Talk:1230: Polar/Cartesian

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 19:23, 26 June 2013 by JamesCurran (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Heh. Schroedinger's graph. Simultaneously 100% certainty of being Cartesian and 100% certainty of being Polar. 09:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this a Polar graph? If it's a Cartesian, doesn't it end at 0%? As the line goes farther to the right, more time has passed instead of the "certainty" changing. --Clayton 14:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you take into account 833, this graph shows certainty that you are interpreting it correctly. --DiEvAl (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The ambiguity is due to the unlabelled x-axis. --Prooffreader (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The title text protip is really only applicable to 2 axes continuous graphes, unless you count ants being added or flicked away by the user as discontinuities. 13:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)ProfKrueger

The shape of the graph appears to be (in polar form) r(t)=100/(1+sin(t)), which I solved for using the constraint that r + y = 100, or rather (polar-observer's certainty that the graph is polar) + (cartesian-observer's certainty that the graph is polar) = 100%. The two observers become further entrenched in their own ideologies as time goes on, and at equivalent rates of entrenchment. 16:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) DAF

The title text is, well, wrong. To plot coordinates "as a function of time" you would need THREE-axes. JamesCurran (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)