Talk:599: Apocalypse

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Imagine the result if the ressurected Erdős also appears in that proposed short film with Bacon. They'd both immediately get Erdős–Bacon numbers of 1, for themselves, and then every traditionally Erdős-numbered person and every single Bacon-numbered person would be guaranteed to end up with an Erdős–Bacon number of no more than their existing (Erdős|Bacon) number plus one! It would make a mockery of the entire system!!! ...and that's why the end of the world is a Bad ThingTM 18:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(Because there are pedants out there, I wish to immediately acknowledge the intrinsic error in such a statement... Anyone who hasn't acted XOR hasn't co-authored a paper can't get a finite Bacon||Erdős number to add to their finite Erdős||Bacon number, and someone who co-authored a paper with someone who acted with a second Baconised person cannot count that particular link as part of either chain, unless otherwise qualified, and therefore would count for both... Although the intermediary person might get a chance to connect to both if the original guy gets Erdős-connected by a different route. But way to ruin my own joke.)
((Oh, and my Bacon number is no more than 3, by way of an uncredited film appearance alongside Ian McKellan. I haven't checked to see if anyone else that's relevent has less than his presumed value of 2, but I'm not Erdőlised at all yet. Maybe that's my next goal in life. I know someone with an E-number of <=3, but obviously that's not enough to be worthy of geting an EB# of 7 or less for myself. 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC) ))

Without the title text it could be seen as a reference to Erdös' signature. Erdős used to sign things pgom (poor great old man) then ld (living dead) then ad (archaeological discovery) then ld again (legally dead) then cd (counts dead) so it could be them trying to see if he'd sign living dead. FlyingPiggy -- FlyingPiggy (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Because this website does not usually take a position regarding religion or the lack of religion, it may be that the moderator has failed to realize that the explanation section pertaining to the biblical concept of Apocalypse is not universally accepted. Not even close to being universally accepted. There are a number of other theological views from those who believe in the authenticity of the Bible's message which would disagree with this "explanation." 17:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I got nerd sniped trying to figure out what the summation in panel 5 (ni=0ik1/i) is supposed to be. It turns out the first term (where i = 0) comes out to 0k/0, which is undefined for all k. It follows that the sum itself is only defined when n < 0, i.e. when it's an empty sum. However, if we cancel the 1/i with a factor of i, we get ni=0ik-1, which is defined when n < 0 or k ≥ 1. Here's an interactive version I made in Desmos. Hhhguir (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)