explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1516: Win by Induction

2015-04-24T10:52:09Z

141.101.96.217:

Is the alt text a reference to double-yolkers (eggs with two yolks)? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16118149 They're only about 1 in every 1000] but it seems like an obvious reference. --[[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. I didn't even think of double yolks until you mentioned it here. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BK201

The explanation currently says that doubling makes it uncountably infinite. I'm pretty sure that doubling at each step (or every few steps) is still a countable infinite set. Proof here: http://practicaltypography.com/the-infinite-pixel-screen.html (see section "The internet demands a recount", because the first attempt is wrong). We can also prove it using the same argument as when proving that N x N is countable infinite (making zig-zag), but in this case making a breadth-first search of the tree of Pikachus: map 1 to the first Pikachu, map 2 and 3 to the two Pikachus at the second level, map 4, 5, 6, 7 to the four Pikachus at the third level, map (2^(n-1))…((2^n) - 1) to the 2^(n-1) Pikachus at level n. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.177}}
:Saw this too late. Yes, I agree, and I have fixed it accordingly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"infinite, but countable" {Cough.} Someone doesn't understand infinity. Perhaps they meant "enumerable". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Someone doesn't understand countability. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The front most Pikachu speaks." Hey, look, it has those little lines to show it's speaking, not the blank white space behind it. Duh. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Megan is looking at her watch as well. Mention in transcript/explanation? [[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: Grammatically speaking, Pokémon are like sheep or deer. Singular and plural are both written the same. One Pikachu, many Pikachu, all the Pikachu. You'd be surprised at how much rage forgetting this causes in certain corners of the Internet. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.42}}

What doesn't make sense to me is how this could continue indefinitely – after all, each of those Pikachu must have caught its own Pikachu beforehand. I don't see any infinite loop here, just a bunch of Pikachu that already had one another caught itselves. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The word "induction" could also be intended to have a double meaning, referring also to electromagnetic induction. Pikachu is, after all, and electric pokémon. {{unsigned ip|141.101.105.194}}

Talk:1516: Win by Induction

2015-04-24T10:15:59Z

141.101.96.217:

The word "induction" could also be intended to have a double meaning, referring also to electromagnetic induction. Pikachu is, after all, and electric pokémon.

Is the alt text a reference to double-yolkers (eggs with two yolks)? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16118149 They're only about 1 in every 1000] but it seems like an obvious reference. --[[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. I didn't even think of double yolks until you mentioned it here. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BK201

The explanation currently says that doubling makes it uncountably infinite. I'm pretty sure that doubling at each step (or every few steps) is still a countable infinite set. Proof here: http://practicaltypography.com/the-infinite-pixel-screen.html (see section "The internet demands a recount", because the first attempt is wrong). We can also prove it using the same argument as when proving that N x N is countable infinite (making zig-zag), but in this case making a breadth-first search of the tree of Pikachus: map 1 to the first Pikachu, map 2 and 3 to the two Pikachus at the second level, map 4, 5, 6, 7 to the four Pikachus at the third level, map (2^(n-1))…((2^n) - 1) to the 2^(n-1) Pikachus at level n. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.177}}
:Saw this too late. Yes, I agree, and I have fixed it accordingly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"infinite, but countable" {Cough.} Someone doesn't understand infinity. Perhaps they meant "enumerable". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Someone doesn't understand countability. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The front most Pikachu speaks." Hey, look, it has those little lines to show it's speaking, not the blank white space behind it. Duh. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Megan is looking at her watch as well. Mention in transcript/explanation? [[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: Grammatically speaking, Pokémon are like sheep or deer. Singular and plural are both written the same. One Pikachu, many Pikachu, all the Pikachu. You'd be surprised at how much rage forgetting this causes in certain corners of the Internet.

[my post starts here] What doesn't make sense to me is how this could continue indefinitely – after all, each of those Pikachu must have caught its own Pikachu beforehand. I don't see any infinite loop here, just a bunch of Pikachu that already had one another caught itselves. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1516: Win by Induction

2015-04-24T10:15:30Z

141.101.96.217:

The word "induction" could also be intended to have a double meaning, referring also to electromagnetic induction. Pikachu is, after all, and electric pokémon.

Is the alt text a reference to double-yolkers (eggs with two yolks)? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16118149 They're only about 1 in every 1000] but it seems like an obvious reference. --[[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. I didn't even think of double yolks until you mentioned it here. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BK201

The explanation currently says that doubling makes it uncountably infinite. I'm pretty sure that doubling at each step (or every few steps) is still a countable infinite set. Proof here: http://practicaltypography.com/the-infinite-pixel-screen.html (see section "The internet demands a recount", because the first attempt is wrong). We can also prove it using the same argument as when proving that N x N is countable infinite (making zig-zag), but in this case making a breadth-first search of the tree of Pikachus: map 1 to the first Pikachu, map 2 and 3 to the two Pikachus at the second level, map 4, 5, 6, 7 to the four Pikachus at the third level, map (2^(n-1))…((2^n) - 1) to the 2^(n-1) Pikachus at level n. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.177}}
:Saw this too late. Yes, I agree, and I have fixed it accordingly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"infinite, but countable" {Cough.} Someone doesn't understand infinity. Perhaps they meant "enumerable". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Someone doesn't understand countability. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The front most Pikachu speaks." Hey, look, it has those little lines to show it's speaking, not the blank white space behind it. Duh. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Megan is looking at her watch as well. Mention in transcript/explanation? [[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: Grammatically speaking, Pokémon are like sheep or deer. Singular and plural are both written the same. One Pikachu, many Pikachu, all the Pikachu. You'd be surprised at how much rage forgetting this causes in certain corners of the Internet.

[my post starting here] What doesn't make sense to me is how this could continue indefinitely – after all, each of those Pikachu must have caught its own Pikachu beforehand. I don't see any infinite loop here, just a bunch of Pikachu that already had one another caught itselves. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1516: Win by Induction

2015-04-24T10:13:48Z

141.101.96.217:

The word "induction" could also be intended to have a double meaning, referring also to electromagnetic induction. Pikachu is, after all, and electric pokémon.

Is the alt text a reference to double-yolkers (eggs with two yolks)? [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16118149 They're only about 1 in every 1000] but it seems like an obvious reference. --[[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. I didn't even think of double yolks until you mentioned it here. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.89|173.245.50.89]] 09:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)BK201

The explanation currently says that doubling makes it uncountably infinite. I'm pretty sure that doubling at each step (or every few steps) is still a countable infinite set. Proof here: http://practicaltypography.com/the-infinite-pixel-screen.html (see section "The internet demands a recount", because the first attempt is wrong). We can also prove it using the same argument as when proving that N x N is countable infinite (making zig-zag), but in this case making a breadth-first search of the tree of Pikachus: map 1 to the first Pikachu, map 2 and 3 to the two Pikachus at the second level, map 4, 5, 6, 7 to the four Pikachus at the third level, map (2^(n-1))…((2^n) - 1) to the 2^(n-1) Pikachus at level n. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.177}}
:Saw this too late. Yes, I agree, and I have fixed it accordingly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"infinite, but countable" {Cough.} Someone doesn't understand infinity. Perhaps they meant "enumerable". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Someone doesn't understand countability. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The front most Pikachu speaks." Hey, look, it has those little lines to show it's speaking, not the blank white space behind it. Duh. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Megan is looking at her watch as well. Mention in transcript/explanation? [[User:Fenn|Fenn]] ([[User talk:Fenn|talk]]) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: Grammatically speaking, Pokémon are like sheep or deer. Singular and plural are both written the same. One Pikachu, many Pikachu, all the Pikachu. You'd be surprised at how much rage forgetting this causes in certain corners of the Internet.

[my post starting here] What doesn't make sense to me is how this should continue indefinitely – after all, each of those Pikachu must have caught its own Pikachu beforehand. I don't see any infinite loop here, just a bunch of Pikachu that already had one another caught itselves. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 10:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:584: Unsatisfied

2015-04-09T13:02:27Z

141.101.96.217: typo

I interpreted the right-most column as Megan fantasising about being with Cueball, but finding her fantasy dissatisfactory as she imagines Cueball will continue to long for Ponytail. {{unsigned|‎139.222.236.222}}

<br />

I think the title text points to Cueball going through both hypothetical lives. Yuriy206

;Last panel

What happens in the last panel? I understand that at least two of the three are dead, and I assume that it's Cueball who continues to dream ''post mortem'', but who is in the other tomb? Is it whatever girl he didn't choose? And the corresponding dream is that the girl he chose didn't even exist (only one tomb in the dream)? ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it means that it doesn't matter which girl he chooses, because in both cases he will still be thinking about the other one - even after death. So one tomb is his and one is the girl's he chose, but he's still thinking about the other one(even thougth she's dead).--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 13:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:584: Unsatisfied

2015-04-09T13:01:01Z

141.101.96.217: answering Mumiemonstret's question

I interpreted the right-most column as Megan fantasising about being with Cueball, but finding her fantasy dissatisfactory as she imagines Cueball will continue to long for Ponytail. {{unsigned|‎139.222.236.222}}

<br />

I think the title text points to Cueball going through both hypothetical lives. Yuriy206

;Last panel

What happens in the last panel? I understand that at least two of the three are dead, and I assume that it's Cueball who continues to dream ''post mortem'', but who is in the other tomb? Is it whatever girl he didn't choose? And the corresponding dream is that the girl he chose didn't even exist (only one tomb in the dream)? ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it means thah it doesn't matter which girl he chooses, because in both cases he will still be thinking about the other one - even after death. So one tomb is his and one is the girl's he choose, but he's still thinking about the other girl (even thougth she's dead).--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 13:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:938: T-Cells

2014-03-27T11:32:48Z

141.101.96.217:

Does anyone have a link to the actual article? Or possibly a proper citation? {{unsigned ip|192.17.144.82}}
:I have added such a link in the explanation. Unfortunately, you have to subscribe to the magazine asterisked in the comic, so the link goes to another one. It also helps to Google "nejm aug 10 2011". Anonymous 04:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Trial appears to have been a success, although the patient now has no B-cells and thus a compromised immune system (will need regular gamma globulin transfusions and the like). [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 16:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks to be this article here [http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103849] and [http://kiefercon.tumblr.com/]. I'll stick with chemo, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.87|173.245.54.87]] 16:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I know it's a joke, but just in case people are taking this seriously, this is worth a read. [http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/06/25/no-doctors-did-not-inject-hiv-into-a-dying-girl-to-treat-her-cancer/] The key word should have been "lentivirus", not "HIV". The T cells were modified using a heavily altered lentivirus derived from HIV. The virus shouldn't be referred to as HIV, though it makes for some great headlines. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.167|199.27.128.167]] 20:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Before WWII there was an succesful method of curing syphilis with malaria (malariotherapy). Maybe a reference[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.217|141.101.96.217]] 11:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)