explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3184: Funny Numbers

2025-12-27T06:20:07Z

122.213.236.53: oeis mention

It should be"The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy". {{unsigned ip|2001:5a8:60da:3300:c94a:564:dc6d:d811|05:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)}}
: In response to above unsigned post: fixed! You could've edited it too :) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 05:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:: In response to your response: post marked as unsigned! You could've done that too ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 11:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

this is crazy [[User:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|Qwertyuiopfromdefly]] ([[User talk:Qwertyuiopfromdefly|talk]]) 06:08, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:67 in Numberphile... now in xkcd... very sad (maybe they are related? on YouTube, Numberphile released 12 hours ago, which may be too close, but I don't know if they do Patreon or something) [[User:R128|R128]] ([[User talk:R128|talk]]) 09:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::Ya all are way too sad about something this inconsequential. As xkcd rightly notices the so-called brainrot is just rebranding of equally dumb memes of yesteryear with the main difference being that you grew up with one and not the other. Decently funny strip overall. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 11:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::For one: it is the 19th prime, and 19 is the 8th prime. Also, its digit sum is 13, which is the 6th prime. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Excellent video from Wrath of Math about it and it was a couple months ago iirc, it's really good. [[Special:Contributions/124.198.132.237|124.198.132.237]] 21:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Bad comic, Randall. Put it back. [[Special:Contributions/47.141.37.161|47.141.37.161]] 06:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:It's called depublishing. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
"If you have to ask, you're not old enough yet," is there like, some kind of comprehensive guide to sex and sexuality I was supposed to receive on my 18th birthday or something? All I got was 18 $1 scratch tickets. [[Special:Contributions/69.5.140.194|69.5.140.194]] 08:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:For that matter, maybe your sense of humor is finally old enough to not amount to "haha sex funny". Incidentally appropriate IP, by the way. [[Special:Contributions/206.245.134.17|206.245.134.17]] 09:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I admit I was trying to be cute, I fully expected someone to "correct" it. It was reminiscent of the analogous question in the Baker House Purity Test (which I'll also admit I didn't get at the time). https://www.mit.edu/~iggy/Amusements/Purity_andnerd_tests/pure.baker.male [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I observe that the explanation leaves [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-7_meme 67] off the list of numbers... (it has no real meaning, just a fun thing the kids do to each other and enjoy the adults being confused about) (And now I feel stoopid for not noticing the big link at the very top — but still think it should be in the list.) [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 08:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:=-1. [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I daresay no Robert Anton Wilson clone will immortalize "6 7" in 100 years on. Todays memes have a half-life measured in milliseconds. I say that without assessment. Only observing. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0|2A02:2455:1960:4000:307A:46A3:7D5E:A7C0]] 10:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

<blockquote>69 -- if you have to ask, you're not old enough.</blockquote>
Information technology archeologist in the 31st century, sobbing: "I am 374 years old. How much longer?"[[Special:Contributions/109.43.49.174|109.43.49.174]] 11:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:Apparently, that meme is old enough not to have the several milliseconds of half-life (or if it does, it's dilated well to years, for I sometimes do see things with the "69 is funny" appearing). Unless "not old enough" refers to "born [chronologically] too late (i. e. too far from the Big Bang)". [[Special:Contributions/2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727|2001:4C4E:1C08:BC00:41F9:90A:BF7A:1727]] 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
While I do accredit the audacity to keep the humor in the explanation of 67, the act feels a little unprofessional. It feels like laziness or lack of knowledge, rather than a play on the popularity of the meme across the youth (I have no idea what the meaning behind six-seven is, and have always considered it pure absurd). [[User:Benzaldehyde|Benzaldehyde]] ([[User talk:Benzaldehyde|talk]] 14:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Could someone reorganize the order of the number descriptions? I initially read it as left column down, then right column down, which I think is also chronological. [[User:CreatorOfWorlds|CreatorOfWorlds]] ([[User talk:CreatorOfWorlds|talk]]) 14:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:I'm sure we could ascribe creation-estimates to them all (first being 23, etc, last being 6 7), but I don't see any obvious chronological layout, either row-by-row or column-by-column. 69 ''after'' 42? (Unless we accept the Lewis Carol origin, in which case it should even be before 23.) Calculators (suitable types by at the latest 1957) not until after the necessary hacker/BBS culture (early Internet and/or FIDONet era, with maybe the earliest possible date of 19''67<funny-hand-movements>'')? [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:On further looking, though I ''suppose'' the list (up until the latest addition, being just now tacked on at the end for simplicity) is definitely ''numerically''-sorted by column-first reading order... Depending upon the sorting algorithm, it'd be interesting to see where 6<space>7 gets shuffled to (and, moreover, how it shuffles anything that now comes after it) in a subsequent year's "list of numbers historically adopted by young people". Could be first, or between 42 and 69. ''Could'' still be last, but tricky to explain that against 23 (with non-numerical parts) being first this time round. Unless typesetting needs trump alphanumeric ordering, too. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 15:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:''...Anyway...'' I sortably-tabularised it! To the best of my ability. Maybe the date column should be "Discovered?" or something else, but too many unknowns, even after researching. .e.g. the act of 69ing is... well, I bet it's prehistoric (I'm sure bonobos do it... and all kinds of variations!), while the French 'popularisation' of the term is attested to more than 200 years ago, but I'm not going to even hazard a guess when it became a "teens" thing that the mathematicians subsequently decided was new. Brought 58008 into the '70s only because wikipedia suggested that (decadal-displays are older, even seven-segment displays themselves might be {{w|Seven-segment display#History|1903ish}}, but hey!). And defined decade-ranges as their midpoint year, for sorting reasons. You can see where and how to change things, if you disagree and have other/better dates. Or wish to add a further 'fad date' column to differentiate from origin-date. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 17:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh my a completed transcript already i literally just found out about this comic --[[User:Utdtutyabthsc|Utdtutyabthsc]] ([[User talk:Utdtutyabthsc|talk]]) 15:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

... You know what's funnier than 24? [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:5E13:8400:AC92:4546:AC77:BF90|2600:4041:5E13:8400:AC92:4546:AC77:BF90]] 17:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

::I’m not sure where you got the number 24 from, but there is a joke in Mexico that is something of an old Polish-style joke: Many Chinese who moved to Mexico are known to have difficulty with the ‘V’ sound, instead using something closer to an ‘M’. A Mexican was annoyed by a Chinese person and called him a “mendicuadro” — a slang term for a beggar or mendicant (or annoyance), which sounds like the words for 24 (venticuatro) — and the Chinese guy thought a second and responded “Well, you’re a twenty-five!” (“Pues, ¡tú eres un mendicinco!”). Cue hilarity. (These kinds of jokes are always ruined for me by the inherent racism, much like the “how many Polish guys does it take to change a lightbulb” kinds of jokes.) {{unsigned|Dúthomhas|02:11, 24 December 2025}}

Shouldn't the year for "42" be 1978? The Hitchhiker's Guide first broadcast "42" in Fit the Fourth, 29 March 1978. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_Primary_and_Secondary_Phases#Fit_the_Fourth {{unsigned ip|62.63.216.178|17:22, 23 December 2025}}
:You're right. I was juggling dates and must have caught a different one. (Book publication date..? Not sure, without checking, what I may have mixed it up with.) If not already fixed by you/others, will do so myself. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.237.136|82.132.237.136]] 17:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This is conclusive proof that Randall watches YouTube Shorts. [[User:Explainyourself|Explainyourself]] ([[User talk:Explainyourself|talk]]) 20:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised 22 (A major number in Outer Wilds, which I would assume Randall would've played because of ship design in 2765), 17776 (sci-fi story which is highly underrated), and 20020 (sequel to 17776) are all unmentioned. [[User:Usernametakennn|Usernametakennn]] ([[User talk:Usernametakennn|talk]]) 01:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:Some of those seem more like deciding that 2001 (and thus possibly 2010, 2061 and 3001) or 2312 or 1984 should appear. But are those titles... memetic enough? In a "down wid da yout'" kind of way?
:Especially if the relevent story is "underrated", because then it's not clearly as appreciated as it should be and so unlikely to enter the appropriate global consciousness like that. e.g., I may like the aforementioned fictional numbers, plus Space: 1999 (and, perhaps even more, Space: 1889!), but I'm not sure they've quite invaded the teenage mindset enough to be candidates for the list. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 02:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Actual popular numbers:
53310761 (Elvis Presley's military serial number. Very cool to known at one time!), 7734 (on a calculator), 54 40 (or fight. Winning political slogan thought the U.S. didn't 54 40 and didn't fight), 867-5309 (Jenny), Number 1 or number 2 (Going), 10-4 (Correct in 10 code during C.B craze) "No, 4" (Morbid response to peace sign after Kent state shooting.) "Number 5 is alive", 36-24-36 (Also 362-4360, phone number from a version of AC-DC's "Dirty deads") 86ed (Run out of, thrown out of, rejected).
A little more inside: 17 (Yellow pig day, Michael Spivak &c.), 712 (Shonen Knife ) 96 (tears) DEADBEEF (hex) 1066 (and all that) 1138 (THX, why aren't you at you post, thx-138 plates on the Deuce coupe &c.) 33, 45 & 78 record speeds [[User:Lordpishky|Lordpishky]] ([[User talk:Lordpishky|talk]]) 04:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Was the origin of 6 7 not ''"and if the devil is six then god is seven"'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_Gone_to_Heaven#Lyrics_and_meaning uttered by Black Francis in 1988]? [[Special:Contributions/80.2.107.84|80.2.107.84]] 07:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

666 --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 07:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You know about the 23 mile pipeline to the mining town of Skidoo right? {{unsigned ip|172.59.84.195|13:31, 24 December 2025}}

I’m surprised no one mentioned the origin of 6 7, which was Skrilla’s song “doot doot 6 7” where 6 7 is referring to Philadelphia police radio code 10-6-7, “report of death/dead body” and the use of the numbers 6 7 to reference death. Yes, I know many of the kids saying 6 7 don’t know what it means or why Skrilla was singing it, but that doesn’t mean the meaning doesn’t exist. I’m reminded of the song lyric “come spend the night inside my sugar walls” (Shena Easton”) I was in high school when it came out, and my classmates seemed to fall into one of 3 groups: those who got it, those who didn’t get it at all, and those who tried to deny what the words meant. [[Special:Contributions/2A09:BAC3:70E8:2773:0:0:3EE:55|2A09:BAC3:70E8:2773:0:0:3EE:55]]
:...if you actually read the explanation, it ''does'' mention Skrilla's song. As to whether it does refer to Phili radio codes or not, this is already mentioned in the linked page as a ''speculated'' but unsubstantiated possibility, and that Skrilla themself does pretty much the opposite of confirming this or any other definite origin. (All the above is as of the versions of the pages, here and on wikipedia, that I last read... I can't be held responsible for any further changes made to them, up to now or later. So more scrutiny might be needed if properly attested 'facts' appear.) [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.208|92.23.2.208]] 23:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I liked Meghan's comment, implying she has matured beyond these number fashions but is glad that the fad contiues amongst the yougsters. [[User:GrannyVanEngeland|GrannyVanEngeland]] ([[User talk:GrannyVanEngeland|talk]]) 16:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

5318008 [[Special:Contributions/2401:D005:D402:7A00:4C55:92FB:29AD:E01E|2401:D005:D402:7A00:4C55:92FB:29AD:E01E]] 02:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that 6 7 is not the number 67, but just the numbers 6 and 7 said together. In that sense it might be more properly considered not a number at all; if anything, it is a 2-membered sequence. Or possibly a word formed out of numerals. Though really there is no math involved, and thinking about it mathematically is probably missing the point. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1702:5C65:8E00:981A:7E98:FDFA:E92E|2600:1702:5C65:8E00:981A:7E98:FDFA:E92E]] 02:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

:10 4 [[Special:Contributions/107.77.205.131|107.77.205.131]] 20:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

::There’s a whole online encyclopedia of integer sequences, mind you [[Special:Contributions/122.213.236.53|122.213.236.53]] 06:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3062: Off By One

2025-12-07T09:00:45Z

122.213.236.53: mentioned Entropy esolang

But what about floats? [[User:GreyFox|GreyFox]] ([[User talk:GreyFox|talk]]) 20:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Is this dithering? [[User:Hcs|Hcs]] ([[User talk:Hcs|talk]]) 21:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

: Could be. --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 22:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This language has a huge off by one error: the docs don't explicitly say if the random range is inclusive. EDIT: the comic description above now includes this, thx --[[User:Snaxmcgee|Snaxmcgee]] ([[User talk:Snaxmcgee|talk]]) 22:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

But if it's adjusted both on store and on read, then there is a chance (of about 1 in 22) that the value after read will be exactly the same as the value before store. This does not eliminate pre-existing off-by-one errors, and in fact, introduces new ones if the adjustment on read is off by one from the adjustment on store, when there was no off-by-one error in the original code. And what's worse - with a single store-read cycle, the value can never be off by 40 to 50. It can be off by up to 10, or by between 80 to 100, in either direction. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 22:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
:I was ''just'' adjusting the explanation to imply this sort of thing (without having read your comment, just yet). Given the assumption that n=n±(40+rand(11)) at every stage (I'm assuming 'inclusive', Snaxmcgee!), two steps of 'intentional adjustment' might result in: -100 (x1), -99 (x2), -98 (x3), -97 (x4), -96 (x5), -95 (x6), -94 (x7), -93 (x8), -92 (x9), -91 (x10), -90 (x11), -89..-80 (x10..x1), -10 (x2), -9 (x4), -8 (x6), -7 (x8), -6 (x10), -5 (x12), -4 (x14), -3 (x16), -2 (x18), -1 (x20), ±0 (x22), +1..+10 (x20..x2), +80..+90..+100 (x1..x11..x1).
:This gives a chance of being entirely correct as 22/484 (4.5454...%) and ''each'' off-by-one as ''very'' slightly less (though ±1, in total is almost twice as likely!).
:Adding further steps (skipping odd step-cummulations, at least at first, until you get to nine of them and everything entirely stops being discontinuous) just spreads out an increased number of highs right next to zero deflection... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.129|172.70.86.129]] 23:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::Obligatory quote:
There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.
::See here for a full story of this quote: https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/506010907021828096
::--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.129.64|162.158.129.64]] 08:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
:::And 3 hard things in distributed computing: 3. Delivering messages exactly one time, 2. Making sure things happen in the correct order, and 3. Delivering messages exactly one time [[User:Jamcdonald|Jamcdonald]] ([[User talk:Jamcdonald|talk]])
::::Presumably 1 is not losing data? --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 10:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
::::: We may never know, Message 1 was never delivered [[User:Jamcdonald|Jamcdonald]] ([[User talk:Jamcdonald|talk]])
In the comic, Cueball clearly says the adjustment amounts is ‘’between’’ 40 and 50, yet this explanation says the adjustment is from 40 to 50, ironically making an off-by-1 error on both ends of the range. Neither integers 40 nor 50 are “between 40 and 50”. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.39|172.71.154.39]] 10:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
:English language is imprecise with its use of "between", but it's usually taken as inclusive. Most people, when asked, "Pick a number between 1 and 10," will assume that 1 and 10 are both valid choices. Even in computing, you have things like Excel's RANDBETWEEN function to generate random integers between two bounds, which is inclusive. {{unsigned ip|104.23.187.72|13:28, 13 March 2025}}
::Interestingly, in German such ranges are defined as including the borders, in Dutch they're defined as excluding the borders. (hence the Dutch t/m ("tot en met" - "up to, and including") [[Special:Contributions/104.23.170.81|104.23.170.81]] 15:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, see {{wiktionary|between#Usage notes}} as one overview. Between as in "within the bounds defined by" is different from "amongst those things of which these items are the defining outer examples". Especially, but not exclusively, when that's just two distinct items which have ''no'' valid intermediate states betwixt the two to choose from ("you have to choose between me and my sister" isn't usually satisfactoraily answerable by choosing a different sibling, or perhaps parent, of the two). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.54|172.69.195.54]] 15:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It's easy to make an off-by-one error without using a computer at all. Ask a friend how many fenceposts are needed for a 100-foot fence if the rails are ten feet long. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.199|172.71.30.199]] 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
:And how wide are the posts..? ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.6|141.101.98.6]] 15:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
::If I ever answer this question 100, it's obviously because in my mind each post (or more accurately, the distance between the grooves cut into the post) is a foot wide, which is slightly larger than usual but not totally unreasonable size, and not because I fell for the trick.--[[User:Snaxmcgee|Snaxmcgee]] ([[User talk:Snaxmcgee|talk]]) 16:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand - what's all this got to do with water balloons? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.129|172.70.86.129]] 15:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
:(ISWYDT...) [[Special:Contributions/173.70.195.206|171.68.193.204]] 16:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
::What did they do. Waterballoons were the previous comic? What did they do? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.159|172.70.230.159]] 22:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
:::They were off by one [day] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.55.113|172.68.55.113]] 16:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's make programming languages do this! There should be an implementations section! :D :D [[Special:Contributions/172.70.230.159|172.70.230.159]] 22:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Nearly added the following information to the Explanation, but it's probably too specific an example:
:The language {{w|Perl}} can be asked (with an array <code>@array</code>) for either the number of elements (with something like <code>int(@array)</code>) ''or'' the index of the final element (typically by <code>$#array</code>) of lists that ''usually'' start at the index of zero. The method of looping through the array should then be carefully matched to the limit given (shift/pop it as many times as there are elements, as one of the various "do-while" or "while-do" types of loop available, or else run from index zero to the topmost index value that ''normallybought to be'' 'elements minus one', with one of the more "for(;;)"-style counting-loops).
And, of course, there are subtle differences between Perl versions, not nust limited to whetger it's <code>$array[$index]</code> or <code>@array[$index]</code>, and if <code>$[</code> or 'arybase' can be used to mix things up a bit. (Though I might just <code>map {...} @array</code> it, or do something potentially awful but valid like <code>{@array||last;print$".splice@array,rand@array,1;redo}</code> if it seemed like I should.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.167|172.70.163.167]] 00:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

There’s an esoteric programming language called Entropy that slightly changes each variable, constant, and string literal every time it’s accessed. If a fizzbuzz program for it is correct up until 8, it’s a miracle. [[Special:Contributions/122.213.236.53|122.213.236.53]] 09:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)