Talk:410: Math Paper - Revision history

Firestar233: comment

2023-11-02T23:21:36Z

comment

Gmcgath: Poetic license

2016-10-30T22:08:30Z

Poetic license

Davidy22 at 04:50, 29 August 2015

2015-08-29T04:50:23Z

162.158.93.28: Better definition

2015-08-28T14:55:40Z

Better definition

108.162.250.155 at 00:13, 27 March 2015

2015-03-27T00:13:03Z

Brettpeirce at 16:09, 5 March 2014

2014-03-05T16:09:34Z

108.162.216.76 at 22:56, 27 February 2014

2014-02-27T22:56:23Z

ExternalMonolog: Edited my own edit

2014-01-21T20:24:22Z

Edited my own edit

ExternalMonolog: Comment on explanation: reference to physical humor and reference to participants identity

2014-01-21T20:14:51Z

Comment on explanation: reference to physical humor and reference to participants identity

173.245.53.186 at 15:04, 5 January 2014

2014-01-05T15:04:33Z

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Despite what this comic implies, the divisor function is defined over the Gaussian integers. There still is a problem, though. If a divides b, then so does -a, along with ai and -ai. The divisors will inevitably sum to zero. You could get around this by ignoring all the numbers that aren't in a given quadrant. I personally like the idea of using ones where the real part is greater than the imaginary part (although that still does become a problem with multiples of 1+i). This way, a friend of a natural number will also be a natural number (though it's only the same as what you'd get normally if all the factors are three mod four). {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.167}}
 :I do not agree. Here is how it should work. You should define that a divides b if and only if there is a natural number n such that an = b. This way, natural numbers don't get new divisors when you move to the Gaussian plane. Consequently the extended sigma function gives the same value as the classical one when applied to a natural number. So, natural numbers will be friends according to the new definition if and only if they are friends according to the old definition and we are indeed allowed to say that the new definition extends the old one (Burghard von Karger). {{unsigned ip|162.158.93.28}}
 Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:08, 30 October 2016
Line 11:		Line 11:
	::I thought it was pretty plainly evident that Cueball is the presenter - going along with the XKCD theme of banning/revoking Cueball's privilege due to "inappropriately" wasting people's time at an ostensibly serious event. Also, in relative agreement with 108.162.216.76, I think that Panel 3 is his feeble attempt to continue to look serious (or straight/deadpan) while thinking of a way to respond, followed in Panel 4 with a slightly defeated shoulder/head slump (giving up with trying to perpetuate his premise). Panel 5 could be viewed as a plain admission, but I prefer to see it as a final, hail-Mary attempt to maintain the graces of the audience without ''actually lying'' to them. -- [[User:Brettpeirce\|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce\|talk]]) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)		::I thought it was pretty plainly evident that Cueball is the presenter - going along with the XKCD theme of banning/revoking Cueball's privilege due to "inappropriately" wasting people's time at an ostensibly serious event. Also, in relative agreement with 108.162.216.76, I think that Panel 3 is his feeble attempt to continue to look serious (or straight/deadpan) while thinking of a way to respond, followed in Panel 4 with a slightly defeated shoulder/head slump (giving up with trying to perpetuate his premise). Panel 5 could be viewed as a plain admission, but I prefer to see it as a final, hail-Mary attempt to maintain the graces of the audience without ''actually lying'' to them. -- [[User:Brettpeirce\|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce\|talk]]) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
	:::They are probably beat panels more than anything else. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155\|108.162.250.155]] 00:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)		:::They are probably beat panels more than anything else. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155\|108.162.250.155]] 00:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	There's a joke among amateur songwriters that a forced rhyme or other dubious technique might lead to revoking the writer's "poetic license." [[User:Gmcgath\|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath\|talk]]) 22:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Despite what this comic implies, the divisor function is defined over the Gaussian integers. There still is a problem, though. If a divides b, then so does -a, along with ai and -ai. The divisors will inevitably sum to zero. You could get around this by ignoring all the numbers that aren't in a given quadrant. I personally like the idea of using ones where the real part is greater than the imaginary part (although that still does become a problem with multiples of 1+i). This way, a friend of a natural number will also be a natural number (though it's only the same as what you'd get normally if all the factors are three mod four). {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.167}}
-:I do not agree. Here is how it should work. You should define that a divides b if and only if there is a natural number n such that an = b. This way, natural numbers don't get new divisors when you move to the Gaussian plane. Consequently the extended sigma function gives the same value as the classical one when applied to a natural number. So, natural numbers will be friends according to the new definition if and only if they are friends according to the old definition and we are indeed allowed to say that the new definition extends the old one (Burghard von Karger).
+:I do not agree. Here is how it should work. You should define that a divides b if and only if there is a natural number n such that an = b. This way, natural numbers don't get new divisors when you move to the Gaussian plane. Consequently the extended sigma function gives the same value as the classical one when applied to a natural number. So, natural numbers will be friends according to the new definition if and only if they are friends according to the old definition and we are indeed allowed to say that the new definition extends the old one (Burghard von Karger). {{unsigned ip|162.158.93.28}}
 Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 28 August 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Despite what this comic implies, the divisor function is defined over the Gaussian integers. There still is a problem, though. If a divides b, then so does -a, along with ai and -ai. The divisors will inevitably sum to zero. You could get around this by ignoring all the numbers that aren't in a given quadrant. I personally like the idea of using ones where the real part is greater than the imaginary part (although that still does become a problem with multiples of 1+i). This way, a friend of a natural number will also be a natural number (though it's only the same as what you'd get normally if all the factors are three mod four). {{unsigned ip\|199.27.128.167}}		Despite what this comic implies, the divisor function is defined over the Gaussian integers. There still is a problem, though. If a divides b, then so does -a, along with ai and -ai. The divisors will inevitably sum to zero. You could get around this by ignoring all the numbers that aren't in a given quadrant. I personally like the idea of using ones where the real part is greater than the imaginary part (although that still does become a problem with multiples of 1+i). This way, a friend of a natural number will also be a natural number (though it's only the same as what you'd get normally if all the factors are three mod four). {{unsigned ip\|199.27.128.167}}
		+	:I do not agree. Here is how it should work. You should define that a divides b if and only if there is a natural number n such that an = b. This way, natural numbers don't get new divisors when you move to the Gaussian plane. Consequently the extended sigma function gives the same value as the classical one when applied to a natural number. So, natural numbers will be friends according to the new definition if and only if they are friends according to the old definition and we are indeed allowed to say that the new definition extends the old one (Burghard von Karger).

	Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186\|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)		Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186\|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 27 March 2015
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:I don't know. In panel three DOES look straight at the commenter in the audience in a deadpan way, like he'd been caught unawares by the person's observation, but in panel four seems to look down, head tilted towards the floor as if wondering "aww shit, now what do I do?" Or like he felt slightly ashamed of being caught. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.76\|108.162.216.76]] 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)		:I don't know. In panel three DOES look straight at the commenter in the audience in a deadpan way, like he'd been caught unawares by the person's observation, but in panel four seems to look down, head tilted towards the floor as if wondering "aww shit, now what do I do?" Or like he felt slightly ashamed of being caught. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.76\|108.162.216.76]] 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
	::I thought it was pretty plainly evident that Cueball is the presenter - going along with the XKCD theme of banning/revoking Cueball's privilege due to "inappropriately" wasting people's time at an ostensibly serious event. Also, in relative agreement with 108.162.216.76, I think that Panel 3 is his feeble attempt to continue to look serious (or straight/deadpan) while thinking of a way to respond, followed in Panel 4 with a slightly defeated shoulder/head slump (giving up with trying to perpetuate his premise). Panel 5 could be viewed as a plain admission, but I prefer to see it as a final, hail-Mary attempt to maintain the graces of the audience without ''actually lying'' to them. -- [[User:Brettpeirce\|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce\|talk]]) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)		::I thought it was pretty plainly evident that Cueball is the presenter - going along with the XKCD theme of banning/revoking Cueball's privilege due to "inappropriately" wasting people's time at an ostensibly serious event. Also, in relative agreement with 108.162.216.76, I think that Panel 3 is his feeble attempt to continue to look serious (or straight/deadpan) while thinking of a way to respond, followed in Panel 4 with a slightly defeated shoulder/head slump (giving up with trying to perpetuate his premise). Panel 5 could be viewed as a plain admission, but I prefer to see it as a final, hail-Mary attempt to maintain the graces of the audience without ''actually lying'' to them. -- [[User:Brettpeirce\|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce\|talk]]) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
		+	:::They are probably beat panels more than anything else. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155\|108.162.250.155]] 00:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 5 March 2014
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Also, am I the only one who assumed that Cueball himself is the lecturer and the person interrupting him is likely the proffessor of the class?[[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog		Also, am I the only one who assumed that Cueball himself is the lecturer and the person interrupting him is likely the proffessor of the class?[[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog
	:I don't know. In panel three DOES look straight at the commenter in the audience in a deadpan way, like he'd been caught unawares by the person's observation, but in panel four seems to look down, head tilted towards the floor as if wondering "aww shit, now what do I do?" Or like he felt slightly ashamed of being caught. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.76\|108.162.216.76]] 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)		:I don't know. In panel three DOES look straight at the commenter in the audience in a deadpan way, like he'd been caught unawares by the person's observation, but in panel four seems to look down, head tilted towards the floor as if wondering "aww shit, now what do I do?" Or like he felt slightly ashamed of being caught. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.76\|108.162.216.76]] 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
		+	::I thought it was pretty plainly evident that Cueball is the presenter - going along with the XKCD theme of banning/revoking Cueball's privilege due to "inappropriately" wasting people's time at an ostensibly serious event. Also, in relative agreement with 108.162.216.76, I think that Panel 3 is his feeble attempt to continue to look serious (or straight/deadpan) while thinking of a way to respond, followed in Panel 4 with a slightly defeated shoulder/head slump (giving up with trying to perpetuate his premise). Panel 5 could be viewed as a plain admission, but I prefer to see it as a final, hail-Mary attempt to maintain the graces of the audience without ''actually lying'' to them. -- [[User:Brettpeirce\|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce\|talk]]) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 27 February 2014
Line 7:		Line 7:
	I think no one's noticed the "Straight man's deadpan stare" in panels 3 and 4. After being rudely interrupted in panel two, the lecturer stares silently at the person who stopped him in panel 3. Note the shape of the lecturer's head: his forehead and chin are facing towards the right as revealed by the angled features at the top and bottom of his head. In panel 4 the lecturer turns and stares at the reader and stands silent. Note the completely round shape of the head. This is the classic deadpan stare.		I think no one's noticed the "Straight man's deadpan stare" in panels 3 and 4. After being rudely interrupted in panel two, the lecturer stares silently at the person who stopped him in panel 3. Note the shape of the lecturer's head: his forehead and chin are facing towards the right as revealed by the angled features at the top and bottom of his head. In panel 4 the lecturer turns and stares at the reader and stands silent. Note the completely round shape of the head. This is the classic deadpan stare.
	Also, am I the only one who assumed that Cueball himself is the lecturer and the person interrupting him is likely the proffessor of the class?[[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog		Also, am I the only one who assumed that Cueball himself is the lecturer and the person interrupting him is likely the proffessor of the class?[[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog
		+	:I don't know. In panel three DOES look straight at the commenter in the audience in a deadpan way, like he'd been caught unawares by the person's observation, but in panel four seems to look down, head tilted towards the floor as if wondering "aww shit, now what do I do?" Or like he felt slightly ashamed of being caught. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.76\|108.162.216.76]] 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
-I think no one's noticed the "Straight man's deadpan stare" in panels 3 and 4. After being rudely interrupted in panel two, the lecturer stares silently at the person who stopped him in panel 3. Note the shape of the lecturer's head: his chin is facing towards the right. In panel 4 the lecturer faces the reader and stands silent. Note the completely round shape of the head. This is the classic deadpan stare.
+I think no one's noticed the "Straight man's deadpan stare" in panels 3 and 4. After being rudely interrupted in panel two, the lecturer stares silently at the person who stopped him in panel 3. Note the shape of the lecturer's head: his forehead and chin are facing towards the right as revealed by the angled features at the top and bottom of his head. In panel 4 the lecturer turns and stares at the reader and stands silent. Note the completely round shape of the head. This is the classic deadpan stare.
 Also, am I the only one who assumed that Cueball himself is the lecturer and the person interrupting him is likely the proffessor of the class?[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:14, 21 January 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186\|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)		Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186\|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think no one's noticed the "Straight man's deadpan stare" in panels 3 and 4. After being rudely interrupted in panel two, the lecturer stares silently at the person who stopped him in panel 3. Note the shape of the lecturer's head: his chin is facing towards the right. In panel 4 the lecturer faces the reader and stands silent. Note the completely round shape of the head. This is the classic deadpan stare.
		+	Also, am I the only one who assumed that Cueball himself is the lecturer and the person interrupting him is likely the proffessor of the class?[[User:ExternalMonolog\|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog\|talk]]) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 5 January 2014
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Despite what this comic implies, the divisor function is defined over the Gaussian integers. There still is a problem, though. If a divides b, then so does -a, along with ai and -ai. The divisors will inevitably sum to zero. You could get around this by ignoring all the numbers that aren't in a given quadrant. I personally like the idea of using ones where the real part is greater than the imaginary part (although that still does become a problem with multiples of 1+i). This way, a friend of a natural number will also be a natural number (though it's only the same as what you'd get normally if all the factors are three mod four). {{unsigned ip\|199.27.128.167}}		Despite what this comic implies, the divisor function is defined over the Gaussian integers. There still is a problem, though. If a divides b, then so does -a, along with ai and -ai. The divisors will inevitably sum to zero. You could get around this by ignoring all the numbers that aren't in a given quadrant. I personally like the idea of using ones where the real part is greater than the imaginary part (although that still does become a problem with multiples of 1+i). This way, a friend of a natural number will also be a natural number (though it's only the same as what you'd get normally if all the factors are three mod four). {{unsigned ip\|199.27.128.167}}
		+
		+	Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186\|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)