Editing 622: Haiku Proof

Jump to: navigation, search

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 26: Line 26:
 
:Q. - E.- D., - bit - ches!
 
:Q. - E.- D., - bit - ches!
  
βˆ’
The haiku proof given is slightly off, as the first line talks about the "top prime's divisors," which makes no sense because the top prime doesn't have any divisors besides itself and one. You need to take the product of ''all'' primes, not just one. But, hey, it's a hallucination. The haiku could be made to more closely resemble the actual argument while retaining haiku structure by replacing the first line with "Assume primes finite."
+
The haiku proof given is slightly off, as the first line talks about the "top prime's divisors," which makes no sense because the top prime doesn't have any divisors besides itself and one. You need to take the product of ''all'' primes, not just one. But, hey, it's a hallucination.
  
 
Haiku was also referred to before in [[554: Not Enough Work]].
 
Haiku was also referred to before in [[554: Not Enough Work]].

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)