Editing 1208: Footnote Labyrinths
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | This is a logic puzzle where the reader has to follow a confusing network of footnotes to determine whether the word "no" is to be ignored or not. | + | This is a logic puzzle where the reader has to follow a confusing network of footnotes to determine whether the word "no" is to be ignored or not. The title text references comic [[1184]], playing on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules. |
In the following solutions, "right-associative" means that the footnotes are evaluated from right to left or top to bottom, and left-associative from left to right or bottom to top (e.g. (2<sup>6</sup>)<sup><sup>3</sup></sup> is left-associative, and 2<sup>(6<sup>3</sup>)</sup> is right-associative). | In the following solutions, "right-associative" means that the footnotes are evaluated from right to left or top to bottom, and left-associative from left to right or bottom to top (e.g. (2<sup>6</sup>)<sup><sup>3</sup></sup> is left-associative, and 2<sup>(6<sup>3</sup>)</sup> is right-associative). | ||
− | + | ===Interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes, left-associative=== | |
− | + | no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup> = (no<sup>1</sup>)<sup><sup>2</sup></sup> = "ignore this" (it is meaningless to increment a phrase by 2), so the correct statement is "we found evidence for it in our data". | |
− | |||
− | + | ===Interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes, right-associative=== | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
+ | "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1 + 2</sup>" = "no<sup>3</sup>". We turn to the definition of <sup>3</sup>, which is "not true<sup>3<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "not true<sup>3 + 2</sup>" = "not true<sup>5</sup>". | ||
− | + | Now <sup>5</sup> is "true<sup>2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup></sup>". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 1<sup>2<sup>2</sup></sup> = 1<sup>(4. ibid.)</sup> = 1<sup>3</sup>, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true<sup>5</sup>", getting us into an infinite loop, meaning there is no solution. | |
− | + | ===Interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1)=== | |
+ | |||
+ | Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." | ||
+ | |||
+ | Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup>, and since 4 is "ibid.", we now get "ignore this<sup>3</sup>", so all roads but the solution lead to an infinite recursion. | ||
+ | |||
+ | "ibid." is short for "ibidem", or "at the same place", meaning the reference was noted on the same page just before. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
Line 42: | Line 45: | ||
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||
[[Category:My Hobby]] | [[Category:My Hobby]] | ||
− |