁₀⁵³ Zr₁₀⁵² Nb₁₀⁵¹ Mo₁₀⁵⁰ Tc₁₀⁴⁹ Ru₁₀⁴⁸ Rh₁₀⁴⁷ Pd₁₀⁴⁶ Ag₁₀⁴⁵ Cd₁₀⁴⁴ In₁₀⁴³ Sn₁₀⁴² Sb₁₀⁴¹ Te₁₀⁴⁰ I₁₀³⁹ Xe₁₀³⁸ Cs₁₀³⁷ Ba₁₀³⁶ La₁₀³⁵ Ce₁₀³⁴ Pr₁₀³³ Nd₁₀³² Sm₁₀³¹ Eu₁₀³⁰ Gd₁₀²⁹ Tb₁₀²⁸ Dy₁₀²⁷ Ho₁₀²⁶ Er₁₀²⁵ Tm₁₀²⁴ Yb₁₀²³ Lu₁₀²² Hf₁₀²¹ Ta₁₀²⁰ W₁₀¹⁹ Re₁₀¹⁸ Os₁₀¹⁷ Ir₁₀¹⁶ Pt₁₀¹⁵ Au₁₀¹⁴ Hg₁₀¹³ Tl₁₀¹² Pb₁₀¹¹ Bi₁₀¹⁰ Po₁₀⁹ At₁₀⁸ Rn₁₀⁷ Fr₁₀⁶ Ra₁₀⁵ Ac₁₀⁴ Th₁₀³ Pa₁₀² U₁₀² Np₁₀¹ Pu₁₀¹ Am₁₀⁰ Cm₁₀⁰ Bk₁₀⁰ Cf₁₀⁰ Es₁₀⁰ Fm₁₀⁰ Md₁₀⁰ No₁₀⁰ Lr₁₀⁰ Rf₁₀⁰ Db₁₀⁰ Sg₁₀⁰ Bh₁₀⁰ Hs₁₀⁰ Mt₁₀⁰ Ds₁₀⁰ Rg₁₀⁰ Cn₁₀⁰ Nh₁₀⁰ Fl₁₀⁰ Mc₁₀⁰ Lv₁₀⁰ Ts₁₀⁰ Og₁₀⁰ according to [https://ptable.com/#Properties/Abundance/Universe estimates of abundance]. 

Title text is probably referencing {{w|gravity}}, because for the most part most of mentioned atoms would be "held together" only by gravity, and it is a very weak bond indeed.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[A long panel with a chemical formula trailing off the right side]
:C1076 H1080 Ac1067 Ag1069 Al1075 Am1026 Ar1075 As1070 At1047 Au1069 B1071 Ba1070 Be
:[Caption below the panel:] The approximate chemical formula for the universe

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

3200: Chemical Formula

2026-01-29T03:57:37Z

Trimutius: Added citation for abundance

{{comic
| number = 3200
| date = January 28, 2026
| title = Chemical Formula
| image = chemical_formula_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x225px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Some of the atoms in the molecule are very weakly bound.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the carbon in the universe . Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The supposed "chemical formula for the universe" merely lists the numbers of atoms of each element. As is common practice for real compounds that contain organic structures or substructures, the numbers of atoms of carbon and hydrogen are listed before all of the others; the others are listed in alphabetical order. There are estimated to be 1080 atoms of hydrogen (H), by far the most common element in the universe. The next most common element, helium (He), is a long way to the right in the list, and out of view, but would be about a third as many as the hydrogens.

These numbers are large, but they are not nameless. Using the {{w|long and short scales}}, these numbers can be described as:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Pos!!Symb!!Name !!Quantity !!Short Scale name !!Long Scale name(s) !!Ranked quantity*
|-
| 1|| C ||Carbon ||data-sort-value="1e76"|1076 ||Ten quattuorvigintillion ||Ten thousand duodecillion Ten duodecilliard ||4
|-
| 2|| H ||Hydrogen ||data-sort-value="1e80"|1080 ||One hundred quinvigintillion ||One hundred tridecilllion ||1
|-
| 3|| Ac ||Actinium ||data-sort-value="1e67"|1067 ||Ten unvigintillion ||Ten undecillion ||data-sort-value="84"|≈84
|-
| 4|| Ag ||Silver ||data-sort-value="1e69"|1069 ||One duovigintillion ||One thousand undecillion One undecilliard ||data-sort-value="68"|≈68
|-
| 5|| Al ||Aluminium Aluminum||data-sort-value="1e75"|1075 ||One quattuorvigintillion ||One thousand duodecillion One duodecilliard ||14
|-
| 6|| Am ||Americium ||data-sort-value="1e26"|1026 ||One hundred septillion ||One hundred quadrillion ||data-sort-value="84"|≈84
|-
| 7|| Ar ||Argon ||data-sort-value="1e75"|1075 ||One quattuorvigintillion ||One thousand duodecillion One duodecilliard ||11
|-
| 8|| As ||Arsenic ||data-sort-value="1e70"|1070 ||Ten duovigintillion ||Ten thousand undecillion Ten undecilliard ||data-sort-value="40"|≈40
|-
| 9|| At ||Astatine ||data-sort-value="1e47"|1047 ||One hundred quattuordecillion||One hundred thousand septillion One hundred septilliard ||data-sort-value="84"|≈84
|-
| 10|| Au ||Gold ||data-sort-value="1e69"|1069 ||One duovigintillion ||One thousand undecillion One undecilliard ||data-sort-value="68"|≈68
|-
| 11|| B ||Boron ||data-sort-value="1e71"|1071 ||One hundred duovigintillion ||One hundred thousand undecillion One hundred undecilliard||data-sort-value="61"|≈61
|-
| 12|| Ba ||Barium ||data-sort-value="1e70"|1070 ||Ten duovigintillion ||Ten thousand undecillion Ten undecilliard ||data-sort-value="33"|≈33
|-
| 13|| Be ||Beryllium ||data-sort-value="1e71"|1071*||One hundred duovigintillion ||One hundred thousand undecillion One hundred undecilliard||data-sort-value="61"|≈61
|-
|data-sort-value="43"|43*||He||Helium||data-sort-value="3e79"|1079*||Ten quinvigintillion ||Ten tridecilllion ||2
|-
|data-sort-value="73"|73*||O ||Oxygen||data-sort-value="1e78"|1078*||One quinvigintillion ||One tridecilllion ||3
|}
:<nowiki>*</nowiki> - Information not provided by the comic; Source for ranked data, in particular, does not 'entirely' agree with the quantities that are given in the comic.

The matter originally created in the Big Bang was unbound protons and neutrons. In the first few minutes, {{w|Big Bang nucleosynthesis|some of these combined to form lightweight nuclei}}, but most remained as protons, i.e. the nuclei of hydrogen atoms. Other, more complex atoms formed later as a result of {{w|stellar nucleosynthesis}}, up to atomic mass 56. Still more massive nuclei have been formed via {{w|supernova nucleosynthesis}}. Although the proportions of these atoms depend in a complex way on the fusion processes involved, and on the stabilities of those nuclei, the most massive atoms are generally both less favored to form and short-lived, so their elemental abundances in the universe are very small. As shown above, the number of americium (Am) atoms is much smaller than those of any other element in the visible part of the "formula". There are slightly fewer atoms of americium in the entire universe than the total number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in 1.0 L of liquid water.

This may be poking some fun at the relative usefulness (or rather, uselessness) of chemical formulas for large organic molecules. While it is a useful concept for teaching people about chemistry and balancing equations, and it was useful in the early days of chemistry to try to categorize and learn about molecules via stoichiometry - it does not give much useful information. For example even the simple formula C11H15NO2 has 302 registered isomers.{{actual citation needed}} Many of them are NOT good to eat.{{cn}}

The formula as it appears in the comic is truncated. The complete formula of the universe in this style (but arranged in order of abundance after carbon) would be C₁₀⁷⁷H₁₀⁸⁰ He₁₀⁷⁹ O₁₀⁷⁸ Ne₁₀⁷⁶ N₁₀⁷⁶ Mg₁₀⁷⁵ Si₁₀⁷⁵ Fe₁₀⁷⁴ S₁₀⁷³Ni₁₀⁷² Ca₁₀⁷² Al₁₀⁷¹ Na₁₀⁷⁰ Cr₁₀⁶⁹ Ti₁₀⁶⁸ Mn₁₀⁶⁸ P₁₀⁶⁷ K₁₀⁶⁶ V₁₀⁶⁵ Cl₁₀⁶⁴ F₁₀⁶³ Sc₁₀⁶² Co₁₀⁶² Cu₁₀⁶¹ Zn₁₀⁶⁰ Ga₁₀⁵⁹ Ge₁₀⁵⁸ Se₁₀⁵⁷ Kr₁₀⁵⁶ Rb₁₀⁵⁵ Sr₁₀⁵⁴ Y₁₀⁵³ Zr₁₀⁵² Nb₁₀⁵¹ Mo₁₀⁵⁰ Tc₁₀⁴⁹ Ru₁₀⁴⁸ Rh₁₀⁴⁷ Pd₁₀⁴⁶ Ag₁₀⁴⁵ Cd₁₀⁴⁴ In₁₀⁴³ Sn₁₀⁴² Sb₁₀⁴¹ Te₁₀⁴⁰ I₁₀³⁹ Xe₁₀³⁸ Cs₁₀³⁷ Ba₁₀³⁶ La₁₀³⁵ Ce₁₀³⁴ Pr₁₀³³ Nd₁₀³² Sm₁₀³¹ Eu₁₀³⁰ Gd₁₀²⁹ Tb₁₀²⁸ Dy₁₀²⁷ Ho₁₀²⁶ Er₁₀²⁵ Tm₁₀²⁴ Yb₁₀²³ Lu₁₀²² Hf₁₀²¹ Ta₁₀²⁰ W₁₀¹⁹ Re₁₀¹⁸ Os₁₀¹⁷ Ir₁₀¹⁶ Pt₁₀¹⁵ Au₁₀¹⁴ Hg₁₀¹³ Tl₁₀¹² Pb₁₀¹¹ Bi₁₀¹⁰ Po₁₀⁹ At₁₀⁸ Rn₁₀⁷ Fr₁₀⁶ Ra₁₀⁵ Ac₁₀⁴ Th₁₀³ Pa₁₀² U₁₀² Np₁₀¹ Pu₁₀¹ Am₁₀⁰ Cm₁₀⁰ Bk₁₀⁰ Cf₁₀⁰ Es₁₀⁰ Fm₁₀⁰ Md₁₀⁰ No₁₀⁰ Lr₁₀⁰ Rf₁₀⁰ Db₁₀⁰ Sg₁₀⁰ Bh₁₀⁰ Hs₁₀⁰ Mt₁₀⁰ Ds₁₀⁰ Rg₁₀⁰ Cn₁₀⁰ Nh₁₀⁰ Fl₁₀⁰ Mc₁₀⁰ Lv₁₀⁰ Ts₁₀⁰ Og₁₀⁰ according to [https://ptable.com/#Properties/Abundance/Universe estimates of abundance]. 

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[A long panel with a chemical formula trailing off the right side]
:C1076 H1080 Ac1067 Ag1069 Al1075 Am1026 Ar1075 As1070 At1047 Au1069 B1071 Ba1070 Be
:[Caption below the panel:] The approximate chemical formula for the universe

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

3190: Tensegrity

2026-01-07T05:46:17Z

Trimutius: Typo

{{comic
| number = 3190
| date = January 5, 2026
| title = Tensegrity
| image = tensegrity_2x.png
| imagesize = 260x352px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Some people argue that the tension and compression in the human skeleton is technically tensegrity, but it's missing the defining characteristic: making people say 'wtf, how is that thing floating?' when they see it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a string. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

Tensegrity structures are structures that are suspended using a combination of rigid and compressional components, usually a series of rods and strings that give the illusion of a floating object held up by the strings. [[wikipedia:Buckminster Fuller|Buckminster Fuller]] coined the term [[wikipedia:Tensegrity|tensegrity]] from the words "tensional integrity" ([https://doi.org/10.7556%2Fjaoa.2013.113.1.34 see here]), and Steve Mould describes the mechanism in [https://youtu.be/0onncd0_0-o?si=-S-QMrZffi9L06ky this video].

[[Randall]] makes the claim that there are animals that exist which use tensegrity in their anatomy, naming the (fictional) "Buckminster's Giraffe" as an example. The panel shows each leg of the {{w|giraffe}} using a structure similar to that of a tensegrity table. Some people consider giraffe to be an example of a body form that appears to defy their expectations of physical laws because of their unusually long legs and neck as compared to the body.

[https://www.physio-pedia.com/Biotensegrity Biotensegeity] studies the role that tensegrity plays in living organisms such as plants and animals. Though in reality it happens at cellurar level, and not macroscopic level as shown in the comic.

The title text brings up the argument that humans themselves use tensegrity in our anatomy. Randall, however, deems that this doesn't count due to lacking the "defining characteristic" of a tensegrity structure - namely, that its stiff bits appear to be 'floating' by being suspending on a bunch of flexible bits, causing an observer to say "wtf". Humans, thanks to our skin and other various layers, outwardly look like a single solid structure, unlike the giraffe in the comic.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[Cueball stands at the left of the panel, and at the right is a giraffe-like animal whose legs appear to be made of a tensegrity structure, with disconnected segments held together by strings]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:While tensegrity is rare in the animal kingdom, a few species, such as Buckminster's Giraffe, are known to employ it.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Engineering]]

3190: Tensegrity

2026-01-07T05:41:09Z

Trimutius: Biotensegrity

{{comic
| number = 3190
| date = January 5, 2026
| title = Tensegrity
| image = tensegrity_2x.png
| imagesize = 260x352px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Some people argue that the tension and compression in the human skeleton is technically tensegrity, but it's missing the defining characteristic: making people say 'wtf, how is that thing floating?' when they see it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a string. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

Tensegrity structures are structures that are suspended using a combination of rigid and compressional components, usually a series of rods and strings that give the illusion of a floating object held up by the strings. [[wikipedia:Buckminster Fuller|Buckminster Fuller]] coined the term [[wikipedia:Tensegrity|tensegrity]] from the words "tensional integrity" ([https://doi.org/10.7556%2Fjaoa.2013.113.1.34 see here]), and Steve Mould describes the mechanism in [https://youtu.be/0onncd0_0-o?si=-S-QMrZffi9L06ky this video].

[[Randall]] makes the claim that there are animals that exist which use tensegrity in their anatomy, naming the (fictional) "Buckminster's Giraffe" as an example. The panel shows each leg of the {{w|giraffe}} using a structure similar to that of a tensegrity table. Some people consider giraffe to be an example of a body form that appears to defy their expectations of physical laws because of their unusually long legs and neck as compared to the body.

[https://www.physio-pedia.com/Biotensegrity Biotensegeity] studies the role that tensegrity plays in living organisms such as plants and animals. Though in reality it happens at cellurar level, and not microscopic level as shown in the comic.

The title text brings up the argument that humans themselves use tensegrity in our anatomy. Randall, however, deems that this doesn't count due to lacking the "defining characteristic" of a tensegrity structure - namely, that its stiff bits appear to be 'floating' by being suspending on a bunch of flexible bits, causing an observer to say "wtf". Humans, thanks to our skin and other various layers, outwardly look like a single solid structure, unlike the giraffe in the comic.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[Cueball stands at the left of the panel, and at the right is a giraffe-like animal whose legs appear to be made of a tensegrity structure, with disconnected segments held together by strings]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:While tensegrity is rare in the animal kingdom, a few species, such as Buckminster's Giraffe, are known to employ it.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Engineering]]

3186: Truly Universal Outlet

2025-12-26T18:08:02Z

Trimutius: Some universal adapters do exist

{{comic
| number = 3186
| date = December 26, 2025
| title = Truly Universal Outlet
| image = truly_universal_outlet_2x.png
| imagesize = 264x358px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Building Inspectors HATE This One Weird Trick
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This comic shows a layout for a universal outlet which would theoretically fit any plug. Throughout the world, countries and regions have their [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power_plugs_and_sockets#Standard_types_in_present_use own standards for outlets], including their shape, contact amount, and voltage. When traveling, or otherwise using devices from other countries, it is often necessary to have an adapter to connect one type of plug to a different outlet.

The comic shows an outlet with fifteen sets of holes merged together, so that any of those plug types might fit. In reality, it's possible that a plug may not be held securely, and it may fall out or lose contact. For example, the hole for types D, E, M, and O at the top of the outlet has four distinct holes, some of which are entirely contained within others; a prong for a smaller type would not make contact with the walls. Different outlets can also mean different voltages, which can risk damage if devices do not account for it. Though universal plug adapters [https://internationalconfig.com/icc6.asp?item=30250 actually exist], but none of them are as 'universal' as the one shown in this comic, most likely due to aforementioned safety concerns.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

[A diagram of an electrical outlet is shown, merging the holes of many international outlets. Dashed lines indicate individual standards' holes, which are labeled by their corresponding letter from A to N. The entire outlet is the combined area of these holes.]

Wiring tip: to make your building friendly to international visitors, cut holes in your outlet plates to make them compatible with all fifteen IEC plug types.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

3184: Funny Numbers

2025-12-26T04:39:04Z

Trimutius: Fixed hyper link

{{comic
| number = 3184
| date = December 22, 2025
| title = Funny Numbers
| image = funny_numbers_2x.png
| imagesize = 360x453px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In 1899, people were walking around shouting '23' at each other and laughing, and confused reporters were writing articles trying to figure out what it meant.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the square root of -2. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic refers to the recent meme {{w|6-7 meme|"6-7"}}, often accompanied by moving your hands up and down. This meme is often referenced in physical space, particularly among the younger generation, often to the great annoyance of their elders. While many adults use this trend as an indication of intellectual decay among today's youth, this comic points out that there's a long history of young people having fun with random numbers, often for quasi-arbitrary reasons.

The numbers listed are:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Number!!Adopted?!!class="unsortable"|Explanation
|-
|data-sort-value="23"|23 (skidoo!)||data-sort-value="1899"|around 1899||The number relates to leaving quickly (a suggestion to go away), for indeterminate reasons.
{{w|23 skidoo|It was a death row prisoner's number}} in a then-new stage play based on ''A Tale of Two Cities'' by Charles Dickens. Soon after its coining, it was popularly combined with a term of similar use to become the phrase "{{w|23 skidoo}}".

23 gained some popularity again in the 1970s via the {{w|23 enigma}}, the suggestion that the number appears unusually often in significant contexts. This was first noticed by William S. Burroughs, and spread by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea's book ''The Illuminatus! Trilogy'', and by ''Principia Discordia''.
|-
|42||1978||A number made popular by {{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}}, a radio play and book by Douglas Adams.
These works include a plot where a supercomputer is designed to answer {{w|Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42|"the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything"}} and reports that the answer is "forty-two" (the joke being that the answer is useless because we don't understand the question). This number became of reference among fans of the series, and passed into more common usage.
|-
|69||data-sort-value="1795"|1790s?||Refers to {{w|69 (sex position)|the sexual act of simultaneous oral gratification}}.
Described by the French as "soixante-neuf", i.e. "sixty-nine", at least as far back as the eighteenth century; though the concept itself is far older. It's not clear when the number began to be commonly referenced by young people, though it was arguably popularized by a reference in {{w|Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure}} (1989).
|-
|420||1971||This number (originally the time "4:20 pm", and later connected to April the 20th) has become {{w|420 (cannabis culture)|slang}} for smoking {{w|marijuana}}.
Randall previously made reference to this number in [[2153: Effects of High Altitude]].
|-
|1,337||data-sort-value="1985"|1980s?||"{{w|Leet}}-speak" is a form of textual obfuscation using an alternative orthography (various character substitutions and phonetic shifts) to 'spell' words. This particular type of orthography initially became popular among young computer hackers ("leet" being slang for "elite").
"1337" is the usual way to represent the term "LEET" ("1" is commonly a lower-case "L", "3"s are often used as "E"s – see 58,008's calcuator-speak examples – and "7" closely resembles a "T"). (i.e. the self-description of the in-group who are using this system).
Randall has previously referred to 1337 in the [[Category:1337|1337]] series and in [[1337: Hack]].
|-
|58,008||data-sort-value="1975"|1970s?||The number "58008" {{w|Calculator spelling|spells}} in a seven-segment display and inverted, spells "BOOBS". There is also a longer version "5318008" which spells "BOOBIES". When calculators with these displays became common in schools in the 1980s, young people (particularly young men) took delight in this discovery, and in the fact that they could use an apparently inscrutable number as a salacious reference.
|-
|data-sort-value="67"|6 7||2025||{{w|6-7 meme|This meme}} originated from the song "Doot Doot" by Skrilla and quickly became an in-crowd joke, together with hand actions, among many young people.
The meme quickly became sufficiently divorced from its original meaning that even many people referencing it didn't know its origins, leading to many people seeing it as [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/67-meme fundamentally meaningless], though that hasn't stopped people from trying to assign a meaning to it.
|}

The title text claims that the media reaction to "23-skiddoo" around the turn of the 20th century (''one'' of the oldest terms, ''possibly'' the first noted by the mathematicians of that day) was very similar to the current media reaction to "6 7". This highlights a perennial historical cycle of the Young being confusing to the Old; with the Young growing up to become the Old and being confused by a new generation of Young.

Other cartoons featuring lists of symbolic numbers include [[487: Numerical Sex Positions]]. The trend of new manifestations of long-running phenomena being treated as signs of social decay is referenced in [[1227: The Pace of Modern Life]].

==Transcript==
:[A banner is hanging from the ceiling with a large line of text above a smaller one:]
:<big>Mathematical society</big>
:2025 meeting

:[Below the banner there are four people, three of them are standing close together to the left with Hairbun leftmost addressing Cueball and Megan who is looking at her. Ponytail is standing to the far right next to a whiteboard, and is using a marker to circle round the last of several items on the board.]
:Hairbun: Any other new developments from the year to cover before we wrap?
:Cueball: Oh, the teens picked a new funny number.
:Megan: Aww, I'm glad to hear they're still doing that.
:Ponytail: I'll add it to the list.

:[The board generally contains two columns of numbers, the first row having text after its number, thus across both columns. The last pair of digits is the new 'number' circled round by Ponytail. From top, in reading order, they are:]
:23 (skidoo!)
:42    1,337
:69    58,008
:420   6 7

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category: Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: Math]]
[[Category: Language]]

3184: Funny Numbers

2025-12-24T05:32:45Z

Trimutius: 69 dude

{{comic
| number = 3184
| date = December 22, 2025
| title = Funny Numbers
| image = funny_numbers_2x.png
| imagesize = 360x453px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In 1899, people were walking around shouting '23' at each other and laughing, and confused reporters were writing articles trying to figure out what it meant.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the square root of -2. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic refers to the recent meme {{w|6-7 meme|"6 7"}}, often accompanied by moving your hands up and down. While many people think that inscrutible obsession over certain numbers is a novel activity of the latest generation of kids, the comic points out that there's a long history of young people finding ways to have fun with certain numbers.

The numbers listed are:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
!Number!!Adopted?!!class="unsortable"|Explanation
|-
|data-sort-value="23"|23 (skidoo!)||data-sort-value="1899"|around 1899||The number relates to leaving quickly (a suggestion to go away), for indeterminate reasons.
{{w|23 skidoo|It was a death row prisoner's number}} in a then-new stage play based on ''A Tale of Two Cities'' by Charles Dickens. Soon after its coining, it was popularly combined with a term of similar use to become the phrase "{{w|23 skidoo}}".
|-
|42||1978||A number made popular by {{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy}} a radio play, and book by Douglas Adams.
It is the undisputed {{w|Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42|answer}} to the "ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything". Exactly what that question is, however, remains unknown and probably unknowable.
|-
|69||data-sort-value="1795"|1790s?||Refers to the {{w|69 (sex position)|sexual act}} of simultaneous oral gratification.
Described by the French as "soixante-neuf", i.e. "sixty-nine", at least as far back as the eighteenth century; though the concept itself is far older, and it would be very difficult to say when the mathematicians finally took note of 'young people' referencing it. One iconic mention of the number would be "69 dude" from {{w|Bill & Ted}}.
|-
|420||1971||This number (originally the time "4:20 pm", and later connected to April the 20th) has become {{w|420 (cannabis culture)|slang}} for smoking {{w|marijuana}}.
|-
|1,337||data-sort-value="1985"|1980s?||"{{w|Leet}}-speak" is a form of textual obfuscation using an alternative orthography (various character substitutions and phonetic shifts) to 'spell' words.
"1337" is the usual way to represent the term "LEET" ("1" is commonly a lower-case "L", "3"s are often used as "E"s – see 58,008's calcuator-speak examples – and "7" closely resembles a "T"). This in turn, pronouncing "L" and "EET" separately, is the word "elite" (i.e. the self-description of the in-group who are using this system).
|-
|58,008||data-sort-value="1975"|1970s?||The number "58008" {{w|Calculator spelling|spells}} "BOOBS" if you show it by seven-segment displays, like on many calculators, and turn the display upside down. There is also a longer version "5318008" which spells "BOOBIES".
This is not the only message you can say using calculators; for example, 0.7734 or 0.1134 'spells' "hELL'O"/”hello". Other examples include 71,077,345 ("Shell oil") and 59,611,345 ("Shell gas"). The inverted "3"/"E" relationship may have inspired the use of "1337" to represent "LEET".
|-
|data-sort-value="67"|6 7||2025||This {{w|6-7 meme|meme}} originated from the song "Doot Doot" by Skrilla and quickly became an in-crowd joke, together with hand actions, among many young people.
It was said to have [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/67-meme been meaningless], though that hasn't stopped people from trying to assign a meaning to it.
|}

The title text claims that the media reaction to "23-skiddoo" around the turn of the 20th century (''one'' of the oldest terms, ''possibly'' the first noted by the mathematicians of that day) was very similar to the current media reaction to "6 7". This highlights a perennial historical cycle of the Young being confusing to the Old; with the Young growing up to become the Old and being confused by a new generation of Young.

Other cartoons featuring lists of symbolic numbers include [[487: Numerical Sex Positions]], while the issue of there being nothing actually new about seemingly contemporary developments is covered in comics like [[1227: The Pace of Modern Life]].

==Transcript==
:[A banner is hanging from the ceiling with a large line of text above a smaller one:]
:<big>Mathematical society</big>
:2025 meeting

:[Below the banner there are four people, three of them are standing close together to the left with Hairbun leftmost addressing Cueball and Megan who is looking at her. Ponytail is standing to the far right next to a whiteboard, and is using a marker to circle round the last of several items on the board.]
:Hairbun: Any other new developments from the year to cover before we wrap?
:Cueball: Oh, the teens picked a new funny number.
:Megan: Aww, I'm glad to hear they're still doing that.
:Ponytail: I'll add it to the list.

:[The board generally contains two columns of numbers, the first row having text after its number, thus across both columns. The last pair of digits is the new 'number' circled round by Ponytail. From top, in reading order, they are:]
:23 (skidoo!)
:42    1,337
:69    58,008
:420   6 7

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category: Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category: Math]]
[[Category: Language]]

3183: Pole Vault Pole

2025-12-20T21:45:04Z

Trimutius: Found some background on rule 28.2.3

{{comic
| number = 3183
| date = December 19, 2025
| title = Pole Vault Pole
| image = pole_vault_pole_2x.png
| imagesize = 550x464px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = My goal in life is to be personally responsible for at least one sports rule change.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a BOT OF UNLIMITED LENGTH. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The comic shows three hypothetical ways to cheat at {{w|pole vault}}, taking advantage of the fact that the rules don't limit the physical size of the pole. {{w|World Athletics}}' competition rules, rule 28.11, states, "The pole may be of any material or combination of materials and of any length or diameter, but the basic surface must be smooth."<ref>https://www.worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=1db01fe4-2229-4591-81ec-745bcc6042c7.pdf&urlslug=C2.1%20Technical%20Rules%20</ref>

The first way uses a pole that's short but with a very large diameter. It's then turned 90 degrees horizontally, so it can actually be used as a large wheel. The vaulter balances on top, then uses their feet to make it roll towards a crossbar at about the same height as the pole's diameter. When it reaches the bar, they simply jump a short amount to clear the bar.

The second method uses a pole whose length is more than twice the height of the crossbar. It's stretched over the bar and somehow attached to the ground at each end. Then the vaulter simply climbs up and over the bar.

The third method ties the ends of a very long and wide pole together, forming a large hoop that can be rolled towards the crossbar. The vaulter grabs onto the hoop, and when they reach the top they let go, and their momentum tosses them over the bar.

There are several flaws with these designs:

* Chiefly, the reason that the IAAF has not yet specified a standard measurement for poles is because there have not been any attempts to use a bizarre or potentially-advantageous design like these in sanctioned competitions. Were someone to try to do so, the authorities would {{tvtropes|ObviousRulePatch|take notice}} (though as we will see in the title text, Randall would count this as a win).

* All three designs may violate rule 28.2.2, which states that no part of the pole may touch the ground beyond the box until after the athlete has cleared the bar (there is an exception for the pole touching the landing mats after being properly planted in the box, but none of these designs would be properly planted, and all three would likely touch the ground beyond the landing mats). The first and third design may avoid this with careful timing, but it would be a deal breaker for the second. In addition:

:* The first design is hampered by its size; any material sturdy enough to take a human's weight would cause a wheel that big to be considerably massive, difficult for a human to start in motion from a dead stop, dangerous if the user falls off while rolling it down the track, and capable of continuing on after the vaulter makes their jump, dislodging the bar from the vaulting frame and thereby disqualifying the attempt.

:* The second design violates rule 28.2.3, which effectively prohibits climbing the pole by banning moving the upper hand or swapping which hand is the upper hand after leaving the ground which was introduced after [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1au258q/controversial_pole_vault_olimpics_story_is_it_true/ someone actually did it]. In addition, the time it takes for the pole to be sturdily embedded in the take-off & landing pits, plus the time to traverse the arch, may exceed the time limit allowed for the vault.

:* The third design combines the first design's risks of the vaulter falling off and dislodging the bar with an additional violation of rule 28.1.1 that states that the use of tape may not result in the creation of any "ring" on the pole.

The title text says that Randall wants to be responsible for a sports rule change. Based on the contents of the comic, the implication is that he would go about this by exploiting some loophole that the organizers would be forced to patch. Though his second design couldn't possibly do that, as something similar already happened in 1890.

How you could jump higher at certain places on Earth than others, for instance using a pole, was the subject of [[852: Local g]]. Pole vaulting and unfair methods of gaining height are also discussed in the first chapter of [[How To]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[At top left: A large wheel whose diameter is more than 4 times Cueball's height. Cueball is at the top, running backwards so that the wheel will roll towards a pole-vaulting crossbar at the same height.]
:[At top right: A long pole is bent into an arch going over a very high pole-vaulting crossbar. Cueball is climbing up the left part, and is about 3/4 of the way to the top.]
:[Along the bottom: A long pole has been bent into a circular hoop, with the ends tied together. It's rolling left-to-right towards a very high pole-vaulting crossbar, and three positions are shown. On the left Cueball is running to catch up with it. In the middle he has jumped and caught the left part of the pole. On the right, he has let go and is thrown into the air towards the crossbar.]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Fun fact: There are no limits on the length or diameter of the pole in pole vault.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Sport]]

Talk:3183: Pole Vault Pole

2025-12-20T13:54:12Z

Trimutius: a bit on time limit

Climbing up the pole is already forbidden as a direct result of people actually doing that with a normal pole; specifically neither hand may hold the pole above the initial position of the upper hand. The other two methods are excluded by the rule that the bottom end of the pole must be within the box during the jump, so Randall will have to think of something else to reach his goal. [[Special:Contributions/79.141.154.179|79.141.154.179]] 08:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

On a related point of interest, there are lots of occasions, particularly in more equipment orientated sports such as cycling and rowing where technical Innovations allowed a competitor to dominate and were banned immediately afterwards. Usually these aren't as colourful as Randall's proposals but the superman position bike frame, sliding rigger rowing boat and LZR "super suit for swimming all enabled new records and were deemed "tech doping" afterwards.

Most records set with these have since been broken but it's still thought they would confer a significant advantage.

Time limit is mentioned in both pole vault wikipedia page and IAAF regulations, but couldn't find any good link to just link to only time limit directly.{{cn}}--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 13:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

3183: Pole Vault Pole

2025-12-20T13:22:13Z

Trimutius: There is a time limit in pole vault so number two is our of the question, because it will take too long

{{comic
| number = 3183
| date = December 19, 2025
| title = Pole Vault Pole
| image = pole_vault_pole_2x.png
| imagesize = 550x464px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = My goal in life is to be personally responsible for at least one sports rule change.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a BOT OF UNLIMITED LENGTH. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The comic shows three hypothetical ways to cheat at {{w|pole vault}}, taking advantage of the fact that the rules don't limit the physical size of the pole. {{w|World Athletics}}' competition rules, rule 28.11, states, "The pole may be of any material or combination of materials and of any length or diameter, but the basic surface must be smooth."

The first way uses a pole that's short but with a very large diameter. It's then turned 90 degrees horizontally, so it can actually be used as a large wheel. The vaulter balances on top, then uses their feet to make it roll towards a crossbar at about the same height as the pole's diameter. When it reaches the bar, they simply jump a short amount to clear the bar.

The second method uses a pole whose length is more than twice the height of the crossbar. It's stretched over the bar and somehow attached to the ground at each end. Then the vaulter simply climbs up and over the bar.

The third method ties the ends of a very long and wide pole together, forming a large hoop that can be rolled towards the crossbar. The vaulter grabs onto the hoop, and when they reach the top they let go, and their momentum tosses them over the bar.

There are several flaws with these designs:

• Chiefly, the reason that the IAAF has not yet specified a standard measurement for poles is because there have not been any attempts to use a bizarre or potentially-advantageous design like these in sanctioned competitions. Were someone to try to do so, the authorities would {{tvtropes|ObviousRulePatch|take notice}} (though as we will see in the title text, Randall would count this as a win).

• The first design is hampered by its size; any material sturdy enough to take a human's weight would cause a wheel that big to be considerably massive, difficult for a human to start in motion from a dead stop, dangerous if the user falls off while rolling it down the track, and capable of continuing on after the vaulter makes their jump, dislodging the bar from the vaulting frame and thereby disqualifying the attempt.

• The second design needs a few minutes in order to be sturdily embedded in the take-off & landing pits, which will not only be over time limit allowed for the vault, but will also cause a lot of stress to gather along the bowed pole which could make it snap or suddenly dislodge itself. Climbing along the pole also does not meet the defined action of vaulting, which is the apogee of the vaulter's ascent when their momentum should carry them over the bar on their own.

• The third design combines the first design's risks of the vaulter falling off and dislodging the bar with the second's risk of snapping or coming unfurled.

The title text says that Randall wants to be responsible for a sports rule change. Based on the contents of the comic, the implication is that he would go about this by exploiting some loophole that the organizers would be forced to patch.

Pole vaulting and unfair methods of gaining height are also discussed in the first chapter of [[How To]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[At top left: A large wheel whose diameter is more than 4 times Cueball's height. Cueball is at the top, running backwards so that the wheel will roll towards a pole-vaulting crossbar at the same height.]
:[At top right: A long pole is bent into an arch going over a very high pole-vaulting crossbar. Cueball is climbing up the left part, and is about 3/4 of the way to the top.]
:[Along the bottom: A long pole has been bent into a circular hoop, with the ends tied together. It's rolling left-to-right towards a very high pole-vaulting crossbar, and three positions are shown. On the left Cueball is running to catch up with it. In the middle he has jumped and caught the left part of the pole. On the right, he has let go and is thrown into the air towards the crossbar.]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Fun fact: There are no limits on the length or diameter of the pole in pole vault.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Sport]]

3182: Telescope Types

2025-12-18T16:17:53Z

Trimutius: fixed capitlalization

{{comic
| number = 3182
| date = December 17, 2025
| title = Telescope Types
| image = telescope_types_2x.png
| imagesize = 517x680px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to buy a gravitational lens for my camera, but I can't tell if the manufacturers are listing comoving focal length or proper focal length.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently ACCORDING TO A TELESCOPE POINTING BACK IN TIME. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic shows diagrams of a number of different types of {{w|telescope}}, some real and others made up by Randall. It includes both refracting and reflecting designs; see [[1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector]] for the important (according to Randall) differences between them.

{| class="wikitable"
! Type !! Real? !! Refractor/Reflector !! Description
|-
| {{w|Reflecting telescope#Prime_focus|Prime Focus}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design where the observer/receiver is situated at the focal point of a single mirror. Rare in optics, but a common design in radio telescopes.
|-
| {{w|Herschelian telescope|Herschelian}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design much akin to Prime Focus but with the mirror tilted so that the observer does not block incoming light. Named after astronomer William Herschel.
|-
| {{w|Newtonian telescope|Newtonian}} || Yes || Reflector || Newtonian telescopes employ a second, flat mirror along with the primary parabolic mirror.
|-
| {{w|Galilean telescope|Galilean}} || Yes || Refractor || What might usually come to mind when picturing a telescope. A long tube that uses lenses rather than mirrors (making it a refracting telescope) to magnify images.
|-
| {{w|Keplerian telescope|Keplerian}} || Yes || Refractor || An improvement on Galilean telescopes, using a convex lens rather than a concave one at the eyepiece (as shown in the diagram). It does however invert images.
|-
| {{w|Gregorian telescope|Gregorian}} || Yes || Reflector || Uses two concave mirrors, the secondary being placed beyond the primary's focal point. The image is reflected back through a hole in the primary mirror. Unique among reflectors in that the image is not inverted.
|-
| {{w|Cassegrain telescope|Cassegrain}} || Yes || Reflector || Similar to prime focus, but uses a secondary mirror to reflect light through a hole in the primary mirror to the observer (situated at the rear)
|-
| {{w|Cardboard}} tube || Yes, but not as a (functional) telescope || Neither || Children may sometimes use tubes, particularly the cardboard middles from paper rolls, as a play 'telescope'. Looking through a tube can give an illusion of magnification by removing distractions and focusing your attention on the object in view, but it doesn't actually magnify the object being viewed. It will still cause a minor optical effect due to {{w|diffraction}} on the edges of the tube.
|-
| Kaleido || Yes, but not as a telescope || Reflector || A {{w|kaleidoscope}} is similar in form to the stereotypical 'ship's telescope', being a tubular object that you look in to one end of. However, it isn't really a telescope, because you can't use it to magnify arbitrary objects of interest. The non-viewing end is closed, and you view patterns created by many fragmented reflections of tiny objects contained at the end, rather than remote objects. The mirrors are also usually flat, so there's no magnification.
|-
| {{w|Liquid mirror telescope|Liquid Mirror}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope with the same design as Prime Focus, using a rotating pool of reflective liquid (most commonly mercury) as a mirror. The diagram adds a straw so that someone can drink the liquid. This would not improve telescope performance or end well for the drinker.
|-
| Narcissian || Yes, but not as a telescope || Reflector || This is like a prime focus telescope, but the focus is outside the end of the telescope where the viewer is located, so they can only see themselves, magnified by the concave mirror. This is inspired by the myth of {{w|Narcissus}}, who fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water. A {{w|house of mirrors}} (a typical attraction at a funfair) might feature such a 'telescope', because it is basically a concave mirror.
|-
| {{w|Gravitational lens|Gravitational}} || Yes || Refractor || Using the gravitational effect of very large objects on the light passing around them to gain a magnified (if distorted) view of objects beyond them. These are formed naturally by large stars (particularly {{w|black holes}}) and galaxies, which can't be constructed on Earth{{cn}}. There are proposals to launch missions to the very far reaches of the Solar System to "construct" a {{w|Solar gravitational lens}} telescope, but the masses and distances involved are not compatible with consumer camera hardware. In the title text, Randall makes a pun on whether the listed focal length of a gravitational lens is measured in the {{w|comoving and proper distances|comoving or proper}} reference frame — that is, whether the expansion of the universe (between the place and time of the lens's creation or construction and Randall's decision to purchase) has been factored out or not. At the cosmological scales between stars and galaxies, where gravitational lensing is most relevant, this is a useful distinction to make, but [https://iauarchive.eso.org/public/themes/buying_star_names/ stars are not for sale] (by any legitimate commercial entity) and so nobody would be advertising any focal length in either reference frame for any purchaser.
|-
| Geological || No || Reflector || This 'telescope' employs a single mirror to show the observer the 2003 movie {{w|The Core}}, which was universally derided by science-minded people. As a telescope it would not be useful, not least because it cannot be pointed at an arbitrary object. Its relevance to real geology is also dubious.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Telescopes]]
[[Category:Movies]]

3180: Apples

2025-12-18T15:47:50Z

Trimutius: Mention that some mathematical disciplines do have experimental in their name.

{{comic
| number = 3180
| date = December 12, 2025
| title = Apples
| image = apples_2x.png
| imagesize = 263x364px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The experimental math department's budget is under scrutiny for how much they've been spending on trains leaving Chicago at 9:00pm traveling at 45 mph.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A CAR HEADING WEST AT 70MPH. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

Three "experimental mathematicians" have experimentally confirmed the answer to a mathematical query that might normally {{w|word problem (mathematics education)|be described}} to an elementary school class: "If [[Cueball]] has seven apples and [[Hairbun]] has five, how many apples are there in total?" With everyone having literally brought together their stated number of apples, Cueball counts the two groups of apples and states that the total is twelve. [[Blondie]] is very excited that this real world demonstration has perfect agreement with some theory, presumably arithmetic.

The root of the joke is the conflation of mathematics, an abstract framework (according to {{w|Mathematical Platonism}}), with sciences like physics or chemistry that describe real world phenomena and that require experimental confirmation. Many disciplines of mathematics related to that would have word 'experimental' in their name, such as [https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/132-134.pdf experimental statistics]. In the context of the comic, because most sciences have both theoretical and experimental wings, {{w|computer science|mathematics should as well}}, with a humorous example of what "experimental mathematics" would look like. In this case Cueball and Hairbun are literally "testing" the concept of addition by reenacting a word problem in a mathematics textbook. This physical experiment itself is humorous because there is no mathematical difference between adding groups of apples or groups of {{w|tally marks}} on a piece of paper, but the characters would likely consider the latter to be "theoretical".

A different take on the joke is that mathematics is inherently experimental, but the "experiments" take the form of rigorously proving concepts, including something as basic as addition, {{w|Foundations of mathematics|from first principles}}. From this angle one would find humor in the fact that the three characters are testing math with physical objects instead of referring to the established proofs.

The irony is that some aspects of mathematics ''are'' experimental in the manner depicted in the cartoon. Children are often taught that the angles of a triangle sum to 180° by tearing off the points of a paper triangle and using them to construct a straight line. Some aspects of computer science can also be considered "experimental mathematics", especially at the circuit level where binary logic can be physically used to perform mathematical computation.

There are real-world cases where "basic addition" doesn't give the mathematical result, when combining certain items that aren't uniform. When measured volumes of two different substances are combined to make a solution (that are not immiscible, but do form a new compound or exchange constituents) this can result in a volume of the end solution that differs from the sum of the original volumes. When measured volumes of nearly-freezing and nearly-boiling water are combined, the resulting liquid, at an intermediate temperature, will almost always be {{w|Properties of water#Density of water and ice|measurably different}} from the sum of the prior values.

The title text confirms the comic's point of experimentally reenacting mathematics textbook word problems by reference to the "Two Trains Problem", a popular type of question to teach students how to solve {{w|System of linear equations|simultaneous linear equations}}, which has previously been alluded to in [[2019: An Apple for a Dollar]]. A [https://mathseasy.quora.com/If-a-train-leaves-station-A-at-9-00-am-and-travels-at-60-miles-per-hour-and-another-train-leaves-station-B-at-10-00-am typical question of this type] asks “If a train leaves station A at 9:00 am and travels at 60 miles per hour, and another train leaves station B at 10:00 am and travels at 80 miles per hour, where will the two trains meet if station A and B are 200 miles apart?” This type of problem is so common that it became a pre-internet meme with many references in popular culture, so Randall has to provide only the setup ("trains leaving Chicago at 9 pm traveling at 45 mph") to be reasonably sure that the reader will know what he's talking about.

Unlike apples, chartering real life trains to leave both Chicago and another city to test that class of word problem would present enormous expense to the experimental mathematics department, as there is no scheduled train departing at exactly 9 PM - the closest that run are a weekend Rock Island train at 8:55 PM, a weekday South Shore Line at 9:03 PM, or possibly a Kensington-branch Metra Electric at 9:00 AM. This expense again implies that the experimental mathematics department is not content with any abstraction, such as using model trains, and must test the word problems as written.

==Transcript==
:[Hairbun and Cueball stand at the left of the panel. Blondie stands at the right. Between them are two piles of apples, one of seven apples (stacked four on the bottom, two in the middle row, and one on top) and the other of five apples (stacked three on the bottom, and two on top).They are all looking at the apples but Blondie has her arms raised high above her head.]
:Cueball: Okay, with my seven apples added to your five, we have ... let's see ... twelve apples!
:Blondie: Incredible!
:Blondie: Perfect agreement with the theory!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Experimental mathematicians

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]

Talk:3182: Telescope Types

2025-12-18T15:43:25Z

Trimutius: cardboard tube, a diffractor?

no vampire jokes 🥀 ([[1791]]) [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 00:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Got down some preliminary descriptions of each telescope type used [[Special:Contributions/185.132.133.218|185.132.133.218]] 01:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

insert that one mickey mouse meme with the caption "what a fucking narcissist"
[[User:Yaokuan ITB|Yaokuan ITB]] ([[User talk:Yaokuan ITB|talk]]) 02:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

abnormally low joke-to-real ratio for this format of comic! [[Special:Contributions/2601:241:8002:3E0:C0A2:9DA:ED39:D13F|2601:241:8002:3E0:C0A2:9DA:ED39:D13F]] 03:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:I noticed that... I think this might've originally been 'look at all these cool telescope types', but then he realized he had to put some sort of joke somewhere. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 03:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Can someone make a category for The Core (2003)? It's been mentioned often enough. [[Special:Contributions/83.245.251.49|83.245.251.49]] 09:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:Can you list 4 more comics then I will make the category. I think that is about the limit for when to make a new category. I know there are a few more but is it only 2-3more? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
::All I can think of is [[673: The Sun]]. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 15:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Also mentioned in the title text of [[2858: Thanksgiving Arguments]]. --[[Special:Contributions/208.59.176.206|208.59.176.206]] 15:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

> This would not […] end well for the drinker.

Would it though? ''Drinking'' elemental mercury, while not great on nutritional value, should be mostly safe (and I'm using that word quite loosely). The most danger would be while drinking and expelling it, when there's a danger of inhaling mercury vapors, right? --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 10:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It wouldn't take much work to make the "Real?" column all contain only "yes" [[Special:Contributions/136.32.133.124|136.32.133.124]] 12:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

As all others are refractors or reflectors, can cardboard tube be considered a diffractor? As it is the only thing that it does.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 15:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

3182: Telescope Types

2025-12-18T15:42:21Z

Trimutius: Mention a diffraction optical effect for cardboard tube.

{{comic
| number = 3182
| date = December 17, 2025
| title = Telescope Types
| image = telescope_types_2x.png
| imagesize = 517x680px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to buy a gravitational lens for my camera, but I can't tell if the manufacturers are listing comoving focal length or proper focal length.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently ACCORDING TO A TELESCOPE POINTING BACK IN TIME. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic shows diagrams of a number of different types of {{w|telescope}}, some real and others made up by Randall. It includes both refracting and reflecting designs; see [[1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector]] for the important (according to Randall) differences between them.

{| class="wikitable"
! Type !! Real? !! Refractor/Reflector !! Description
|-
| {{w|Reflecting telescope#Prime_focus|Prime Focus}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design where the observer/receiver is situated at the focal point of a single mirror. Rare in optics, but a common design in radio telescopes.
|-
| {{w|Herschelian telescope|Herschelian}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design much akin to Prime Focus but with the mirror tilted so that the observer does not block incoming light. Named after astronomer William Herschel.
|-
| {{w|Newtonian telescope|Newtonian}} || Yes || Reflector || Newtonian telescopes employ a second, flat mirror along with the primary parabolic mirror.
|-
| {{w|Galilean telescope|Galilean}} || Yes || Refractor || What might usually come to mind when picturing a telescope. A long tube that uses lenses rather than mirrors (making it a refracting telescope) to magnify images.
|-
| {{w|Keplerian telescope|Keplerian}} || Yes || Refractor || An improvement on Galilean telescopes, using a convex lens rather than a concave one at the eyepiece (as shown in the diagram). It does however invert images.
|-
| {{w|Gregorian telescope|Gregorian}} || Yes || Reflector || Uses two concave mirrors, the secondary being placed beyond the primary's focal point. The image is reflected back through a hole in the primary mirror. Unique among reflectors in that the image is not inverted.
|-
| {{w|Cassegrain telescope|Cassegrain}} || Yes || Reflector || Similar to prime focus, but uses a secondary mirror to reflect light through a hole in the primary mirror to the observer (situated at the rear)
|-
| {{w|Cardboard}} tube || Yes, but not as a (functional) telescope || Neither || Children may sometimes use tubes, particularly the cardboard middles from paper rolls, as a play 'telescope'. Looking through a tube can give an illusion of magnification by removing distractions and focusing your attention on the object in view, but it doesn't actually magnify the object being viewed. It will still cause a minor optical effect due to {{w|Diffraction}} on the edges of the tube.
|-
| Kaleido || Yes, but not as a telescope || Reflector || A {{w|kaleidoscope}} is similar in form to the stereotypical 'ship's telescope', being a tubular object that you look in to one end of. However, it isn't really a telescope, because you can't use it to magnify arbitrary objects of interest. The non-viewing end is closed, and you view patterns created by many fragmented reflections of tiny objects contained at the end, rather than remote objects. The mirrors are also usually flat, so there's no magnification.
|-
| {{w|Liquid mirror telescope|Liquid Mirror}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope with the same design as Prime Focus, using a rotating pool of reflective liquid (most commonly mercury) as a mirror. The diagram adds a straw so that someone can drink the liquid. This would not improve telescope performance or end well for the drinker.
|-
| Narcissian || Yes, but not as a telescope || Reflector || This is like a prime focus telescope, but the focus is outside the end of the telescope where the viewer is located, so they can only see themselves, magnified by the concave mirror. This is inspired by the myth of {{w|Narcissus}}, who fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water. A {{w|house of mirrors}} (a typical attraction at a funfair) might feature such a 'telescope', because it is basically a concave mirror.
|-
| {{w|Gravitational lens|Gravitational}} || Yes || Refractor || Using the gravitational effect of very large objects on the light passing around them to gain a magnified (if distorted) view of objects beyond them. These are formed naturally by large stars (particularly {{w|black holes}}) and galaxies, which can't be constructed on Earth{{cn}}. There are proposals to launch missions to the very far reaches of the Solar System to "construct" a {{w|Solar gravitational lens}} telescope, but the masses and distances involved are not compatible with consumer camera hardware. In the title text, Randall makes a pun on whether the listed focal length of a gravitational lens is measured in the {{w|comoving and proper distances|comoving or proper}} reference frame — that is, whether the expansion of the universe (between the place and time of the lens's creation or construction and Randall's decision to purchase) has been factored out or not. At the cosmological scales between stars and galaxies, where gravitational lensing is most relevant, this is a useful distinction to make, but [https://iauarchive.eso.org/public/themes/buying_star_names/ stars are not for sale] (by any legitimate commercial entity) and so nobody would be advertising any focal length in either reference frame for any purchaser.
|-
| Geological || No || Reflector || This 'telescope' employs a single mirror to show the observer the 2003 movie {{w|The Core}}, which was universally derided by science-minded people. As a telescope it would not be useful, not least because it cannot be pointed at an arbitrary object. Its relevance to real geology is also dubious.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Telescopes]]
[[Category:Movies]]

3182: Telescope Types

2025-12-18T02:40:49Z

Trimutius: Updated another real not telescope

{{comic
| number = 3182
| date = December 17, 2025
| title = Telescope Types
| image = telescope_types_2x.png
| imagesize = 517x680px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to buy a gravitational lens for my camera, but I can't tell if the manufacturers are listing comoving focal length or proper focal length.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently ACCORDING TO A TELESCOPE POINTING BACK IN TIME. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic shows diagrams of a number of different types of {{w|telescope}}, some real and others made up by Randall. It includes both refracting and reflecting designs; see [[1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector]] for the important (according to Randall) differences between them.

{| class="wikitable"
! Type !! Real? !! Refractor/Reflector !! Description
|-
| {{w|Reflecting telescope#Prime_focus|Prime Focus}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design where the observer/receiver is situated at the focal point of a single mirror. Rare in optics, but a common design in radio telescopes.
|-
| {{w|Herschelian telescope|Herschelian}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design much akin to Prime Focus but with the mirror tilted so that the observer does not block incoming light. Named after astronomer William Herschel.
|-
| {{w|Newtonian telescope|Newtonian}} || Yes || Reflector || Newtonian telescopes employ a second, flat mirror along with the primary parabolic mirror.
|-
| {{w|Galilean telescope|Galilean}} || Yes || Refractor || What might usually come to mind when picturing a telescope. A long tube that uses lenses rather than mirrors (making it a refracting telescope) to magnify images.
|-
| {{w|Keplerian telescope|Keplerian}} || Yes || Refractor || An improvement on Galilean telescopes, using a convex lens rather than a concave one at the eyepiece (as shown in the diagram). It does however invert images.
|-
| {{w|Gregorian telescope|Gregorian}} || Yes || Reflector || Uses two concave mirrors, the secondary being placed beyond the primary's focal point. The image is reflected back through a hole in the primary mirror. Unique among reflectors in that the image is not inverted.
|-
| {{w|Cassegrain telescope|Cassegrain}} || Yes || Reflector || Similar to prime focus, but uses a secondary mirror to reflect light through a hole in the primary mirror to the observer (situated at the rear)
|-
| {{w|Cardboard}} tube || Yes, but not as a telescope || Neither || Looking through a tube helps you focus by removing distractions, but doesn't magnify the object being viewed.
|-
| Kaleido || Yes, but not as a telescope || Reflector? || A {{w|kaleidoscope}} isn't really a telescope, because the non-viewing end is closed. You view many reflections of tiny objects at the end, rather than remote objects. The mirrors are also usually flat, so there's no magnification.
|-
| {{w|Liquid mirror telescope|Liquid Mirror}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope with the same design as Prime Focus, using a rotating pool of reflective liquid (most commonly mercury) as a mirror. The diagram adds a straw so that someone can drink the liquid. This would likely not end well for the drinker.
|-
| Narcissian || Yes, but not as a telescope || Reflector || This is like a prime focus telescope, but the focus is outside the end of the telescope where the viewer is located. So they can only see themselves, greatly magnified. This is inspired by the myth of {{w|Narcissus}}, who fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water. {{w|House of mirrors}} might feature such a "telescope", because it is basically a concave mirror, which would be a typical attraction at a funfair.
|-
| {{w|Gravitational lens|Gravitational}} || Yes || Refractor || These can't be constructed on Earth{{cn}}, they're formed naturally by large stars (particularly {{w|black holes}}) and galaxies. There are proposals to launch missions to the very far reaches of the Solar System to "construct" a {{w|Solar gravitational lens}} telescope, but the masses and distances involved are not compatible with consumer camera hardware. In the title text, Randall makes a pun on whether the listed focal length of a gravitational lens is measured in the {{w|comoving and proper distances|comoving or proper}} reference frame, i.e. whether the expansion of the universe (between the place and time of the lens's creation or construction and Randall's decision to purchase) has been factored out or not. At the cosmological scales between stars and galaxies, where gravitational lensing is most relevant, this is a useful distinction to make, but [https://iauarchive.eso.org/public/themes/buying_star_names/ stars are not for sale] (by any legitimate commercial entity) and so nobody would be advertising any focal length in either reference frame for any purchaser.
|-
| Geological || No || Reflector || This 'telescope' employs a single mirror to show the observer the 2003 movie "The Core". As a telescope it would not be useful, not least because it cannot be pointed at anything in the sky.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Telescopes]]
[[Category:Movies]]

3182: Telescope Types

2025-12-18T02:39:28Z

Trimutius: As funfairs can have them, Narcissian is a yes but not a telescope

{{comic
| number = 3182
| date = December 17, 2025
| title = Telescope Types
| image = telescope_types_2x.png
| imagesize = 517x680px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to buy a gravitational lens for my camera, but I can't tell if the manufacturers are listing comoving focal length or proper focal length.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently ACCORDING TO A TELESCOPE POINTING BACK IN TIME. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic shows diagrams of a number of different types of {{w|telescope}}, some real and others made up by Randall. It includes both refracting and reflecting designs; see [[1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector]] for the important (according to Randall) differences between them.

{| class="wikitable"
! Type !! Real? !! Refractor/Reflector !! Description
|-
| {{w|Reflecting telescope#Prime_focus|Prime Focus}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design where the observer/receiver is situated at the focal point of a single mirror. Rare in optics, but a common design in radio telescopes.
|-
| {{w|Herschelian telescope|Herschelian}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design much akin to Prime Focus but with the mirror tilted so that the observer does not block incoming light. Named after astronomer William Herschel.
|-
| {{w|Newtonian telescope|Newtonian}} || Yes || Reflector || Newtonian telescopes employ a second, flat mirror along with the primary parabolic mirror.
|-
| {{w|Galilean telescope|Galilean}} || Yes || Refractor || What might usually come to mind when picturing a telescope. A long tube that uses lenses rather than mirrors (making it a refracting telescope) to magnify images.
|-
| {{w|Keplerian telescope|Keplerian}} || Yes || Refractor || An improvement on Galilean telescopes, using a convex lens rather than a concave one at the eyepiece (as shown in the diagram). It does however invert images.
|-
| {{w|Gregorian telescope|Gregorian}} || Yes || Reflector || Uses two concave mirrors, the secondary being placed beyond the primary's focal point. The image is reflected back through a hole in the primary mirror. Unique among reflectors in that the image is not inverted.
|-
| {{w|Cassegrain telescope|Cassegrain}} || Yes || Reflector || Similar to prime focus, but uses a secondary mirror to reflect light through a hole in the primary mirror to the observer (situated at the rear)
|-
| {{w|Cardboard}} tube || Yes, but not as a telescope || Neither || Looking through a tube helps you focus by removing distractions, but doesn't magnify the object being viewed.
|-
| Kaleido || Yes || Reflector? || A {{w|kaleidoscope}} isn't really a telescope, because the non-viewing end is closed. You view many reflections of tiny objects at the end, rather than remote objects. The mirrors are also usually flat, so there's no magnification.
|-
| {{w|Liquid mirror telescope|Liquid Mirror}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope with the same design as Prime Focus, using a rotating pool of reflective liquid (most commonly mercury) as a mirror. The diagram adds a straw so that someone can drink the liquid. This would likely not end well for the drinker.
|-
| Narcissian || Yes, but not as a telescope || Reflector || This is like a prime focus telescope, but the focus is outside the end of the telescope where the viewer is located. So they can only see themselves, greatly magnified. This is inspired by the myth of {{w|Narcissus}}, who fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water. {{w|House of mirrors}} might feature such a "telescope", because it is basically a concave mirror, which would be a typical attraction at a funfair.
|-
| {{w|Gravitational lens|Gravitational}} || Yes || Refractor || These can't be constructed on Earth{{cn}}, they're formed naturally by large stars (particularly {{w|black holes}}) and galaxies. There are proposals to launch missions to the very far reaches of the Solar System to "construct" a {{w|Solar gravitational lens}} telescope, but the masses and distances involved are not compatible with consumer camera hardware. In the title text, Randall makes a pun on whether the listed focal length of a gravitational lens is measured in the {{w|comoving and proper distances|comoving or proper}} reference frame, i.e. whether the expansion of the universe (between the place and time of the lens's creation or construction and Randall's decision to purchase) has been factored out or not. At the cosmological scales between stars and galaxies, where gravitational lensing is most relevant, this is a useful distinction to make, but [https://iauarchive.eso.org/public/themes/buying_star_names/ stars are not for sale] (by any legitimate commercial entity) and so nobody would be advertising any focal length in either reference frame for any purchaser.
|-
| Geological || No || Reflector || This 'telescope' employs a single mirror to show the observer the 2003 movie "The Core". As a telescope it would not be useful, not least because it cannot be pointed at anything in the sky.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Telescopes]]
[[Category:Movies]]

3182: Telescope Types

2025-12-18T02:38:16Z

Trimutius: Houses of mirrors sometimes feature concave mirrors as attractions, which would be pretty much the Narcissian.

{{comic
| number = 3182
| date = December 17, 2025
| title = Telescope Types
| image = telescope_types_2x.png
| imagesize = 517x680px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I'm trying to buy a gravitational lens for my camera, but I can't tell if the manufacturers are listing comoving focal length or proper focal length.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently ACCORDING TO A TELESCOPE POINTING BACK IN TIME. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
This comic shows diagrams of a number of different types of {{w|telescope}}, some real and others made up by Randall. It includes both refracting and reflecting designs; see [[1791: Telescopes: Refractor vs Reflector]] for the important (according to Randall) differences between them.

{| class="wikitable"
! Type !! Real? !! Refractor/Reflector !! Description
|-
| {{w|Reflecting telescope#Prime_focus|Prime Focus}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design where the observer/receiver is situated at the focal point of a single mirror. Rare in optics, but a common design in radio telescopes.
|-
| {{w|Herschelian telescope|Herschelian}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope design much akin to Prime Focus but with the mirror tilted so that the observer does not block incoming light. Named after astronomer William Herschel.
|-
| {{w|Newtonian telescope|Newtonian}} || Yes || Reflector || Newtonian telescopes employ a second, flat mirror along with the primary parabolic mirror.
|-
| {{w|Galilean telescope|Galilean}} || Yes || Refractor || What might usually come to mind when picturing a telescope. A long tube that uses lenses rather than mirrors (making it a refracting telescope) to magnify images.
|-
| {{w|Keplerian telescope|Keplerian}} || Yes || Refractor || An improvement on Galilean telescopes, using a convex lens rather than a concave one at the eyepiece (as shown in the diagram). It does however invert images.
|-
| {{w|Gregorian telescope|Gregorian}} || Yes || Reflector || Uses two concave mirrors, the secondary being placed beyond the primary's focal point. The image is reflected back through a hole in the primary mirror. Unique among reflectors in that the image is not inverted.
|-
| {{w|Cassegrain telescope|Cassegrain}} || Yes || Reflector || Similar to prime focus, but uses a secondary mirror to reflect light through a hole in the primary mirror to the observer (situated at the rear)
|-
| {{w|Cardboard}} tube || Yes, but not as a telescope || Neither || Looking through a tube helps you focus by removing distractions, but doesn't magnify the object being viewed.
|-
| Kaleido || Yes || Reflector? || A {{w|kaleidoscope}} isn't really a telescope, because the non-viewing end is closed. You view many reflections of tiny objects at the end, rather than remote objects. The mirrors are also usually flat, so there's no magnification.
|-
| {{w|Liquid mirror telescope|Liquid Mirror}} || Yes || Reflector || A telescope with the same design as Prime Focus, using a rotating pool of reflective liquid (most commonly mercury) as a mirror. The diagram adds a straw so that someone can drink the liquid. This would likely not end well for the drinker.
|-
| Narcissian || No || Reflector || This is like a prime focus telescope, but the focus is outside the end of the telescope where the viewer is located. So they can only see themselves, greatly magnified. This is inspired by the myth of {{w|Narcissus}}, who fell in love with his reflection in a pool of water. {{w|House of mirrors}} might feature such a "telescope", because it is basically a concave mirror, which would be a typical attraction there.
|-
| {{w|Gravitational lens|Gravitational}} || Yes || Refractor || These can't be constructed on Earth{{cn}}, they're formed naturally by large stars (particularly {{w|black holes}}) and galaxies. There are proposals to launch missions to the very far reaches of the Solar System to "construct" a {{w|Solar gravitational lens}} telescope, but the masses and distances involved are not compatible with consumer camera hardware. In the title text, Randall makes a pun on whether the listed focal length of a gravitational lens is measured in the {{w|comoving and proper distances|comoving or proper}} reference frame, i.e. whether the expansion of the universe (between the place and time of the lens's creation or construction and Randall's decision to purchase) has been factored out or not. At the cosmological scales between stars and galaxies, where gravitational lensing is most relevant, this is a useful distinction to make, but [https://iauarchive.eso.org/public/themes/buying_star_names/ stars are not for sale] (by any legitimate commercial entity) and so nobody would be advertising any focal length in either reference frame for any purchaser.
|-
| Geological || No || Reflector || This 'telescope' employs a single mirror to show the observer the 2003 movie "The Core". As a telescope it would not be useful, not least because it cannot be pointed at anything in the sky.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Telescopes]]
[[Category:Movies]]

Talk:3180: Apples

2025-12-15T17:29:39Z

Trimutius: What the

As heretical as it is, I almost want to keep the explanation just like this [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:I wasnt going to ruin it, when I saw it like that. But now it's been expanded, I've added in my own thoughts on the subject. Namely elemental number-theory, i.e. the possibility of counting any item just like you count any other item, plus what's going on with the title text, including a slightly kludgy call-back to the fact that (''to have a budget'', that must have people succesfully counting expenditures and purchased values) the Exp. Maths Dept. has clearly trained people in the use of numbers enough for them to now be awkwardly snapping at the heels of the EMD querying the justifiability of at least one of their ongoing studies. (Not sure how long my thoughts will actually last, though, in the light of further editing. But I hope at least some of what I'm getting at will be successfully distilled into any more succinct version.) [[Special:Contributions/78.144.255.82|78.144.255.82]] 01:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:I guess [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3180:_Apples&oldid=401411 this was the explanation] at the time of this comment!? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Twelve apples! <*thunder rolls*> Ha! Ha! Ha! [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the irony! How did they count the twelve apples? 0,succ(0),succ(succ(0))..., I bet. This is already heavy math. (For example, what guarantees you that succ(0) exists and has exactly one value 1 and is the successor only of 0? Peano envy.) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961|2A02:2455:1960:4000:FD7E:5F02:5364:961]] 08:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for starting your counting at 0. I have espoused that zero IS a counting number, as you can't get to 1, unless you first arrive at 0. "Sherman, count how many unicorns there are in this field." "Um, there are zero, Mr. Peabody." [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::How'd you "get to" zero? You have to start somewhere and it is arbitrary. You could start at 17, define succ^-1(x) and go back to 1 or 0. Clearly this is inconvenient but not wrong. If you need zero it may make sense to start at zero but if you need negatives it may not matter. If you are teaching you might want to deal with other concepts and not "we start at zero because". There is no one true set of axioms & definition. Usefulness of Non-Euclidian geometry does not make Euclidian geometry useless.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In fact if you really want to nitpick, while most people would accept that 7+5=12 it is demonstrably false that my seven apples plus your 5 apples are equal to a pool of 12 apples. In fact it is demonstrably false that I even have 7 apples. Because no 2 apples are identical they can't be combined together. We may be willing to disregard such gross inaccuracies for the sake of, you know, being able to continue to survive for a little while longer, though. [[Special:Contributions/176.138.186.7|176.138.186.7]] 11:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:When you say "seven apples plus 5 apples is 12 apples" you are saying when a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st seven cardinal numbers is combined with a set of apples that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st five cardinal numbers you get a set that can be put in a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of the 1st twelve cardinal numbers". Like Cantor's proof that the cardinality of the unit interval is the same as the unit square. There is such a natural correspondence between (finite) cardinal numbers and strictly positive integers that it can be hard to keep in mind that, in a fussy sense, they are not the same things. [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:The physicists have already shown that all apples are perfect spheres of uniform density and cannot be split into smaller apples. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 15:11, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::Are the perfect spheres bosons or fermions?[[Special:Contributions/76.180.39.133|76.180.39.133]] 15:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Not spinning? spin=0 => boson.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This comic makes me wonder if Randall is aware of us, and if he might someday try to make a comic so bizarre, we become unable to "explain" it at all. Would such a thing be possible? Something so absurd, we're forced to shrug and say "I got nothing"? It's possible I've been awake too long.[[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 18:32, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
:Cranberry sauce.[[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 05:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

i think there's a direct connection between this and {{w|Ultrafinitism}}!! [[Special:Contributions/129.64.0.34|129.64.0.34]] 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Bumpf

"Okay, with my hrair apples added to your hrair, we have ... let's see ... hrair apples!"
"Incredible! Perfect agreement with the theory!"
It even works with multiple theories!
--[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 19:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Holy overexplanation, Batman! [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 11:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
: And yet somehow still seeming to miss the heart of the joke, in that maths rests on proving ''generalizable'' rules, so that any ''specific'' instance of a rule doesn't have to be proven from first principles. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 14:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

AI bros must not have a sense of humor because LLM's clearly don't get jokes. Seriously, can we please stop accepting these auto-gen explanations as anything close to being sufficient and work to replace them ASAP? This site functioned fine for years getting well crafted hand written explanations up within 24 hours, but today it seems that editors see the walls of text and just declare mission accomplished.[[User:Sturmovik|Sturmovik]] ([[User talk:Sturmovik|talk]]) 17:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
:what the... what makes you think you are smarter than everyone???--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 17:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

3180: Apples

2025-12-15T14:52:03Z

Trimutius: typo

{{comic
| number = 3180
| date = December 12, 2025
| title = Apples
| image = apples_2x.png
| imagesize = 263x364px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The experimental math department's budget is under scrutiny for how much they've been spending on trains leaving Chicago at 9:00pm traveling at 45 mph.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A CAR HEADING WEST AT 70MPH. Is there not way too much talk about math concepts that has nothing to do with the simple joke in this comic. Like three paragraphs too much (1+2)? Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

Three "experimental mathematicians" have experimentally confirmed the answer to a mathematical query that might normally {{w|word problem (mathematics education)|be described}} to an elementary school class: "If [[Cueball]] has seven apples and [[Hairbun]] has five, how many apples are there in total?" With everyone having literally brought together their stated number of apples, Cueball counts the two groups of apples and states that the total is twelve. [[Blondie]] is very excited that this real world demonstration has perfect agreement with some presupposed theory.

Most people with a basic level of math would be confident to represent this as 7 + 5 = 12, without needing to count groups of physical objects. However, the title text indicates that there is an entire experimental mathematics department.

This may be reflecting the most basic step of {{w|Number theory|human mathematics}}: realising that having seven of ''any'' discrete item and combining with five more results in twelve items in total. Numbers alone can therefore be freely used without there ''being'' actual items to prove. {{w|History of ancient numeral systems#Clay tokens|Early accounting methods}} initially used proxy representations of the items, in a form of hybrid literal/symbolic manner, which meant that a collection of apples and a collection of animals could be considered almost as conceptually different, even though the same initial numbers would result in identical end-totals.

This Experimental Mathematics department may have been working on this type of problem, as part of a mostly pre-mathematical culture. They are checking that seven apples plus five apples equals twelve apples after some prior work, perhaps having counted that seven sheep plus five sheep equals twelve sheep (if not several other experimentally-proven summations). Prior to checking the apples, they postulated a theory that extends to other items, such as these apples, but only by using actual apples have they confirmed the continuing truth of it.

(There are cases where this might not occur, when combining certain items that aren't uniform and discrete. Measuring volumes of two different substances, combined to make a solution, can result in wildly different volumes of the end solution; both greater and lesser. Combining measured volumes of nearly-freezing and nearly-boiling water, the resulting liquid, eventually at an intermediate temperature, can be {{w|Properties of water#Density of water and ice|measureably different}} from the simple combination of the prior values.)

Branches of science may have a division between the empirical approach (gathering direct evidence or practically demonstrating that something works) and the theoretical (developing abstract models that fit the available information through the use of abstract models). In some cases, advances in theory greatly outpace any direct physical evidence, and may deal with numbers and situations that cannot be readily reproduced or observed. For example, if straying into the territory of irrational or infinitesimal numbers, the usefulness of manifesting with physical objects may be less useful.

The title text states that, more complicated schoolroom mathematical problems are also pursued. Where the question of how many apples there are in total is simple additive arithmetic, a more advanced problem for older students may require a knowledge of {{w|algebra}} and even {{w|System of equations|simultaneous equations}} to calculate the intersection of values that a described using multiple shared variables. A common conceit is to describe journeys by train (in which a position is directly dependant upon a given time). As with the physically performed experimentations with the number of apples, it is alluded to that these more advanced queries are investigated by members of the department becoming repeat passengers upon a particular Chicago-departing rail service. In all likelihood, observers are also being assigned to various Chicago-bound services that match the initial problems' various other stipulations. (In reality, physical trains are probably less reliable incarnations of pure mathematical problems. They are potentially subject to all kinds of delays, even 'non-stop' services may change speed for various reasons and there is no indication that the pure mathematical model being enacted takes account of the train needing to take time to reach even its idealised velocity.) Whatever the test(s) using trains might be, however, the cost of either boarding or outright ''commissioning'' the train journeys is of concern to the department's accountants/auditors, who seem to have number problems of their own (i.e. the depletion of the departmental operating budget).

In reality, {{w|experimental mathematics}} is the branch of mathematics which uses computation, as opposed to "pure" deductive proof methods. This does not involve "verifying" simple arithmetic, but could encompass, for example, calculating long runs of the digits of pi in search of patterns that may not be 'obvious' from known principles but which could be proven once identified as a candidate for proof. Also part of mathematics would be something like [https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/132-134.pdf experimental statistics], though here it usually means statistically analyzing results of experiments, rather than mathematics itself being experimental.

==Transcript==
:[Hairbun and Cueball stand at the left of the panel. Blondie stands at the right. Between them are two piles of apples, one of seven apples (stacked four on the bottom, two in the middle row, and one on top) and the other of five apples (stacked three on the bottom, and two on top).They are all looking at the apples but Blondie has her arms raised high above her head.]
:Cueball: Okay, with my seven apples added to your five, we have ... let's see ... twelve apples!
:Blondie: Incredible!
:Blondie: Perfect agreement with the theory!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Experimental mathematicians

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]

3180: Apples

2025-12-15T01:51:40Z

Trimutius: A mention of experimental statistics

{{comic
| number = 3180
| date = December 12, 2025
| title = Apples
| image = apples_2x.png
| imagesize = 263x364px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The experimental math department's budget is under scrutiny for how much they've been spending on trains leaving Chicago at 9:00pm traveling at 45 mph.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY A CAR HEADING WEST AT 70MPH. Is there not way too much talk about math concepts that has nothing to do with the simple joke in this comic. Like three paragraphs too much (1+2)? Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

Three "experimental mathematicians" have experimentally confirmed the answer to a mathematical query that might normally {{w|word problem (mathematics education)|be described}} to an elementary school class: "If [[Cueball]] has seven apples and [[Hairbun]] has five, how many apples are there in total?" With everyone having literally brought together their stated number of apples, Cueball counts the two groups of apples and states that the total is twelve. [[Blondie]] is very excited and is excited that this real world demonstration has perfect agreement with some presupposed theory.

Most people with a basic level of math would be confident that represent this as 7 + 5 = 12, without needing to count groups of physical objects. However, the title text indicates that there is an entire experimental mathematics department.

It may be reflecting the most basic step of {{w|Number theory|human mathematics}}: realising that having seven of ''any'' discrete item and combining with five more results in twelve items in total. Numbers alone can therefore be freely used without there ''being'' actual items to prove. {{w|History of ancient numeral systems#Clay tokens|Early accounting methods}} initially used proxy representations of the items, in a form of hybrid literal/symbolic manner, which meant that a collection of apples and a collection of animals could be considered almost as conceptually different, even though the same initial numbers would result in identical end-totals.

This Experimental Mathematics department may have been working on this type of problem, as part of a mostly pre-mathematical culture. They checking that 7 apples plus 5 apples equals 12 apples after some prior work, perhaps having counted that 7 sheep plus 5 sheep equals 12 sheep (if not several other experimentally-proven summations). Prior to checking the apples, they postulated a theory that extends to other items, such as these apples, but only by using actual apples have they confirmed the continuing truth of it.

(There are cases where this might not occur, when combining certain items that aren't uniform and discrete. Measuring volumes of two different substances, combined to make a solution, can result in wildly different volumes of the end solution; both greater and lesser. Combining measured volumes of nearly-freezing and nearly-boiling water, the resulting liquid, eventually at an intermediate temperature, can be {{w|Properties of water#Density of water and ice|measureably different}} from the simple combination of the prior values.)

Branches of science may have a division between the empirical approach (gathering direct evidence or practically demonstrating that something works) and the theoretical (developing abstract models that fit the available information through the use of abstract models). In some cases, advances in theory greatly outpace any direct physical evidence, and may deal with numbers and situations that cannot be readily reproduced or observed. For example, if straying into the territory of irrational or infinitesimal numbers, the usefulness of manifesting with physical objects may be less useful.

The title text states that, more complicated schoolroom mathematical problems are also pursued. Where the question of how many apples there are in total is simple additive arithmatic, a more advanced problem for older students may require a knowledge of {{w|algebra}} and even {{w|System of equations|simultaneous equations}} to calculate the interesection of values that a described using multple shared variables. A common conceit is to describe it journeys by train (in which a position is directly dependant upon a given time). As with the physically performed experimentations with the number of apples, it is alluded to that these more advanced queries are investigated by members of the department becoming repeat passengets upon a particular Chicago-departing rail service. With, in all likelihood, observers also being assigned to various Chicago-bound services that match the initial problems' various other stipulations

(In reality, physical trains are probably less reliable incarnations of pure mathematical problems. They are potentially subject to all kinds of delays, even 'non-stop' services may change speed for various reasons and there is no indication that the pure mathematical model being enacted takes account of the train needing to take time to reach even its idealised velocity.)

Whatever the test(s) using trains might be, however, the cost of either boarding or outright ''commissioning'' the train-journeys is of concern to the department's accountants/auditors, who seem to have number problems of their own; i.e., the depletion of the departmental operating budget.

In reality, {{w|experimental mathematics}} is the branch of mathematics which uses computation as opposed to "pure" deductive proof methods. This does not involve "verifying" simple arithmetic, but could encompass e.g. calculating long runs of the digits of pi in search of patterns that may not be 'obvious' from known principles but which could be proven once identified as a candidate for proof. Also part of mathematics would be something like [https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/sp958-lide/132-134.pdf experimental statistics], though here usually it means analyzing statistically results of experiments rather than mathematics itself being experimental.

==Transcript==
:[Hairbun and Cueball stand at the left of the panel. Blondie stands at the right. Between them are two piles of apples, one of seven apples (stacked four on the bottom, two in the middle row, and one on top) and the other of five apples (stacked three on the bottom, and two on top).They are all looking at the apples but Blondie has her arms raised high above her head.]
:Cueball: Okay, with my seven apples added to your five, we have ... let's see ... twelve apples!
:Blondie: Incredible!
:Blondie: Perfect agreement with the theory!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Experimental mathematicians

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Food]]

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-07T14:39:19Z

Trimutius: Realized that Poles are not the only way, we can also replace squares with rectangles.

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with an average of two players facing each other across the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook, and the player who made the move is now apparently paying attention to (and plausibly co-playing with the neighbouring player on) the board he has moved his piece to. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess,{{Citation needed}} but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.

The second board's position seems to have followed (up until before this cross-boards move) the game seen in [[3045: AlphaMove]].

The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). As such there are two different possible interpretations of the title text, whether you are following geodesics on the surface of the Earth (any great circle) or following the geodesics of spacetime (leaving the Earth and going into space).

; Following great circles
A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a {{w|great circle}} - the longest possible path around that sphere, as well as only straight path on spheres. Rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any direction, along {{w|great circles}} of the Earth, as any straight line on any sphere or ellipsoid can be extended all the way across. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks, bishops and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, or in later game they would be able to teleport between left and right side, or jump on the other side of any diagonal for pieces that move diagonally, as it would be possible to go around planet following any horizontal, vertical or diagonal line of the chessboard, if no other chessboard were involved it would make it into [https://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/torus_standard_board.html Torus chess], but only for pieces that can move unlimited amount of squares. There is a caveat to it though, size of a square would have to divide the great circle exactly with a precision down to micrometer, so quite possibly only one direction would work if any at all, as Earth is not a perfect sphere, so distance around the Earth would differ in different directions. Notable exceptions being the South Pole and the North Pole where all great circles are the same, and while the North Pole is in the {{w|Arctic Ocean}} so you won't be able to stay level there easily, at the South Pole there is {{w|Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station}} where this variant of chess can be more interesting if you have correct size of the board squares, with both verticals and horizontals working. Alternatively you can replace squares on the chessboard with rectangles which are slightly not square, while this sounds like it would look not good, the actual difference between vertical and horizontal length would not have to be more than 0.08%, which at regular chessboard size would result in difference of less than 0.5mm, which will be barely noticeable. Replacing squares with rectangles presents a problem, because if you want for chessboard to be aligned always, the required dimensions would depend on latitude of where chessboard is located and also you would need to put chessboard at a precise angle on top, having many different chessboards for different latitudes would not be sustainable.{{Citation needed}}

When you have to pick a single direction that works for looping your own chessboard then there are three options of orienting the chessboard:
* If you choose horizontal line, then you will get a limited variant of {{w|Cylinder chess}}, where only Queen and rooks can utilize the wrap around, and only when moving horizontally
* If you choose vertical line, it is technically also a cylinder for rooks and queens, but it will create an interesting dynamic, where players would be able to exchange queens and rooks in first 2 turns, for example doing this opening: 1. Qxd8+ Kxd8 2. Rxh8 Rxa1
* If you choose diagonal, then it basically will result in Queens and Bishops to be able to jump over all pieces (they cannot switch to a different diagonal, like it would happen in cylinder chess, as all diagonal will loop on itself), though they would have to have visibility of one of the edges of the chess board and also as they would emerge on the opposite side of the diagonal they cannot jam themselves in-between 2 or more pieces. Also most likely diagonal works only in one of the 2 possible directions too, so there is an extra choice there (unless you are at one of the Earth's poles, where you can make both diagonal directions work).

; Following geodesics of spacetime
While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the Earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Straight line would have to be in overall spacetime of the universe along a {{w|Geodesics in general relativity|geodesic}}, it would not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{Citation needed}} and other objects in space would move so fast relatively to your board they would be in alignment only for fraction of a second, unless it is a satellite in a {{w|geostationary orbit}}. Though if you want to be level with earth and 'aim' you chessboard at a geostationary satellite, because those orbits are so far away from the Earth, you would have to be at latitude of around 81.4° in either Arctic or Antarctic. So chess game would have to take place at some {{w|List of northernmost settlements|arctic research station}} ({{w|Station Nord, Greenland}} being the optimal) or somewhere on the continent of {{w|Antarctica}} (best research station there is {{w|Sobral Base}}, though not as good as Station Nord). If this interpretation is accepted then this can be considered a second comic in a week about [[3174: Bridge Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[An aerial view of three chess-games, with six players shown, in each case with white at the near-side of board (towards the bottom of the comic panel) and each having reasonably developed game positions.]
:[The middle board has yellow highlight on the squares from white's King's Bishop's original position, diagonally forward-right to the respective edge square of the board, then four more squares in the gap between boards until ending on the black Queen's Rook square of the right-hand board, which appears now to have three white bishops, one of them on this rook's starting square.
:[There is just one black rook, elsewhere on the right board, whether or not the other was lost to middle-board's bishop, and the middle board has only one bishop (and is lacking three pawns, with just two others still in their starting positions), for white, with apparently their King sent forward-left by two successive diagonal moves but no other major pieces having noticably relocated.]
:[The middle board's near-side player has now also moved across to pay attention to the right hand board, leaving only his opponent facing his original board.]

:[Text below the main scene's panel:] It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T20:05:35Z

Trimutius: Rearranged so that title text stays together with categories

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with an average of two players facing each other across the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook, and the player who made the move is now apparently paying attention to (and plausibly co-playing with the neighbouring player on) the board he has moved his piece to. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess,{{Citation needed}} but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.

The second board's position seems to have followed (up until before this cross-boards move) the game seen in [[3045: AlphaMove]].

The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). As such there are two different possible interpretations of the title text, whether you are following geodesics on the surface of the Earth (any great circle) or following the geodesics of spacetime (leaving the Earth and going into space).

; Following great circles
A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a {{w|great circle}} - the longest possible path around that sphere, as well as only straight path on spheres. Rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any direction, along {{w|great circles}} of the Earth, as any straight line on any sphere or ellipsoid can be extended all the way across. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks, bishops and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, or in later game they would be able to teleport between left and right side, or jump on the other side of any diagonal for pieces that move diagonally, as it would be possible to go around planet following any horizontal, vertical or diagonal line of the chessboard, if no other chessboard were involved it would make it into [https://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/torus_standard_board.html Torus chess], but only for pieces that can move unlimited amount of squares. There is a caveat to it though, size of a square would have to divide the great circle exactly with a precision down to micrometer, so quite possibly only one direction would work if any at all, as Earth is not a perfect sphere, so distance around the Earth would differ in different directions. Notable exceptions being the South Pole and the North Pole where all great circles are the same, and while the North Pole is in the {{w|Arctic Ocean}} so you won't be able to stay level there easily, at the South Pole there is {{w|Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station}} where this variant of chess can be more interesting if you have correct size of the board squares, with both verticals and horizontals working.

When you have to pick a single direction that works for looping your own chessboard then there are three options of orienting the chessboard:
* If you choose horizontal line, then you will get a limited variant of {{w|Cylinder chess}}, where only Queen and rooks can utilize the wrap around, and only when moving horizontally
* If you choose vertical line, it is technically also a cylinder for rooks and queens, but it will create an interesting dynamic, where players would be able to exchange queens and rooks in first 2 turns, for example doing this opening: 1. Qxd8+ Kxd8 2. Rxh8 Rxa1
* If you choose diagonal, then it basically will result in Queens and Bishops to be able to jump over all pieces (they cannot switch to a different diagonal, like it would happen in cylinder chess, as all diagonal will loop on itself), though they would have to have visibility of one of the edges of the chess board and also as they would emerge on the opposite side of the diagonal they cannot jam themselves in-between 2 or more pieces. Also most likely diagonal works only in one of the 2 possible directions too, so there is an extra choice there (unless you are at one of the Earth's poles, where you can make both diagonal directions work).

; Following geodesics of spacetime
While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the Earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Straight line would have to be in overall spacetime of the universe along a {{w|Geodesics in general relativity|geodesic}}, it would not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{Citation needed}} and other objects in space would move so fast relatively to your board they would be in alignment only for fraction of a second, unless it is a satellite in a {{w|geostationary orbit}}. Though if you want to be level with earth and 'aim' you chessboard at a geostationary satellite, because those orbits are so far away from the Earth, you would have to be at latitude of around 81.4° in either Arctic or Antarctic. So chess game would have to take place at some {{w|List of northernmost settlements|arctic research station}} ({{w|Station Nord, Greenland}} being the optimal) or somewhere on the continent of {{w|Antarctica}} (best research station there is {{w|Sobral Base}}, though not as good as Station Nord). If this interpretation is accepted then this can be considered a second comic in a week about [[3174: Bridge Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[An aerial view of three chess-games, with six players shown, in each case with white at the near-side of board (towards the bottom of the comic panel) and each having reasonably developed game positions.]
:[The middle board has yellow highlight on the squares from white's King's Bishop's original position, diagonally forward-right to the respective edge square of the board, then four more squares in the gap between boards until ending on the black Queen's Rook square of the right-hand board, which appears now to have three white bishops, one of them on this rook's starting square.
:[There is just one black rook, elsewhere on the right board, whether or not the other was lost to middle-board's bishop, and the middle board has only one bishop (and is lacking three pawns, with just two others still in their starting positions), for white, with apparently their King sent forward-left by two successive diagonal moves but no other major pieces having noticably relocated.]
:[The middle board's near-side player has now also moved across to pay attention to the right hand board, leaving only his opponent facing his original board.]

:[Text below the main scene's panel:] It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T19:19:33Z

Trimutius: added articles

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with an average of two players facing each other across the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook, and the player who made the move is now apparently paying attention to (and plausibly co-playing with the neighbouring player on) the board he has moved his piece to. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess,{{Citation needed}} but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.

The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). As such there are two different possible interpretations of the title text, whether you are following geodesics on the surface of the Earth (any great circle) or following the geodesics of spacetime (leaving the Earth and going into space).

The second board's position seems to have followed (up until before this cross-boards move) the game seen in [[3045: AlphaMove]].

; Following great circles
A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a {{w|great circle}} - the longest possible path around that sphere, as well as only straight path on spheres. Rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any direction, along {{w|great circles}} of the Earth, as any straight line on any sphere or ellipsoid can be extended all the way across. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks, bishops and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, or in later game they would be able to teleport between left and right side, or jump on the other side of any diagonal for pieces that move diagonally, as it would be possible to go around planet following any horizontal, vertical or diagonal line of the chessboard, if no other chessboard were involved it would make it into [https://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/torus_standard_board.html Torus chess], but only for pieces that can move unlimited amount of squares. There is a caveat to it though, size of a square would have to divide the great circle exactly with a precision down to micrometer, so quite possibly only one direction would work if any at all, as Earth is not a perfect sphere, so distance around the Earth would differ in different directions. Notable exceptions being the South Pole and the North Pole where all great circles are the same, and while the North Pole is in the {{w|Arctic Ocean}} so you won't be able to stay level there easily, at the South Pole there is {{w|Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station}} where this variant of chess can be more interesting if you have correct size of the board squares, with both verticals and horizontals working.

When you have to pick a single direction that works for looping your own chessboard then there are three options of orienting the chessboard:
* If you choose horizontal line, then you will get a limited variant of {{w|Cylinder chess}}, where only Queen and rooks can utilize the wrap around, and only when moving horizontally
* If you choose vertical line, it is technically also a cylinder for rooks and queens, but it will create an interesting dynamic, where players would be able to exchange queens and rooks in first 2 turns, for example doing this opening: 1. Qxd8+ Kxd8 2. Rxh8 Rxa1
* If you choose diagonal, then it basically will result in Queens and Bishops to be able to jump over all pieces (they cannot switch to a different diagonal, like it would happen in cylinder chess, as all diagonal will loop on itself), though they would have to have visibility of one of the edges of the chess board and also as they would emerge on the opposite side of the diagonal they cannot jam themselves in-between 2 or more pieces. Also most likely diagonal works only in one of the 2 possible directions too, so there is an extra choice there (unless you are at one of the Earth's poles, where you can make both diagonal directions work).

; Following geodesics of spacetime
While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the Earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Straight line would have to be in overall spacetime of the universe along a {{w|Geodesics in general relativity|geodesic}}, it would not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{Citation needed}} and other objects in space would move so fast relatively to your board they would be in alignment only for fraction of a second, unless it is a satellite in a {{w|geostationary orbit}}. Though if you want to be level with earth and 'aim' you chessboard at a geostationary satellite, because those orbits are so far away from the Earth, you would have to be at latitude of around 81.4° in either Arctic or Antarctic. So chess game would have to take place at some {{w|List of northernmost settlements|arctic research station}} ({{w|Station Nord, Greenland}} being the optimal) or somewhere on the continent of {{w|Antarctica}} (best research station there is {{w|Sobral Base}}, though not as good as Station Nord). If this interpretation is accepted then this can be considered a second comic in a week about [[3174: Bridge Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[An aerial view of three chess-games, with six players shown, in each case with white at the near-side of board (towards the bottom of the comic panel) and each having reasonably developed game positions.]
:[The middle board has yellow highlight on the squares from white's King's Bishop's original position, diagonally forward-right to the respective edge square of the board, then four more squares in the gap between boards until ending on the black Queen's Rook square of the right-hand board, which appears now to have three white bishops, one of them on this rook's starting square.
:[There is just one black rook, elsewhere on the right board, whether or not the other was lost to middle-board's bishop, and the middle board has only one bishop (and is lacking three pawns, with just two others still in their starting positions), for white, with apparently their King sent forward-left by two successive diagonal moves but no other major pieces having noticably relocated.]
:[The middle board's near-side player has now also moved across to pay attention to the right hand board, leaving only his opponent facing his original board.]

:[Text below the main scene's panel:] It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T19:06:57Z

Trimutius: The math for aiming at the geostatinoary satellite

...Honestly, kinda don't get this one... --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:ohhhhhh... --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
wait how do comments work[[User:Avrayter|Avrayter]] ([[User talk:Avrayter|talk]]) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t understand what the title text is saying. Can someone explain it to me? [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 03:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

when I read the title, I thought of D&D Alignment, and now I want one [[Special:Contributions/93.36.184.70|93.36.184.70]] 07:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Did the math for 'aiming' at geostatinary satellite from while being level. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=arccos%286371%2Fsqrt%2842%2C164%5E2%2B6371%5E2%29%29 . If anybody wants to check my math please do so.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 19:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Chess Notation? ==

I think a funnier title text would've been:
Bfi8(!!!)
[[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 06:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Modern physics? ==
I suspect allusions to modern physics. The exact alignment of chess boards reminds me of the exactness needed to build laser resonators.
The chess piece hopping from one board to another reminds me of quantum tunneling. The title text reminds me of light following geodetic lines in general relativity.
There might be a specific quantum effect that is meant here, but I don't know. [[Special:Contributions/195.52.146.164|195.52.146.164]] 06:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

For anyone wondering: This is not legal, because even though "The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands" FIDE defines a diagonal as "A straight line of squares of the same colour, running from one edge of the board to an adjacent edge", meaning it always ends on the edge. [[Special:Contributions/85.76.137.112|85.76.137.112]] 07:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Moving from one board to another reminds me of a variety of chess variants. You know the ones: bughouse chess, Alice chess, ''5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel''. (I'm still trying to find a way to get Randall to try out that last one.) [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 10:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Math of great circles ==
Not sure how to express well mathematics of great circles, to make it clear, that it is not just longitudal lines but in any direction really. I fixed the basics, but right now it still says something potentially misleading.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 14:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:I think this was my biggest edit on this wiki, but I think I managed to make a decent explanation of the math of how this works. Also split it off from the going into space variant.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 18:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Category ==

Should this comic go in <code>Category:Comics_with_color</code>? --[[Special:Contributions/175.34.54.104|175.34.54.104]] 11:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== The game position ==

I think in white's position, the only moves that could prevent ...Nd5# are Qa4+, Qxd4, and various moves to e2. I don't hold out much hope for white. To me, this says the bishop move is a desperate attempt by the bishop to survive a bit longer. It made a king sacrifice. --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 13:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:My impression (without trying to recreate the exact play-by-play that got there) is that middle-white's defence 'exploded', they (forced or unforced) sent up to six pawns forward, losing three, dramatically unshielding the King in a very unsafe manner and (through exposure to the black Queen, later assisted by the Knight to plug potential movements) was left with no choice other than to advance white-King out there to get out of various checks.
:But I'm intrigued by the 'rules', of pieces escaping to the other board. Does middle-white play in turn with middle-black, but may (as their turn) move middle-white pieces around the right board without regard (either way) of the right-white/right-black turn-taking? The asynchrony (could pepper right-board movement with timely movements ahead and/or behind right-white's turn, to support them against right-black with additional 'intersticial' moves (until middle-black, or even left-black, opts to move pieces over there as well). Or act as strictly' "second move for white"? What happens when MW's King is mated (as it surely will, ''especially'' if MW is opting to move off-board pieces rather than fight the 'local' game)? Their pieces are taken away? Inherited? Continue to 'double-tap' their moves alongside the native player of the board? They're now entirely unfettered by MB's move to which they now don't need to wait to respond?
:Alternatively, it's a piece given ''to'' Right-White (until, perhaps, RW moves it, like any other piece, back into MW's game in their own play-order). There could be an exodus of MW pieces (bishops, rooks, queen only, with the right position opportunities; assuming you can't move to mid-board positions two or more times to allow knights and king to eventually enter full 'exile'; a couple of pawns could make it across, with complicity of an opponent, but only if you can end ''and capture'' upon tween-board spaces), and left-board players could even decide to send rooks/queens to the right-board for a comicated ''melee'' of chess.
:And, however it happens, does this also apply for boards properly aligned (or diagonally-aligned) front-to-back (leapfrogging to other boards, unseen, in further rows of competition 'up/down' of this row-of-three). And, ignoring the strictly planar nature hinted at in the comic, an 'Earth Sandwich' of board and antipodal-board could be interesting... allowing a Queen (for example) to flow off this board in ''all eight'' directions to land on the other board (in some modes, arriving on the new board in the same direction as they left the first one... unless that's set up at right-angles... although it wouldn't bother a queen... could be troublesome if pawns are allowed to keep moving off-board, for as long as it takes, to arrive ''not necessarily'' on the respective home-row of the destination grid... or have them become obligate-backwards/sideways-advancing 'borrowed' pawns, if that's how the boards (mis-)align?).
:No matter what the governing body says about board-edges, I need to know more about the practical limits and opportunities to this obscure rule! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.11|82.132.239.11]] 16:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

:The bishop knew their team was about to lose, so they decided to join another team’s play instead. [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 16:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
::You'd have thought a bishop would have had more faith! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.11|82.132.239.11]] 17:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T19:04:36Z

Trimutius: /* Explanation */ Aiming at the geostationary

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with an average of two players facing each other across the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook, and the player who made the move is now apparently paying attention to (and plausibly co-playing with the neighbouring player on) the board he has moved his piece to. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess,{{Citation needed}} but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.

The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). As such there are two different possible interpretations of the title text, whether you are following geodesics on the surface of the Earth (any great circle) or following the geodesics of spacetime (leaving the Earth and going into space).

The second board's position seems to have followed (up until before this cross-boards move) the game seen in [[3045: AlphaMove]].

; Following great circles
A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a {{w|great circle}} - the longest possible path around that sphere, as well as only straight path on spheres. Rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any direction, along {{w|great circles}} of the Earth, as any straight line on any sphere or ellipsoid can be extended all the way across. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks, bishops and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, or in later game they would be able to teleport between left and right side, or jump on the other side of any diagonal for pieces that move diagonally, as it would be possible to go around planet following any horizontal, vertical or diagonal line of the chessboard, if no other chessboard were involved it would make it into [https://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/torus_standard_board.html Torus chess], but only for pieces that can move unlimited amount of squares. There is a caveat to it though, size of a square would have to divide the great circle exactly with a precision down to micrometer, so quite possibly only one direction would work if any at all, as Earth is not a perfect sphere, so distance around the Earth would differ in different directions. Notable exceptions being South Pole and North Pole where all great circles are the same, and while North Pole is in the {{w|Arctic Ocean}} so you won't be able to stay level there easily, at South Pole there is {{w|Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station}} where this variant of chess can be more interesting if you have correct size of the board squares, with both verticals and horizontals working.

When you have to pick a single direction that works for looping your own chessboard then there are three options of orienting the chessboard:
* If you choose horizontal line, then you will get a limited variant of {{w|Cylinder chess}}, where only Queen and rooks can utilize the wrap around, and only when moving horizontally
* If you choose vertical line, it is technically also a cylinder for rooks and queens, but it will create an interesting dynamic, where players would be able to exchange queens and rooks in first 2 turns, for example doing this opening: 1. Qxd8+ Kxd8 2. Rxh8 Rxa1
* If you choose diagonal, then it basically will result in Queens and Bishops to be able to jump over all pieces (they cannot switch to a different diagonal, like it would happen in cylinder chess, as all diagonal will loop on itself), though they would have to have visibility of one of the edges of the chess board and also as they would emerge on the opposite side of the diagonal they cannot jam themselves in-between 2 or more pieces. Also most likely diagonal works only in one of the 2 possible directions too, so there is an extra choice there (unless you are at one of the Earth's poles, where you can make both diagonal directions work).

; Following geodesics of spacetime
While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the Earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Straight line would have to be in overall spacetime of the universe along a {{w|Geodesics in general relativity|geodesic}}, it would not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{Citation needed}} and other objects in space would move so fast relatively to your board they would be in alignment only for fraction of a second, unless it is a satellite in a {{w|geostationary orbit}}. Though if you want to be level with earth and 'aim' you chessboard at a geostationary satellite, because those orbits are so far away from the Earth, you would have to be at latitude of around 81.4° in either Arctic or Antarctic. So chess game would have to take place at some {{w|List of northernmost settlements|arctic research station}} ({{w|Station Nord, Greenland}} being the optimal) or somewhere on the continent of {{w|Antarctica}} (best research station there is {{w|Sobral Base}}, though not as good as Station Nord). If this interpretation is accepted then this can be considered a second comic in a week about [[3174: Bridge Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[An aerial view of three chess-games, with six players shown, in each case with white at the near-side of board (towards the bottom of the comic panel) and each having reasonably developed game positions.]
:[The middle board has yellow highlight on the squares from white's King's Bishop's original position, diagonally forward-right to the respective edge square of the board, then four more squares in the gap between boards until ending on the black Queen's Rook square of the right-hand board, which appears now to have three white bishops, one of them on this rook's starting square.
:[There is just one black rook, elsewhere on the right board, whether or not the other was lost to middle-board's bishop, and the middle board has only one bishop (and is lacking three pawns, with just two others still in their starting positions), for white, with apparently their King sent forward-left by two successive diagonal moves but no other major pieces having noticably relocated.]
:[The middle board's near-side player has now also moved across to pay attention to the right hand board, leaving only his opponent facing his original board.]

:[Text below the main scene's panel:] It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T18:51:47Z

Trimutius: Poles are interesting cases

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with an average of two players facing each other across the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook, and the player who made the move is now apparently paying attention to (and plausibly co-playing with the neighbouring player on) the board he has moved his piece to. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess,{{Citation needed}} but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.

The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). As such there are two different possible interpretations of the title text, whether you are following geodesics on the surface of the Earth (any great circle) or following the geodesics of spacetime (leaving the Earth and going into space).

The second board's position seems to have followed (up until before this cross-boards move) the game seen in [[3045: AlphaMove]].

; Following great circles
A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a {{w|great circle}} - the longest possible path around that sphere, as well as only straight path on spheres. Rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any direction, along {{w|great circles}} of the Earth, as any straight line on any sphere or ellipsoid can be extended all the way across. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks, bishops and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, or in later game they would be able to teleport between left and right side, or jump on the other side of any diagonal for pieces that move diagonally, as it would be possible to go around planet following any horizontal, vertical or diagonal line of the chessboard, if no other chessboard were involved it would make it into [https://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/torus_standard_board.html Torus chess], but only for pieces that can move unlimited amount of squares. There is a caveat to it though, size of a square would have to divide the great circle exactly with a precision down to micrometer, so quite possibly only one direction would work if any at all, as Earth is not a perfect sphere, so distance around the Earth would differ in different directions. Notable exceptions being South Pole and North Pole where all great circles are the same, and while North Pole is in the {{w|Arctic Ocean}} so you won't be able to stay level there easily, at South Pole there is {{w|Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station}} where this variant of chess can be more interesting if you have correct size of the board squares, with both verticals and horizontals working.

When you have to pick a single direction that works for looping your own chessboard then there are three options of orienting the chessboard:
* If you choose horizontal line, then you will get a limited variant of {{w|Cylinder chess}}, where only Queen and rooks can utilize the wrap around, and only when moving horizontally
* If you choose vertical line, it is technically also a cylinder for rooks and queens, but it will create an interesting dynamic, where players would be able to exchange queens and rooks in first 2 turns, for example doing this opening: 1. Qxd8+ Kxd8 2. Rxh8 Rxa1
* If you choose diagonal, then it basically will result in Queens and Bishops to be able to jump over all pieces (they cannot switch to a different diagonal, like it would happen in cylinder chess, as all diagonal will loop on itself), though they would have to have visibility of one of the edges of the chess board and also as they would emerge on the opposite side of the diagonal they cannot jam themselves in-between 2 or more pieces. Also most likely diagonal works only in one of the 2 possible directions too, so there is an extra choice there (unless you are at one of the Earth's poles, where you can make both diagonal directions work).

; Following geodesics of spacetime
While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the Earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Straight line would have to be in overall spacetime of the universe along a {{w|Geodesics in general relativity|geodesic}}, it would not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{Citation needed}} and other objects in space would move so fast relatively to your board they would be in alignment only for fraction of a second, unless it is a satellite in a {{w|geostationary orbit}}. If this interpretation is accepted then this can be considered a second comic in a week about [[3174: Bridge Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[An aerial view of three chess-games, with six players shown, in each case with white at the near-side of board (towards the bottom of the comic panel) and each having reasonably developed game positions.]
:[The middle board has yellow highlight on the squares from white's King's Bishop's original position, diagonally forward-right to the respective edge square of the board, then four more squares in the gap between boards until ending on the black Queen's Rook square of the right-hand board, which appears now to have three white bishops, one of them on this rook's starting square.
:[There is just one black rook, elsewhere on the right board, whether or not the other was lost to middle-board's bishop, and the middle board has only one bishop (and is lacking three pawns, with just two others still in their starting positions), for white, with apparently their King sent forward-left by two successive diagonal moves but no other major pieces having noticably relocated.]
:[The middle board's near-side player has now also moved across to pay attention to the right hand board, leaving only his opponent facing his original board.]

:[Text below the main scene's panel:] It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T18:36:16Z

Trimutius: Fixed chess notation

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with an average of two players facing each other across the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook, and the player who made the move is now apparently paying attention to (and plausibly co-playing with the neighbouring player on) the board he has moved his piece to. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess,{{Citation needed}} but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.

The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). As such there are two different possible interpretations of the title text, whether you are following geodesics on the surface of the earth (any great circle) or following the geodesics of spacetime (leaving the Earth and going into space).

The second position is a reference to [[3045: AlphaMove]].

; Following great circles
A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a {{w|great circle}} - the longest possible path around that sphere, as well as only straight path on spheres. Rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any direction, along {{w|great circles}} of the Earth, as any straight line on any sphere or ellipsoid can be extended all the way across. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks, bishops and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, or in later game they would be able to teleport between left and right side, or jump on the other side of any diagonal for pieces that move diagonally, as it would be possible to go around planet following any horizontal, vertical or diagonal line of the chessboard, if no other chessboard were involved it would make it into [https://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/torus_standard_board.html Torus chess], but only for pieces that can move unlimited amount of squares. There is a caveat to it though, size of a square would have to divide the great circle exactly with a precision down to micrometer, so quite possibly only one direction would work if any at all, as Earth is not a perfect sphere, so distance around the earth would differ in different directions.

When you have to pick a single direction that works for looping your own chessboard then there are three options of orienting the chessboard:
* If you choose horizontal line, then you will get a limited variant of {{w|Cylinder chess}}, where only Queen and rooks can utilize the wrap around, and only when moving horizontally
* If you choose vertical line, it is technically also a cylinder for rooks and queens, but it will create an interesting dynamic, where players would be able to exchange queens and rooks in first 2 turns, for example doing this opening: 1. Qxd8+ Kxd8 2. Rxh8 Rxa1
* If you choose diagonal, then it basically will result in Queens and Bishops to be able to jump over all pieces (they cannot switch to a different diagonal, like it would happen in cylinder chess, as all diagonal will loop on itself), though they would have to have visibility of one of the edges of the chess board and also as they would emerge on the opposite side of the diagonal they cannot jam themselves in-between 2 or more pieces. Also most likely diagonal works only in one of the 2 possible directions too, so there is an extra choice there.

; Following geodesics of spacetime
While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Straight line would have to be in overall spacetime of the universe along a {{w|Geodesics in general relativity|geodesic}}, it would not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{Citation needed}} and other objects in space would move so fast relatively to your board they would be in alignment only for fraction of a second, unless it is a satellite in a {{w|geostationary orbit}}. If this interpretation is accepted then this can be considered a second comic in a week about [[3174: Bridge Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[An aerial view of three chess-games, with six players shown, in each case with white at the near-side of board (towards the bottom of the comic panel) and each having reasonably developed game positions.]
:[The middle board has yellow highlight on the squares from white's King's Bishop's original position, diagonally forward-right to the respective edge square of the board, then four more squares in the gap between boards until ending on the black Queen's Rook square of the right-hand board, which appears now to have three white bishops, one of them on this rook's starting square.
:[There is just one black rook, elsewhere on the right board, whether or not the other was lost to middle-board's bishop, and the middle board has only one bishop (and is lacking three pawns, with just two others still in their starting positions), for white, with apparently their King sent forward-left by two successive diagonal moves but no other major pieces having noticably relocated.]
:[The middle board's near-side player has now also moved across to pay attention to the right hand board, leaving only his opponent facing his original board.]

:[Text below the main scene's panel:] It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T18:14:24Z

Trimutius:

...Honestly, kinda don't get this one... --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:ohhhhhh... --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
wait how do comments work[[User:Avrayter|Avrayter]] ([[User talk:Avrayter|talk]]) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t understand what the title text is saying. Can someone explain it to me? [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 03:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

when I read the title, I thought of D&D Alignment, and now I want one [[Special:Contributions/93.36.184.70|93.36.184.70]] 07:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Chess Notation? ==

I think a funnier title text would've been:
Bfi8(!!!)
[[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 06:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Modern physics? ==
I suspect allusions to modern physics. The exact alignment of chess boards reminds me of the exactness needed to build laser resonators.
The chess piece hopping from one board to another reminds me of quantum tunneling. The title text reminds me of light following geodetic lines in general relativity.
There might be a specific quantum effect that is meant here, but I don't know. [[Special:Contributions/195.52.146.164|195.52.146.164]] 06:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

For anyone wondering: This is not legal, because even though "The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands" FIDE defines a diagonal as "A straight line of squares of the same colour, running from one edge of the board to an adjacent edge", meaning it always ends on the edge. [[Special:Contributions/85.76.137.112|85.76.137.112]] 07:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Moving from one board to another reminds me of a variety of chess variants. You know the ones: bughouse chess, Alice chess, ''5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel''. (I'm still trying to find a way to get Randall to try out that last one.) [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 10:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Math of great circles ==
Not sure how to express well mathematics of great circles, to make it clear, that it is not just longitudal lines but in any direction really. I fixed the basics, but right now it still says something potentially misleading.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 14:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:I think this was my biggest edit on this wiki, but I think I managed to make a decent explanation of the math of how this works. Also split it off from the going into space variant.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 18:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Category ==

Should this comic go in <code>Category:Comics_with_color</code>? --[[Special:Contributions/175.34.54.104|175.34.54.104]] 11:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== The game position ==

I think in white's position, the only moves that could prevent ...Nd5# are Qa4+, Qxd4, and various moves to e2. I don't hold out much hope for white. To me, this says the bishop move is a desperate attempt by the bishop to survive a bit longer. It made a king sacrifice. --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 13:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:My impression (without trying to recreate the exact play-by-play that got there) is that middle-white's defence 'exploded', they (forced or unforced) sent up to six pawns forward, losing three, dramatically unshielding the King in a very unsafe manner and (through exposure to the black Queen, later assisted by the Knight to plug potential movements) was left with no choice other than to advance white-King out there to get out of various checks.
:But I'm intrigued by the 'rules', of pieces escaping to the other board. Does middle-white play in turn with middle-black, but may (as their turn) move middle-white pieces around the right board without regard (either way) of the right-white/right-black turn-taking? The asynchrony (could pepper right-board movement with timely movements ahead and/or behind right-white's turn, to support them against right-black with additional 'intersticial' moves (until middle-black, or even left-black, opts to move pieces over there as well). Or act as strictly' "second move for white"? What happens when MW's King is mated (as it surely will, ''especially'' if MW is opting to move off-board pieces rather than fight the 'local' game)? Their pieces are taken away? Inherited? Continue to 'double-tap' their moves alongside the native player of the board? They're now entirely unfettered by MB's move to which they now don't need to wait to respond?
:Alternatively, it's a piece given ''to'' Right-White (until, perhaps, RW moves it, like any other piece, back into MW's game in their own play-order). There could be an exodus of MW pieces (bishops, rooks, queen only, with the right position opportunities; assuming you can't move to mid-board positions two or more times to allow knights and king to eventually enter full 'exile'; a couple of pawns could make it across, with complicity of an opponent, but only if you can end ''and capture'' upon tween-board spaces), and left-board players could even decide to send rooks/queens to the right-board for a comicated ''melee'' of chess.
:And, however it happens, does this also apply for boards properly aligned (or diagonally-aligned) front-to-back (leapfrogging to other boards, unseen, in further rows of competition 'up/down' of this row-of-three). And, ignoring the strictly planar nature hinted at in the comic, an 'Earth Sandwich' of board and antipodal-board could be interesting... allowing a Queen (for example) to flow off this board in ''all eight'' directions to land on the other board (in some modes, arriving on the new board in the same direction as they left the first one... unless that's set up at right-angles... although it wouldn't bother a queen... could be troublesome if pawns are allowed to keep moving off-board, for as long as it takes, to arrive ''not necessarily'' on the respective home-row of the destination grid... or have them become obligate-backwards/sideways-advancing 'borrowed' pawns, if that's how the boards (mis-)align?).
:No matter what the governing body says about board-edges, I need to know more about the practical limits and opportunities to this obscure rule! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.11|82.132.239.11]] 16:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

:The bishop knew their team was about to lose, so they decided to join another team’s play instead. [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 16:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
::You'd have thought a bishop would have had more faith! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.11|82.132.239.11]] 17:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T18:14:11Z

Trimutius: Additional commentary on math

...Honestly, kinda don't get this one... --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:ohhhhhh... --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
wait how do comments work[[User:Avrayter|Avrayter]] ([[User talk:Avrayter|talk]]) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t understand what the title text is saying. Can someone explain it to me? [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 03:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

when I read the title, I thought of D&D Alignment, and now I want one [[Special:Contributions/93.36.184.70|93.36.184.70]] 07:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Chess Notation? ==

I think a funnier title text would've been:
Bfi8(!!!)
[[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 06:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Modern physics? ==
I suspect allusions to modern physics. The exact alignment of chess boards reminds me of the exactness needed to build laser resonators.
The chess piece hopping from one board to another reminds me of quantum tunneling. The title text reminds me of light following geodetic lines in general relativity.
There might be a specific quantum effect that is meant here, but I don't know. [[Special:Contributions/195.52.146.164|195.52.146.164]] 06:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

For anyone wondering: This is not legal, because even though "The bishop may move to any square along a diagonal on which it stands" FIDE defines a diagonal as "A straight line of squares of the same colour, running from one edge of the board to an adjacent edge", meaning it always ends on the edge. [[Special:Contributions/85.76.137.112|85.76.137.112]] 07:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Moving from one board to another reminds me of a variety of chess variants. You know the ones: bughouse chess, Alice chess, ''5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel''. (I'm still trying to find a way to get Randall to try out that last one.) [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 10:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== Math of great circles ==
Not sure how to express well mathematics of great circles, to make it clear, that it is not just longitudal lines but in any direction really. I fixed the basics, but right now it still says something potentially misleading.--[[User:Trimutius|Trimutius]] ([[User talk:Trimutius|talk]]) 14:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:I think this was my biggest edit on this wiki, but I think I managed to make a decent explanation of the math of how this works. Also split it off from the going into space variant.

== Category ==

Should this comic go in <code>Category:Comics_with_color</code>? --[[Special:Contributions/175.34.54.104|175.34.54.104]] 11:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

== The game position ==

I think in white's position, the only moves that could prevent ...Nd5# are Qa4+, Qxd4, and various moves to e2. I don't hold out much hope for white. To me, this says the bishop move is a desperate attempt by the bishop to survive a bit longer. It made a king sacrifice. --[[User:Divad27182|Divad27182]] ([[User talk:Divad27182|talk]]) 13:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
:My impression (without trying to recreate the exact play-by-play that got there) is that middle-white's defence 'exploded', they (forced or unforced) sent up to six pawns forward, losing three, dramatically unshielding the King in a very unsafe manner and (through exposure to the black Queen, later assisted by the Knight to plug potential movements) was left with no choice other than to advance white-King out there to get out of various checks.
:But I'm intrigued by the 'rules', of pieces escaping to the other board. Does middle-white play in turn with middle-black, but may (as their turn) move middle-white pieces around the right board without regard (either way) of the right-white/right-black turn-taking? The asynchrony (could pepper right-board movement with timely movements ahead and/or behind right-white's turn, to support them against right-black with additional 'intersticial' moves (until middle-black, or even left-black, opts to move pieces over there as well). Or act as strictly' "second move for white"? What happens when MW's King is mated (as it surely will, ''especially'' if MW is opting to move off-board pieces rather than fight the 'local' game)? Their pieces are taken away? Inherited? Continue to 'double-tap' their moves alongside the native player of the board? They're now entirely unfettered by MB's move to which they now don't need to wait to respond?
:Alternatively, it's a piece given ''to'' Right-White (until, perhaps, RW moves it, like any other piece, back into MW's game in their own play-order). There could be an exodus of MW pieces (bishops, rooks, queen only, with the right position opportunities; assuming you can't move to mid-board positions two or more times to allow knights and king to eventually enter full 'exile'; a couple of pawns could make it across, with complicity of an opponent, but only if you can end ''and capture'' upon tween-board spaces), and left-board players could even decide to send rooks/queens to the right-board for a comicated ''melee'' of chess.
:And, however it happens, does this also apply for boards properly aligned (or diagonally-aligned) front-to-back (leapfrogging to other boards, unseen, in further rows of competition 'up/down' of this row-of-three). And, ignoring the strictly planar nature hinted at in the comic, an 'Earth Sandwich' of board and antipodal-board could be interesting... allowing a Queen (for example) to flow off this board in ''all eight'' directions to land on the other board (in some modes, arriving on the new board in the same direction as they left the first one... unless that's set up at right-angles... although it wouldn't bother a queen... could be troublesome if pawns are allowed to keep moving off-board, for as long as it takes, to arrive ''not necessarily'' on the respective home-row of the destination grid... or have them become obligate-backwards/sideways-advancing 'borrowed' pawns, if that's how the boards (mis-)align?).
:No matter what the governing body says about board-edges, I need to know more about the practical limits and opportunities to this obscure rule! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.11|82.132.239.11]] 16:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

:The bishop knew their team was about to lose, so they decided to join another team’s play instead. [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 16:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
::You'd have thought a bishop would have had more faith! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.239.11|82.132.239.11]] 17:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T18:12:34Z

Trimutius: Orienting chessboard for when you have to pick a direction.on great circle

{{comic
| number = 3177
| date = December 5, 2025
| title = Chessboard Alignment
| image = chessboard_alignment_2x.png
| imagesize = 397x289px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Luckily, the range is limited by the fact that the square boundary lines follow great circles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created BY AN ALIGNED BISHOP. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
The comic shows an overhead view of three chess boards side by side, with an average of two players facing each other across the boards. Yellow squares (used to show the available or actual movement of a given piece) have been marked leading from the starting position of the middle board's right bishop (F1) to the upper-right. The path continues beyond the edge of the middle board, across four columns of empty space or unseen table, and ends in the top left corner (A8) of the right board. The right board has only one rook (black rectangle) while the other two boards each have two, so it is implied that the bishop has captured the rook, and the player who made the move is now apparently paying attention to (and plausibly co-playing with the neighbouring player on) the board he has moved his piece to. The text below jokingly claims that if you align chess boards exactly, pieces can cross the boundary like this. This is not legal in normal chess,{{Citation needed}} but fits into Randall's long history of comics about unusual chess rules or boards.

The title text refers to the fact that chess boards are normally placed approximately level (parallel to the surface of the Earth). As such there are two different possible interpretations of the title text, whether you are following geodesics on the surface of the earth (any great circle) or following the geodesics of spacetime (leaving the Earth and going into space).

; Following great circles
A perfect line of chessboards placed end to end on the surface of an Earth-sized sphere (or on perfectly placed tables on that sphere) would form a {{w|great circle}} - the longest possible path around that sphere, as well as only straight path on spheres. Rule would allow chess moves between boards that were kilometers (or even whole countries) apart in any direction, along {{w|great circles}} of the Earth, as any straight line on any sphere or ellipsoid can be extended all the way across. If following the great circle along the ground was considered a straight line, then it would also be possible for each side's rooks, bishops and queen to capture their counterparts in the other color's back row, or in later game they would be able to teleport between left and right side, or jump on the other side of any diagonal for pieces that move diagonally, as it would be possible to go around planet following any horizontal, vertical or diagonal line of the chessboard, if no other chessboard were involved it would make it into [https://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/torus_standard_board.html Torus chess], but only for pieces that can move unlimited amount of squares. There is a caveat to it though, size of a square would have to divide the great circle exactly with a precision down to micrometer, so quite possibly only one direction would work if any at all, as Earth is not a perfect sphere, so distance around the earth would differ in different directions.

When you have to pick a single direction that works for looping your own chessboard then there are three options of orienting the chessboard:
* If you choose horizontal line, then you will get a limited variant of {{w|Cylinder chess}}, where only Queen and rooks can utilize the wrap around, and only when moving horizontally
* If you choose vertical line, it is technically also a cylinder for rooks and queens, but it will create an interesting dynamic, where players would be able to exchange queens and rooks in first 2 turns, for example doing this opening: 1. Qd8+ Kxd8 2. Rxh8 Rxa1
* If you choose diagonal, then it basically will result in Queens and Bishops to be able to jump over all pieces (they cannot switch to a different diagonal, like it would happen in cylinder chess, as all diagonal will loop on itself), though they would have to have visibility of one of the edges of the chess board and also as they would emerge on the opposite side of the diagonal they cannot jam themselves in-between 2 or more pieces. Also most likely diagonal works only in one of the 2 possible directions too, so there is an extra choice there.

; Following geodesics of spacetime
While nearby boards would appear to be in the same plane, the curvature of the earth would cause boards more distant than 3.57 meters away to be in planes so different that the squares would be more than a micrometer off from the ideal straight lines leading off the board. It is thus implied that each infinite-range piece's valid path is a straight line of virtual squares that eventually leads into space. Straight line would have to be in overall spacetime of the universe along a {{w|Geodesics in general relativity|geodesic}}, it would not rule out motion to another board on another celestial body or spaceship, though delivery of a chess piece across this distance would be impractical{{Citation needed}} and other objects in space would move so fast relatively to your board they would be in alignment only for fraction of a second, unless it is a satellite in a {{w|geostationary orbit}}. If this interpretation is accepted then this can be considered a second comic in a week about [[3174: Bridge Clearance|distances extending past typical boundaries]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[An aerial view of three chess-games, with six players shown, in each case with white at the near-side of board (towards the bottom of the comic panel) and each having reasonably developed game positions.]
:[The middle board has yellow highlight on the squares from white's King's Bishop's original position, diagonally forward-right to the respective edge square of the board, then four more squares in the gap between boards until ending on the black Queen's Rook square of the right-hand board, which appears now to have three white bishops, one of them on this rook's starting square.
:[There is just one black rook, elsewhere on the right board, whether or not the other was lost to middle-board's bishop, and the middle board has only one bishop (and is lacking three pawns, with just two others still in their starting positions), for white, with apparently their King sent forward-left by two successive diagonal moves but no other major pieces having noticably relocated.]
:[The middle board's near-side player has now also moved across to pay attention to the right hand board, leaving only his opponent facing his original board.]

:[Text below the main scene's panel:] It doesn't happen often because it requires micrometer precision, but if two chess boards are '''''perfectly''''' aligned, it's actually legal to move pieces between them.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T17:57:30Z

Trimutius: Clean up

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T17:55:11Z

Trimutius: /* Explanation */ split title text explanation into two parts, instead of having a jumble of 2 different explanations.

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T17:20:02Z

Trimutius: Just realized, that around the earth thing only works if size of a square perfectly divides the distance around the earth down to micrometer...

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T14:45:57Z

Trimutius: typo fix

3177: Chessboard Alignment

2025-12-06T14:45:27Z

Trimutius: wait not exactly torus chess, because only bishops, rooks and queens are affected.