explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-29T04:38:54Z

🎄:

Not sure what's going on here. Are {{W|electric arcs}} what's happening between the lightsabers? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.207|172.70.242.207]] 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Could be based on properties of plasma? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably something like {{W|cold welding}}. The fields keeping the light saber beam coherent would not be able to differentiate between the two plasma beams, and would join together. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.36|172.70.91.36]] 13:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:That's my take. The effect that confines the laser (to make it a [[1433: Lightsaber|handy length]], at the very least) is potentially too 'self-sticky', but certainly with that of the opposing blade after a bit of awkward cross-resonance. And then the deactivation/withdrawing (typoed that as "sithdrawing"!) still drags the other blade-tip inwards too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.63|172.70.90.63]] 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

::My reaction: And THAT's why the two dueling Jedis should have different color of the blade! -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good job on the transcript (except a few minor grammar errors). I didn't envy someone trying to describe all the imagery. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of comics about lightsabers. Maybe it's time to make a category for them? Many things got categories after just 4-5 appearaces. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially inspired by a scene from Spaceballs where two lightsabers "tangle", although in thta scene they don't actually connect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.134|141.101.104.134]] 19:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see your Schwartz is almost as big as mine.

In panels 10 and 11, the bodies seem to cast shadows on the ground. I don't recall seeing this previously on XKCD, is this the first time? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

== That’s not what’s happening ==

“In this situation one Jedi tries to shake the beam, maybe to break the bond, but instead the wave travels down the combined beam to also shake the other Jedi's hand-held hilt.”

Nuh uh. One tries to shake loose, then the other tries, also. Why do people make up complex explanations for obvious simple things?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of the ''Priori Incantatem'' stuff in Harry Potter where wands with the same core source connect with each other :)
: My first thought was 'This is why you "don't cross the streams."'
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

== Reverted from vandalism ==
The most recent edits were all converting the explanation to "pig latin". (No explanation in English.) I've undone them. If it gets vandalized again, please address that? [/br]
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:I just reverted the pig Latin twice. Can someone block our IP vandal, please? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 22:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::Just did another reversal. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::What exactly is going on with the edit summaries they're sending? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.221|141.101.98.221]] 22:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Trying to get a sort of ransom out us apparently. We’re not doing that of course. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::Apparently we did, sort of. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.211|172.70.90.211]] 22:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Wouldn’t say so. We did nothing but undo edits, having no regard for any demands. Eventually the user took measures to fulfill his own demands and called that a win 💁🏻 [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I've been noticing quite a bit of vandalism recently (page blanking, "disaster"/"last xkcd", and now pig Latin). Is there any way to stop this? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.33|172.70.178.33]] 03:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I'm done vandalizing this page, because I got the emoji I wanted. --[[User:🎄|🎄]] ([[User talk:🎄|talk]]) 04:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-28T22:57:05Z

🎄:

Not sure what's going on here. Are {{W|electric arcs}} what's happening between the lightsabers? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.207|172.70.242.207]] 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Could be based on properties of plasma? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably something like {{W|cold welding}}. The fields keeping the light saber beam coherent would not be able to differentiate between the two plasma beams, and would join together. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.36|172.70.91.36]] 13:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:That's my take. The effect that confines the laser (to make it a [[1433: Lightsaber|handy length]], at the very least) is potentially too 'self-sticky', but certainly with that of the opposing blade after a bit of awkward cross-resonance. And then the deactivation/withdrawing (typoed that as "sithdrawing"!) still drags the other blade-tip inwards too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.63|172.70.90.63]] 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

::My reaction: And THAT's why the two dueling Jedis should have different color of the blade! -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good job on the transcript (except a few minor grammar errors). I didn't envy someone trying to describe all the imagery. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of comics about lightsabers. Maybe it's time to make a category for them? Many things got categories after just 4-5 appearaces. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially inspired by a scene from Spaceballs where two lightsabers "tangle", although in thta scene they don't actually connect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.134|141.101.104.134]] 19:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see your Schwartz is almost as big as mine.

In panels 10 and 11, the bodies seem to cast shadows on the ground. I don't recall seeing this previously on XKCD, is this the first time? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

== That’s not what’s happening ==

“In this situation one Jedi tries to shake the beam, maybe to break the bond, but instead the wave travels down the combined beam to also shake the other Jedi's hand-held hilt.”

Nuh uh. One tries to shake loose, then the other tries, also. Why do people make up complex explanations for obvious simple things?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of the ''Priori Incantatem'' stuff in Harry Potter where wands with the same core source connect with each other :)
: My first thought was 'This is why you "don't cross the streams."'
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

== Reverted from vandalism ==
The most recent edits were all converting the explanation to "pig latin". (No explanation in English.) I've undone them. If it gets vandalized again, please address that? [/br]
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:I just reverted the pig Latin twice. Can someone block our IP vandal, please? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 22:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::Just did another reversal. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::What exactly is going on with the edit summaries they're sending? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.221|141.101.98.221]] 22:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Trying to get a sort of ransom out us apparently. We’re not doing that of course. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::Apparently we did, sort of. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.211|172.70.90.211]] 22:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Wouldn’t say so. We did nothing but undo edits, having no regard for any demands. Eventually the user took measures to fulfill his own demands and called that a win 💁🏻 [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::What would you suggest I do now? Start contributing constructively, or stop editing? [[User:🎄|🎄]] ([[User talk:🎄|talk]]) 22:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-28T22:44:59Z

🎄:

Not sure what's going on here. Are {{W|electric arcs}} what's happening between the lightsabers? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.207|172.70.242.207]] 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Could be based on properties of plasma? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably something like {{W|cold welding}}. The fields keeping the light saber beam coherent would not be able to differentiate between the two plasma beams, and would join together. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.36|172.70.91.36]] 13:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:That's my take. The effect that confines the laser (to make it a [[1433: Lightsaber|handy length]], at the very least) is potentially too 'self-sticky', but certainly with that of the opposing blade after a bit of awkward cross-resonance. And then the deactivation/withdrawing (typoed that as "sithdrawing"!) still drags the other blade-tip inwards too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.63|172.70.90.63]] 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

::My reaction: And THAT's why the two dueling Jedis should have different color of the blade! -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good job on the transcript (except a few minor grammar errors). I didn't envy someone trying to describe all the imagery. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of comics about lightsabers. Maybe it's time to make a category for them? Many things got categories after just 4-5 appearaces. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially inspired by a scene from Spaceballs where two lightsabers "tangle", although in thta scene they don't actually connect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.134|141.101.104.134]] 19:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see your Schwartz is almost as big as mine.

In panels 10 and 11, the bodies seem to cast shadows on the ground. I don't recall seeing this previously on XKCD, is this the first time? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

== That’s not what’s happening ==

“In this situation one Jedi tries to shake the beam, maybe to break the bond, but instead the wave travels down the combined beam to also shake the other Jedi's hand-held hilt.”

Nuh uh. One tries to shake loose, then the other tries, also. Why do people make up complex explanations for obvious simple things?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of the ''Priori Incantatem'' stuff in Harry Potter where wands with the same core source connect with each other :)
: My first thought was 'This is why you "don't cross the streams."'
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

== Reverted from vandalism ==
The most recent edits were all converting the explanation to "pig latin". (No explanation in English.) I've undone them. If it gets vandalized again, please address that? [/br]
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:I just reverted the pig Latin twice. Can someone block our IP vandal, please? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 22:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::Just did another reversal. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::What exactly is going on with the edit summaries they're sending? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.221|141.101.98.221]] 22:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Trying to get a sort of ransom out us apparently. We’re not doing that of course. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::Apparently we did, sort of. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.211|172.70.90.211]] 22:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Wouldn’t say so. We did nothing but undo edits, having no regard for any demands. Eventually the user fulfilled his own demands and called that a win 💁🏻 [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Actually, your edit summary did include a Christmas tree emoji. Since you could have removed it from the summary and didn't, I thought you intentionally left it in. [[User:🎄|🎄]] ([[User talk:🎄|talk]]) 22:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-28T22:35:04Z

🎄: /* Reverted from vandalism */

Not sure what's going on here. Are {{W|electric arcs}} what's happening between the lightsabers? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.207|172.70.242.207]] 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Could be based on properties of plasma? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably something like {{W|cold welding}}. The fields keeping the light saber beam coherent would not be able to differentiate between the two plasma beams, and would join together. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.36|172.70.91.36]] 13:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:That's my take. The effect that confines the laser (to make it a [[1433: Lightsaber|handy length]], at the very least) is potentially too 'self-sticky', but certainly with that of the opposing blade after a bit of awkward cross-resonance. And then the deactivation/withdrawing (typoed that as "sithdrawing"!) still drags the other blade-tip inwards too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.63|172.70.90.63]] 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

::My reaction: And THAT's why the two dueling Jedis should have different color of the blade! -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good job on the transcript (except a few minor grammar errors). I didn't envy someone trying to describe all the imagery. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of comics about lightsabers. Maybe it's time to make a category for them? Many things got categories after just 4-5 appearaces. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially inspired by a scene from Spaceballs where two lightsabers "tangle", although in thta scene they don't actually connect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.134|141.101.104.134]] 19:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see your Schwartz is almost as big as mine.

In panels 10 and 11, the bodies seem to cast shadows on the ground. I don't recall seeing this previously on XKCD, is this the first time? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

== That’s not what’s happening ==

“In this situation one Jedi tries to shake the beam, maybe to break the bond, but instead the wave travels down the combined beam to also shake the other Jedi's hand-held hilt.”

Nuh uh. One tries to shake loose, then the other tries, also. Why do people make up complex explanations for obvious simple things?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of the ''Priori Incantatem'' stuff in Harry Potter where wands with the same core source connect with each other :)
: My first thought was 'This is why you "don't cross the streams."'
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

== Reverted from vandalism ==
The most recent edits were all converting the explanation to "pig latin". (No explanation in English.) I've undone them. If it gets vandalized again, please address that? [/br]
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:I just reverted the pig Latin twice. Can someone block our IP vandal, please? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 22:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::Just did another reversal. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::What exactly is going on with the edit summaries they're sending? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.221|141.101.98.221]] 22:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Trying to get a sort of ransom out us apparently. We’re not doing that of course. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::Apparently we did, sort of. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.211|172.70.90.211]] 22:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Is it okay to contribute constructively now? [[User:🎄|🎄]] ([[User talk:🎄|talk]]) 22:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-28T22:32:37Z

🎄: /* Reverted from vandalism */

Not sure what's going on here. Are {{W|electric arcs}} what's happening between the lightsabers? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.207|172.70.242.207]] 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Could be based on properties of plasma? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably something like {{W|cold welding}}. The fields keeping the light saber beam coherent would not be able to differentiate between the two plasma beams, and would join together. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.36|172.70.91.36]] 13:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:That's my take. The effect that confines the laser (to make it a [[1433: Lightsaber|handy length]], at the very least) is potentially too 'self-sticky', but certainly with that of the opposing blade after a bit of awkward cross-resonance. And then the deactivation/withdrawing (typoed that as "sithdrawing"!) still drags the other blade-tip inwards too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.63|172.70.90.63]] 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

::My reaction: And THAT's why the two dueling Jedis should have different color of the blade! -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good job on the transcript (except a few minor grammar errors). I didn't envy someone trying to describe all the imagery. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of comics about lightsabers. Maybe it's time to make a category for them? Many things got categories after just 4-5 appearaces. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially inspired by a scene from Spaceballs where two lightsabers "tangle", although in thta scene they don't actually connect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.134|141.101.104.134]] 19:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see your Schwartz is almost as big as mine.

In panels 10 and 11, the bodies seem to cast shadows on the ground. I don't recall seeing this previously on XKCD, is this the first time? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

== That’s not what’s happening ==

“In this situation one Jedi tries to shake the beam, maybe to break the bond, but instead the wave travels down the combined beam to also shake the other Jedi's hand-held hilt.”

Nuh uh. One tries to shake loose, then the other tries, also. Why do people make up complex explanations for obvious simple things?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of the ''Priori Incantatem'' stuff in Harry Potter where wands with the same core source connect with each other :)
: My first thought was 'This is why you "don't cross the streams."'
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

== Reverted from vandalism ==
The most recent edits were all converting the explanation to "pig latin". (No explanation in English.) I've undone them. If it gets vandalized again, please address that? [/br]
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:I just reverted the pig Latin twice. Can someone block our IP vandal, please? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 22:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::Just did another reversal. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::What exactly is going on with the edit summaries they're sending? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.221|141.101.98.221]] 22:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Trying to get a sort of ransom out us apparently. We’re not doing that of course. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::Apparently we did, sort of. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.211|172.70.90.211]] 22:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! --[[User:🎄|🎄]] ([[User talk:🎄|talk]]) 22:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:I stopped because of this edit: [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2612:_Lightsabers&oldid=231395 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2612:_Lightsabers&oldid=231395] [[User:🎄|🎄]] ([[User talk:🎄|talk]]) 22:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2610: Assigning Numbers

2022-04-28T22:28:22Z

🎄: Clean up now that I have my emoji edit summary (thank you While False)

Does this imply that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem] isn't correct? And that it's method is bunk? Please help! -Seer [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.230|162.158.107.230]] 02:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe the intention is that the theorem is not part of the set of bad data science, just that they share this one feature.

Isn't the Gödel number for a theorem calculated by multiplying the numbers of the components together, so complicated theorems would have larger numbers? If so, the current explanation that this isn't a good way to judge fields is wrong. I'm not too sure though. [[User:MrCandela|MrCandela]] ([[User talk:MrCandela|talk]]) 05:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

:I do not believe that the title suggests renumbering theorems with Gödel numbers, but averaging the existing theorem numbers. Or otherwise, MrCandela's suggestion would be the way to go: Complicated Theorems have larger numbers. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.133|172.68.110.133]] 08:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

:Yeah a quick look at some magazines like [https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-incompleteness-theorems-work-20200714/#jump2/ this one] and I think Randall has a point [[User:MrCandela|MrCandela]] ([[User talk:MrCandela|talk]]) 09:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I wish I'd started the explanation off when I first saw it (somone posted the first Transcript whilst I was pondering, so I left off). I think there's some serious re-editing to be done, but basically it points to someone (Cueball, a dabbling armchair mathematician faced with some not directly mathematically-based problem) thinking that 'all' it takes is to encode the whatever-it-is, arbitrarily, and then with a few easy equations something useful cannbe derived. When, in reality, even if this is possible (ignoring the "takes the age of the universe to permute things to find the right answer" sort of sticking-block) it depends upon a ''good'' numerical encoding (enough attention to detail, but not too much, and in the right sort of way) and possibly quite a lot of data-demunging and filtration (again, just the right amount and in the correct manner) to pop out the "answer" being looked for. For some things, this can be easy, though there are always statistical pitfalls/etc. For others ("life, the universe and everything", say) the task is far more complex and the result ("42"?) might not seem to be a very useful result for various reasons. And, on top this, there's Gödel. But that's an additional punchline, not the whole scope of the original joke. ...Anyway, this long comment is why I held back from writing the original Explanation, but I might yet wrangle my thoughts into what's since been put there. While trying not to tread upon too many toes and alternate explanations. Which is the hardest bit, I think... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 15:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a comment about the technicalities of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem: The 'third' possibility presented [http://dstoner.net/Math_Science/godel.html here] misunderstands the term 'true but unprovable'. When mathematicians say 'true but unprovable' in the context of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, what they mean is 'true in the standard model but unprovable in the formal system'. The Gödel sentence is certainly true for the standard natural numbers, by contradiction: assume that the Gödel sentence is false for the standard naturals, which means that there exists a standard natural number which is the Gödel number for the proof of the Gödel sentence. Then we could decode the Gödel number into a proof (of the formal system) proving the Gödel sentence true; a contradiction. (Note that the preceding proof by contradiction can be formalised in ZFC, but not in the formal system under study.) The reason why the Gödel sentence is unprovable in the formal system is because, from the point of view of the formal system, there might be a non-standard natural number which is the Gödel number for the proof of the Gödel sentence (and non-standard numbers cannot be decoded into a proof); or there might not be. --[[User:Underbase|Underbase]] ([[User talk:Underbase|talk]]) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

:Regarding this, I know that the policy on this site is to include every possible interpretation, but the page mentioned is an html page (and not a [https://xkcd.com/2304/ pdf]) that was not [https://xkcd.com/1847/ peer reviewed] (thus not recognized by the community), and as mentioned by the user above it fails understand the concepts it is talking about. I do not think this site should be spreading this kind of idea. I believe Randall Monroe himself would be against this.

::I also believe the current explanation is both incorrect about explaining the seeming paradox of the Gödel conjecture, & therefore somewhat incorrect about this joke. It is surely the transition from abstract to quantized - the act of applying limited formal numbering to potentially unbounded or otherwise non-standard terms - which incurs incompleteness? Within the constraints of a formal system of standard natural numbers, true≠provable, & therein lies the internal (but not total) contradiction. ''That's'' the contradiction, right? & the joke is that numbering theorems by their complexity, is not generally a productive approach for 'doing math' on them, in any sense but an abstract analytical one?
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

:I do not believe the Title Text calls for "calculating the average of all the fields' theorems' Gödel numbers". It asks for 'the lowest average theorem number'. The average of all, is not the average of each. The Title Text wants the average of ''each of'' the fields' theorems' Gödel numbers.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Today's [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/derivative Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal] is slightly related.

== Paradoxicality argument ==

I think that revision [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2610:_Assigning_Numbers&oldid=231000 231000] should be removed. My explanation of what's wrong with the linked site is as follows:

Up until the section "Gödel's String", nothing is incorrect. Furthermore, the first wrong line is numbered (49), and says that Gödel's statement is equivalent to "This statement is not a theorem (of any formal system)." This is where he goes wrong, for writing down a formula for "n proves m" requires inclusion of the formal system in which this proof happens. As such, the correct translation of Gödel's statement is "This statement is not a theorem of [system]", which it indeed is not. Then he says that "We have decided that Gödel's string cannot be a theorem and neither can its negation" (true, after Rosser's trick) and therefore that this gives us "~<G∨~G>" (which is false). He has commited the sin of confusing truth and provability here.

His discussion of the Epimenides string ("This statement is not true") is accurate, except for the claim that the truth predicate is "as valid an extension to [PA] as [the provability and quining] extensions were". This is false. The provability and quining predicates can be constructed in PA and thus are not "extensions" so much as "shorthand"; this was Gödel's contribution: to see that PA can talk about provability of statements in any fixed formal system. The truth predicate is not definable in PA, as he quite ably proves (suppose it was definable, then you could write down the Epimenides sentence in PA, and thereby prove false).

The section "Gödel's Error" is just plain silly.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.147|172.70.114.147]] 19:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What if we just change it to say something along the lines of "Certain logical systems allow values to be 'not false' without being necessarily 'true'; Godel's theorem is based on an axiomatic assumption that every statement is either true or false."?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.163|108.162.221.163]] 06:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the given argument gibberish? Replacing the terms with more graspable ones, it seems to be saying: "1. Assume that bananas can be grown from banana-trees (why is this a reasonable assumption? Is it also a reasonable assumption to make about pear trees?). 2. Banana-trees exist. 3. Therefore, the statement that bananas cannot be grown from the trees is true (HOW is this a reasonable conclusion to leap to from the preceding points? By what bizarre leap of elided logic?). 4. This is a contradiction, therefore our initial assumption must be wrong (No, clearly the conclusion in 3 is wrong). Therefore, the statement is true (which statement are you even talking about here?)." Any chance someone could clarify that passage by including the missing steps in the logic? --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.159|172.69.70.159]] 19:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

:It's not missing any steps. The argument really is that simple. Maybe I didn't write it clearly enough... Anyway to address your specific points, I would first recommend you read {{w|Reductio ad absurdum}}, but if you don't have time (Because let's be real, nobody has enough time for reading Wikipedia articles), I'll break it down. 1. Assume the opposite of the statement (This is not a reasonable assumption almost by definition; the whole point is to disprove it, after all) using the Law of Assumption, which states that we can assume absolutely anything we want in a logical proof, so long as we keep track of what's been derived from it. 2 Assume anything else relevant 3. Follow the assumptions through to their conclusions, and find that the valid reasoning has led to an unsound result, such as a statement directly contradicting the assumption in 1. 4. One of the assumptions must be wrong in order to maintain consistency. Choose the assumption which was made for the purpose of disproving it to be the one we deem untrue, which means its opposite is true. Unfortunately these sorts of arguments don't really lend themselves to analogies with 'more graspable' statements.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.193|108.162.221.193]] 02:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,
1) Why couldn't Gödel's string be paradoxical? It is certainly A) self-referencing and B) Self-negating. Even "This Statement is True" causes trouble.
2) Where did Gödel even consider paradox to be a possibility? If he didn't, his argument is "incomplete" (just like its conclusion implies it might very well be anyway).
3) Has anyone here bothered to prove that his string is not actually paradoxical?
- Don Stoner (nobody in particular -- just a senile wimpy old nerd)

Hi again,
Here's a fun one:
"This statement is paradoxical"
1) It certainly is paradoxical (provably so)
2) It even says it's paradoxical (echoing Gödel)
3) Therefore, it must be "true" (echoing Gödel)
4) But (this time) this means it's simply "false"
5) Etc.
- Don (nobody in particular)

:1) I'm not sure what you mean by "paradoxical". If you mean something like "true and false" or "neither true nor false", that fails classical logic. Gödel (with a bit of help from Rosser) proved that we can write down a sentence G of Peano arithmetic, then prove (in PA) that G is equivalent to "no integer encodes a proof in PA of G unless a smaller one encodes a proof in PA of not G". He then pointed out that if G was provable in PA, there was also a proof of not G (basically, work out what integer encodes that proof of G, then for each smaller integer, try to decode it into a proof of not G; if you succeed, you have a proof of not G; if you fail for all, you have proved by exhaustion that your integer encodes a proof of G and no smaller integer encodes a proof of not G; all this is a proof of not G). Thus, if PA is consistent, there is no proof in PA of G. Now assume there is a proof in PA of not G. Encode this proof into an integer N. We shall now prove either G or "every integer less than N does not encode a proof in PA of G". We thus work through every integer less than N, checking to see if it encodes a proof in PA of G. If it does we have proved G; if no integers less than N encode a proof of G then we have proved "for all n < N, n does not encode a proof in PA of G". In the latter case, we have proved that every integer encoding a proof in PA of G is greater than N, which is an integer encoding a proof in PA of not G; this implies G! As such, we started with a proof in PA of not G (NOTE: THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM MERELY ASSUMING not G), and produced a proof in PA of G. So if PA is consistent, there is no proof in PA of not G either. Hence PA is either inconsistent (as if PA proves either G or not G, it proves the other and hence false) or incomplete (proving neither).

:2) He proved that either PA proves false, or there is a statement such that PA proves neither the statement nor its negation. The first includes paradoxicality. (His second incompleteness theorem was essentially: "By the argument above, PA proves that if PA is consistent then G has no proof in PA, which easily implies that PA proves "If PA is consistent, then G". Now suppose PA proves that PA is consistent. Then by modus ponens, PA proves G, and therefore PA is inconsistent. So if PA proves that PA is consistent, then PA is inconsistent.") (It ''is'' possible for a consistent system to prove its own inconsistency.)

:3) Most mathematicians assume that ZFC is consistent, even augmented by some pretty strong large cardinal hypotheses. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.72|172.70.35.72]] 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

:The short answer to your questions is that Godel's method was rigorous. Godel numbering is much more precise than natural language ever could be. The longer answer is that there's a reason Godel's theorem is considered a work of genius; though the overall concept is fairly easy to grasp intuitively, making it into an actual theorem takes a lot of work and cleverness. There are multiple long Wikipedia pages about it just outlining the generals. The proof itself is rock solid, but far beyond the scope of this page. And the pithy answer is "Do you really think you're the first person to think of that? Mathematicians spent decades analyzing the theorems with uncharitable eyes."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.119|108.162.221.119]] 04:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

:: I am certain I am not the only person to notice his error because I have been contacted by others who noticed it independently. (None of us were sufficiently arrogant to presume we were first.) Further, we have all spent a great deal more time investigating this than you presume. Gödel's numbering was indeed rigorous and precise, but in spite of his genius, he simply failed to consider the possibility of paradox (incompleteness). If I am wrong about this, it would be would be a simple matter to show me where he addressed this. - Don Stoner (n.i.p.)

I'm going to remove the section stating that Godel's theorem is self-negating (it's not) and that his methodology was incomplete. And before anyone re-adds it, I simply ask that you please please PLEASE actually read up on the subject (and I don't mean from random html pages). Mathematicians have been actively trying to find a flaw in Godel's proof since before it was published; I promise you that whatever clever paradoxicality argument you've come up with has already been considered and eliminated by the professionals.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.81|108.162.221.81]] 21:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

: Your parting shot kind of reminds me of Junior high school. Specifically, I was one nerd being confronted by a few dozen "normal" kids. I was outnumbered, but there was really only room for one kid to get in my face at a time. As I told each of those kids (one at a time), "Your buddies aren't here right now. It's just you and me." So, unless you can talk one of those "professionals" (who actually understands Gödel's proof) into joining us here, you need to explain to me where Gödel addressed the possibility of paradox (he didn't). His methodology was incomplete. You also need to explain to me why you assert that "This statement cannot..." is not self-negating (it is). Further, since "the policy on this site is to include every possible interpretation" you also need to explain to me why you have taken it upon yourself to override Randal's authority. - Don Stoner (n.i.p.)
:: I can't even be bothered to work out who is saying what. Don, if you're interested in site policy, use the proper <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> signature (get an account in your name, if you want to be named), and possibly chill out a bit too. If someone is arguing (can't be bothered to check the edit history/diffs) then they need to use a .sig too. And colon-indents per level of reply is useful. But don't mind me, it looks like you're having fun either on your own or as a pair (or more). Just sayin'... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.71|162.158.159.71]] 17:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
::: Thanks! (I'm a retired robotics-embedded-system programmer, but I'm not much of an end used. I need help to use my cellphone.) - Don --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.10|172.69.34.10]] 19:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
::: Oops, sorry, I didn't properly sign my comment. Normally I'm pretty diligent about it, so looking back at this I didn't even recognize my own writing for a few seconds (insert laughing emoji). I'll go back and add a signature now. The time stamp will be wrong, but I don't know a way around that.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.81|108.162.221.81]] 21:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:To clarify, I removed the section because it stated as fact that the incompleteness theorem is wrong. If you don't like the theorem, that's fine, but the consensus view is that the proof is sound. I did add a sentence to the effect of 'it's always possible we're wrong about things' to hopefully reflect the point of view that had been stated with unwarranted confidence. If that's not an acceptable compromise to people, you're welcome to counter propose.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.81|108.162.221.81]] 22:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
::If my memory serves correctly, what you removed was:
:::"Either that, or Gödel used an "inconsistent" or "incomplete" system to produce his result. Any "complete and consistent" system would recognize a self-referencing and self-negating statement to be a form of the 'liar's paradox' ('This statement is false')." Gödel did not examine that as a possibility (incomplete methodology).
::1) Gödel himself demonstrated that his (or any) formal system was either "inconsistent" or "incomplete." This much is both ironical and obviously true.
::2) It is observable fact that Gödel did not consider paradox as a possibility. This makes his theorem "incomplete." This is observable fact, not a false claim.
::Censoring my opinion is not a legitimate "compromise." I recommend that you attempt to refute (or at least counter) my opinion instead. - Don --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.8|172.70.207.8]] 22:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
::I tried a cropped (and less controversial) version of my original statement, to see what you thought about it.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.229|162.158.78.229]] 02:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "paradox"; to my knowledge, that word doesn't have a formal mathematical definition. I assume you mean a non-true non-false statement? (feel free to correct me) In which case, Gödel did not consider this because he was working within classical logic, wherein statements can either be "true" or "false" and there is no third value. The reason he chose classical logic is because mathematics is currently performed using classical logic. And although most proofs of "the Gödel sentence is true" are a bit wishy-woshy, you can actually formalise a proof within ZFC set theory (a theory based on classical logic) that the Gödel sentence is true for the standard natural numbers (see my comment above). Of course, you could reject ZFC (and base mathematics on something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic paraconsistent logic]) but you'll probably have a hard time convincing mathematicians. Regardless, was more concerned with the incompleteness of the system than with the truth of the Gödel sentence, and doesn't mention truth at all in Theorem VI (the First Incompleteness Theorem) of his original paper.--[[User:Underbase|Underbase]] ([[User talk:Underbase|talk]]) 10:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::I won't argue wit that. (I'll also back off to "non-true non-false," since I'm unsure how to understand other definitions.). "Incompleteness" (rather than "inconsistency") is still the missing piece. One claim in the above explanation: "David Hilbert's famous proclamation "We must know, we will know" is simply incorrect," Ignores this qualification -- making it a misapplication of what Gödel actually proved. Maybe we can eventually know truth -- but the limited tools constituting Gödel's proof were simply not up to that task.--[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.83|172.69.33.83]] 20:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC) -edited --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.81|172.70.214.81]] 21:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-28T22:26:48Z

🎄: /* Reverted from vandalism */

Not sure what's going on here. Are {{W|electric arcs}} what's happening between the lightsabers? --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.242.207|172.70.242.207]] 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Could be based on properties of plasma? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 12:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably something like {{W|cold welding}}. The fields keeping the light saber beam coherent would not be able to differentiate between the two plasma beams, and would join together. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.36|172.70.91.36]] 13:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:That's my take. The effect that confines the laser (to make it a [[1433: Lightsaber|handy length]], at the very least) is potentially too 'self-sticky', but certainly with that of the opposing blade after a bit of awkward cross-resonance. And then the deactivation/withdrawing (typoed that as "sithdrawing"!) still drags the other blade-tip inwards too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.63|172.70.90.63]] 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

::My reaction: And THAT's why the two dueling Jedis should have different color of the blade! -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 19:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Very good job on the transcript (except a few minor grammar errors). I didn't envy someone trying to describe all the imagery. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of comics about lightsabers. Maybe it's time to make a category for them? Many things got categories after just 4-5 appearaces. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 17:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is potentially inspired by a scene from Spaceballs where two lightsabers "tangle", although in thta scene they don't actually connect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.134|141.101.104.134]] 19:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see your Schwartz is almost as big as mine.

In panels 10 and 11, the bodies seem to cast shadows on the ground. I don't recall seeing this previously on XKCD, is this the first time? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.249|141.101.105.249]] 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

== That’s not what’s happening ==

“In this situation one Jedi tries to shake the beam, maybe to break the bond, but instead the wave travels down the combined beam to also shake the other Jedi's hand-held hilt.”

Nuh uh. One tries to shake loose, then the other tries, also. Why do people make up complex explanations for obvious simple things?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.72|172.70.211.72]] 20:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminds me of the ''Priori Incantatem'' stuff in Harry Potter where wands with the same core source connect with each other :)
: My first thought was 'This is why you "don't cross the streams."'
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

== Reverted from vandalism ==
The most recent edits were all converting the explanation to "pig latin". (No explanation in English.) I've undone them. If it gets vandalized again, please address that? [/br]
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:I just reverted the pig Latin twice. Can someone block our IP vandal, please? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 22:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::Just did another reversal. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
:::What exactly is going on with the edit summaries they're sending? --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.221|141.101.98.221]] 22:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Trying to get a sort of ransom out us apparently. We’re not doing that of course. [[User:While False|While False]] ([[User talk:While False|talk]]) 22:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! --[[User:🎄|🎄]] ([[User talk:🎄|talk]]) 22:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-28T22:22:48Z

🎄: Thank you so much! I'm done now.

<noinclude>''For the comic named "Lightsaber", see [[1433: Lightsaber]].''</noinclude>
{{comic
| number = 2612
| date = April 27, 2022
| title = Lightsabers
| image = lightsabers.png
| titletext = A lot of Jedi romances start with this turning into a Lady and the Tramp spaghetti situation.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a MAGNETICALLY CONFINED PLASMA-SABER REACTOR - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
A {{w|lightsaber}} is a fictional beam-like sword weapon used by members of the {{w|Jedi}} order and the {{w|Sith}} in the ''{{w|Star Wars}}'' franchise. This comic shows a lightsaber fight starting between two [[Cueball]]-like Jedi, one already presenting their blade in challenge and the second activating theirs in response. When the first strike is made between the two lightsabers, they seemingly meld together, with a bloop sound, like the beams are made of a liquid. This then causes the two light beams to be stuck to each other. In in-universe "technical documents", lightsabers are said to be made from magnetically-confined plasma, so perhaps the magnetic fields which were projected from each hilt have merged instead of repelling (or presenting as mutually impervious) as is usually expected.

This scene actually looks a lot like what happens between Harry Potter and Voldemort's wands in the end of the fourth book, the {{w|Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire|''Goblet of Fire''}}. Here two spells hit each other and connect the two wands, the wand holders then unable to release or disconnect the wands.

In this situation one Jedi tries to shake the beam, maybe to break the bond, but instead the wave travels down the combined beam to also shake the other Jedi's hand-held hilt. When the vibration dies down the other Jedi then tries to deactivate his lightsaber as an attempt to end the connection. But the retraction of the entire double-sized light beam into the handle (as seen in the movies) causes both of the Jedi to be drawn together where they collide together, forcefully enough to render them both unconscious. The connected lightsaber handles lie next to them on the ground.

The title text implies that such events are how {{w|Jedi}} romances start, comparing it to the famous "spaghetti scene" from the 1955 Disney animated movie ''{{w|Lady and the Tramp}}'' where the two titular characters unintentionally kiss after sharing a strand of spaghetti. In the Old Republic, Jedi were forbidden from entering into romantic relationships (and discouraged from forming attachments in general), but in the pre-Disney ''Star Wars Legends'' continuity of the {{w|Star Wars in other media|Expanded Universe}}, {{w|Luke Skywalker}} and {{w|Mara Jade}} first met while fighting in the aftermath of the fall of the Empire, and then developed a romantic relationship.

Star Wars is a [[:Category:Star Wars|recurring theme]] on xkcd, and lightsabers have been prominently featured before in, for instance, [[1397: Luke]] and [[1433: Lightsaber]], where the problem with the physics of a light beam as a sword is shown. But in general light does not interact with light as {{w|photons}} are {{w|bosons}} and can thus pass through each other. Interference, yes, but two pure light beams cannot collide and bounce back as when two lightsabers collide. Also as the comic Lightsaber mentioned above shows, there is no compatible real-world way of confining a beam of light, making it stop after about a meter (or anywhere){{Dubious}}<sup> - see {{w|Optical cavity}}</sup>. So this is another time where [[Randall]] makes a joke about the physics of lightsabers.

==Transcript==
:[Two Cueball like Jedi are engaging each other in a duel using lightsabers over 12 panels of equal size, with sound effects as the only sound. In the first panel the left Jedi has his lightsaber extended holding it in both hand pointing towards the other, who at this time is just turning his lightsaber on.]
:''Tssssss''
:Click

:[Almost same position of the Jedi, but the right Jedi's lightsaber has now extended, making a sound. He is holding it up near his head in both hands]
:''Tsss''

:[Then they run towards each other and swing their lightsabers towards each other, two small arcs indicating the swing of the lightsabers.]

:[The two beams hit each other and connects at the middle in a big bloop of light, with drops of "light" jumping off both above and below the connected lightsabers. Both Jedi still holds on to their handles with both hands. A loud sound comes out of the connection:]
:''Bloop''

:[The Jedi stands still holding their handles. The beam is now forming a bow between the two handles.]

:[The left Jedi violently shakes his handle causing a wave to travel down the beam towards the right Jedi.]
:Shake shake

:[As the left Jedi's end of the beam comes to rest the wave travels all the way the right Jedi's handle causing his hands to shake, although a bit less than the original shake.]
:Shake shake

:[Back to the bow of light between them, but the beam is visibly still shaking, but no wave is traveling any longer.]

:[Same setting but the shaking has stopped. The right Jedi turns his lightsaber off on his handle with a sound:]
:Click

:[The beam of light is retracted quickly into the handle of the Jedi turning his lightsaber off. So quickly that the two Jedi, still holding on to their handles are pulled up in the air and towards each other as the sound of the beam turning off is heard. Lines indicate their movement and shadows on the ground beneath them indicate they are in the air.]
:''Zhhhiiiip''

:[When the beam is completely retracted the two handles collide and so do the heads of the two Jedi with a loud sound. They still hold on to their handles with both hands. They still hang in the air with shadows on the ground beneath them.]
:''Bonk''

:[In the final panel the two Jedi lie unconscious on the ground with their heads towards each other and with their arms stretched out towards each other. The connected handles lie between them.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

2612: Lightsabers

2022-04-28T22:20:58Z

🎄: Undo revision 231393 by While False (talk)

<oincludenay>'':Orfay ethay omiccay amednay "Ightsaberlay", eesay [[1433: Ightsaberlay]].''</oincludenay>
{{omiccay
| umbernay = 2612
| ateday = Aprilway 27, 2022
| itletay = Ightsaberslay
| imageway = ightsaberslay.pngay
| itletexttay = AWAY otlay ofway Edijay omancesray artstay ithway isthay urningtay intoway away Adylay andway ethay Amptray aghettispay ituationsay.
}}

==Explanationway==
{{incompleteway|Eatedcray ybay away AGNETICALLYMAY ONFINEDCAY ASMAPLAY-ABERSAY EACTORRAY - Easeplay angechay isthay ommentcay enwhay editingway isthay agepay. Oday OTNAY eleteday isthay agtay ootay oonsay.}}
AWAY {{way|ightsaberlay}} isway away ictionalfay eambay-ikelay ordsway eaponway usedway ybay embersmay ofway ethay {{way|Edijay}} orderway andway ethay {{way|Ithsay}} inway ethay ''{{way|Arstay Arsway}}'' anchisefray. Isthay omiccay owsshay away ightsaberlay ightfay artingstay etweenbay otway [[Ueballcay]]-ikelay Edijay, oneway alreadyway esentingpray eirthay adeblay inway allengechay andway ethay econdsay activatingway eirsthay inway esponseray. Enwhay ethay irstfay ikestray isway ademay etweenbay ethay otway ightsaberslay, eythay eeminglysay eldmay ogethertay, ithway away oopblay oundsay, ikelay ethay eamsbay areway ademay ofway away iquidlay. Isthay enthay ausescay ethay otway ightlay eamsbay otay ebay uckstay otay eachway otherway. Inway inway-universeway "echnicaltay ocumentsday", ightsaberslay areway aidsay otay ebay ademay omfray agneticallymay-onfinedcay asmaplay, osay erhapspay ethay agneticmay ieldsfay ichwhay ereway ojectedpray omfray eachway ilthay avehay ergedmay insteadway ofway epellingray (orway esentingpray asway utuallymay imperviousway) asway isway usuallyway expectedway.

Isthay enescay actuallyway ookslay away otlay ikelay atwhay appenshay etweenbay Arryhay Otterpay andway Oldemortvay'say andsway inway ethay endway ofway ethay ourthfay ookbay, ethay {{way|Arryhay Otterpay andway ethay Obletgay ofway Irefay|''Obletgay ofway Irefay''}}. Erehay otway ellsspay ithay eachway otherway andway onnectcay ethay otway andsway, ethay andway oldershay enthay unableway otay eleaseray orway isconnectday ethay andsway.

Inway isthay ituationsay oneway Edijay iestray otay akeshay ethay eambay, aybemay otay eakbray ethay ondbay, utbay insteadway ethay aveway avelstray ownday ethay ombinedcay eambay otay alsoway akeshay ethay otherway Edijay'say andhay-eldhay ilthay. Enwhay ethay ibrationvay iesday ownday ethay otherway Edijay enthay iestray otay eactivateday ishay ightsaberlay asway anway attemptway otay endway ethay onnectioncay. Utbay ethay etractionray ofway ethay entireway oubleday-izedsay ightlay eambay intoway ethay andlehay (asway eensay inway ethay oviesmay) ausescay othbay ofway ethay Edijay otay ebay awndray ogethertay erewhay eythay ollidecay ogethertay, orcefullyfay enoughway otay enderray emthay othbay unconsciousway. Ethay onnectedcay ightsaberlay andleshay ielay extnay otay emthay onway ethay oundgray.

Ethay itletay exttay impliesway atthay uchsay eventsway areway owhay {{way|Edijay}} omancesray artstay, omparingcay itway otay ethay amousfay "aghettispay enescay" omfray ethay 1955 Isneyday animatedway oviemay ''{{way|Adylay andway ethay Amptray}}'' erewhay ethay otway itulartay aracterschay unintentionallyway isskay afterway aringshay away andstray ofway aghettispay. Inway ethay Oldway Epublicray, Edijay ereway orbiddenfay omfray enteringway intoway omanticray elationshipsray (andway iscouragedday omfray ormingfay attachmentsway inway eneralgay), utbay inway ethay epray-Isneyday ''Arstay Arsway Egendslay'' ontinuitycay ofway ethay {{way|Arstay Arsway inway otherway ediamay|Expandedway Universeway}}, {{way|Ukelay Ywalkerskay}} andway {{way|Aramay Adejay}} irstfay etmay ilewhay ightingfay inway ethay aftermathway ofway ethay allfay ofway ethay Empireway, andway enthay evelopedday away omanticray elationshipray.

Arstay Arsway isway away [[:Ategorycay:Arstay Arsway|ecurringray emethay]] onway xkcday, andway ightsaberslay avehay eenbay ominentlypray eaturedfay eforebay inway, orfay instanceway, [[1397: Ukelay]] andway [[1433: Ightsaberlay]], erewhay ethay oblempray ithway ethay ysicsphay ofway away ightlay eambay asway away ordsway isway ownshay. Utbay inway eneralgay ightlay oesday otnay interactway ithway ightlay asway {{way|otonsphay}} areway {{way|osonsbay}} andway ancay usthay asspay oughthray eachway otherway. Interferenceway, yesay, utbay otway urepay ightlay eamsbay annotcay ollidecay andway ouncebay ackbay asway enwhay otway ightsaberslay ollidecay. Alsoway asway ethay omiccay Ightsaberlay entionedmay aboveway owsshay, erethay isway onay ompatiblecay ealray-orldway ayway ofway onfiningcay away eambay ofway ightlay, akingmay itway opstay afterway aboutway away etermay (orway anywhereway){{Ubiousday}}<upsay> - eesay {{way|Opticalway avitycay}}</upsay>. Osay isthay isway anotherway imetay erewhay [[Andallray]] akesmay away okejay aboutway ethay ysicsphay ofway ightsaberslay.

==Anscripttray==
:[Otway Ueballcay ikelay Edijay areway engagingway eachway otherway inway away uelday usingway ightsaberslay overway 12 anelspay ofway equalway izesay, ithway oundsay effectsway asway ethay onlyway oundsay. Inway ethay irstfay anelpay ethay eftlay Edijay ashay ishay ightsaberlay extendedway oldinghay itway inway othbay andhay ointingpay owardstay ethay otherway, owhay atway isthay imetay isway ustjay urningtay ishay ightsaberlay onway.]
:''Tssssssay''
:Ickclay

:[Almostway amesay ositionpay ofway ethay Edijay, utbay ethay ightray Edijay'say ightsaberlay ashay ownay extendedway, akingmay away oundsay. Ehay isway oldinghay itway upway earnay ishay eadhay inway othbay andshay]
:''Tsssay''

:[Enthay eythay unray owardstay eachway otherway andway ingsway eirthay ightsaberslay owardstay eachway otherway, otway allsmay arcsway indicatingway ethay ingsway ofway ethay ightsaberslay.]

:[Ethay otway eamsbay ithay eachway otherway andway onnectscay atway ethay iddlemay inway away igbay oopblay ofway ightlay, ithway opsdray ofway "ightlay" umpingjay offway othbay aboveway andway elowbay ethay onnectedcay ightsaberslay. Othbay Edijay illstay oldshay onway otay eirthay andleshay ithway othbay andshay. AWAY oudlay oundsay omescay outway ofway ethay onnectioncay:]
:''Oopblay''

:[Ethay Edijay andsstay illstay oldinghay eirthay andleshay. Ethay eambay isway ownay ormingfay away owbay etweenbay ethay otway andleshay.]

:[Ethay eftlay Edijay iolentlyvay akesshay ishay andlehay ausingcay away aveway otay aveltray ownday ethay eambay owardstay ethay ightray Edijay.]
:Akeshay akeshay

:[Asway ethay eftlay Edijay'say endway ofway ethay eambay omescay otay estray ethay aveway avelstray allway ethay ayway ethay ightray Edijay'say andlehay ausingcay ishay andshay otay akeshay, althoughway away itbay esslay anthay ethay originalway akeshay.]
:Akeshay akeshay

:[Ackbay otay ethay owbay ofway ightlay etweenbay emthay, utbay ethay eambay isway isiblyvay illstay akingshay, utbay onay aveway isway avelingtray anyway ongerlay.]

:[Amesay ettingsay utbay ethay akingshay ashay oppedstay. Ethay ightray Edijay urnstay ishay ightsaberlay offway onway ishay andlehay ithway away oundsay:]
:Ickclay

:[Ethay eambay ofway ightlay isway etractedray icklyquay intoway ethay andlehay ofway ethay Edijay urningtay ishay ightsaberlay offway. Osay icklyquay atthay ethay otway Edijay, illstay oldinghay onway otay eirthay andleshay areway ulledpay upway inway ethay airway andway owardstay eachway otherway asway ethay oundsay ofway ethay eambay urningtay offway isway eardhay. Ineslay indicateway eirthay ovementmay andway adowsshay onway ethay oundgray eneathbay emthay indicateway eythay areway inway ethay airway.]
:''Iiiipzhhhay''

:[Enwhay ethay eambay isway ompletelycay etractedray ethay otway andleshay ollidecay andway osay oday ethay eadshay ofway ethay otway Edijay ithway away oudlay oundsay. Eythay illstay oldhay onway otay eirthay andleshay ithway othbay andshay. Eythay illstay anghay inway ethay airway ithway adowsshay onway ethay oundgray eneathbay emthay.]
:''Onkbay''

:[Inway ethay inalfay anelpay ethay otway Edijay ielay unconsciousway onway ethay oundgray ithway eirthay eadshay owardstay eachway otherway andway ithway eirthay armsway etchedstray outway owardstay eachway otherway. Ethay onnectedcay andleshay ielay etweenbay emthay.]

{{omiccay iscussionday}}

[[Ategorycay:Omicscay eaturingfay Ueballcay]]
[[Ategorycay:Ultiplemay Ueballscay]]
[[Ategorycay:Arstay Arsway]]
[[Ategorycay:Ictionfay]]