explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3065: Square Units

2025-03-20T10:11:07Z

141.101.99.69: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3065
| date = March 19, 2025
| title = Square Units
| image = square_units_2x.png
| imagesize = 545x678px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The biggest I've seen in a published source in the wild is an 80-fold error in a reported distance, which I think came from a series of at least three unit conversions and area/length misinterpretations.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SQUARE AREA DEFOLIATION BOT - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In this comic, [[Megan]] has found an insect species on her phone that 'devours' one square inch of grass per day. This unit gets misinterpreted 11 times until [[Hairbun]] tells other people that it devours an area of grass equal to two times the land area of Australia per day, which is clearly impossible by one insect.{{citation needed}} This is similar to the premise of [[2585: Rounding]].

This gross error is the result of repeatedly misinterpreting the number of square units as the side length of a square, thus increasing the described area by the power of two. The chain also involves converting between an imperial unit and a metric unit, alternating, thus introducing smaller rounding errors even while switching which measurement is "a single square with sides of a certain distance" and which is "the number of squares that are each of unit length". The upshot is that, while each statement has two roughly similar measurements of area, the chain of misunderstanding ends up claiming ever larger relative expanses. The later participants in this chain also clearly forget to sanity-check their figures, blithely informing others that an individual insect is effectively consuming impossibly huge quantities of food, and travelling enormous linear distances every day to do so.

The title text tells us that [[Randall]] once found an 80-fold error in a reported distance in a published source.

===Table of conversions===
{| class="wikitable"
! step !! percentage gain !! total percentage gain !! square inch !! square cm !! square foot !! acre !! square meters !! square kilometers !! square miles
|-
! 1
| N/A || N/A ||style="background-color:lightgreen;"| 1||style="background-color:red;"| 6.4516 || 0.00694444444 || 1.5942251e-7 || 0.00064516 || 6.4516e-10 || 2.4909767e-10
|-
! 2
| -7% || -7% || 0.93 ||style="background-color:pink;"| 6 || 0.00645835 || 1.4826e-7 || 0.0006 || 6e-10 || 2.3166e-10
|-
! 3
| +600% || +558% || 5.58001 ||style="background-color:lightgreen;"| 36 (6x6)||0.0387501 || 8.8958e-7 || 0.0036 || 3.6e-9 || 1.39e-9
|-
! 4
| +3,600% || +20,000.9% || 200.8804||style="background-color:lightgreen;"|1,296 (36x36) || style="background-color:red;"|1.395003 || 3.20249e-5 || 0.1296|| 1.296e-7 || 5.00388e-8
|-
! 5
| -28.3% || +14,400% || 144 || style="background-color:green;"|929.03 || style="background-color:pink;"|1 || 2.2957e-5 ||0.092903 || 9.2903e-8 || 3.587e-8
|-
! 6
| +87,188% || +125,550.25% || 125,550.251 || style="background-color:lightgreen;"|810,000 (900x900)|| style="background-color:green;"|871.876744||0.0200155359 || 81||8.1e-5 || 3.1274275e-5
|-
! 7
| +103.22% || +12,960,000% || 129,600 || 836,127||style="background-color:lightgreen;"| 900 (30x30) ||0.0206612|| 83.6127||8.3613e-5 || 3.2283e-5
|-
! 8
| +90,000% || +11,664,000,000% || 116,640,000 || 752,514,624||style="background-color:lightgreen;"| 810,000 (900x900) || style="background-color:green;"|18.5950413|| 75,251.4624||0.0752514624 || 0.0290547521
|-
! 9
| +107.55% || +12,545,275,491% || 1.255e+8 || 8.094e+8|| 871,200||style="background-color:lightgreen;"| 20|| style="background-color:green;"|80,937.1 || 0.0809371 || 0.03125
|-
! 10
| +7,907,375% || +992,001,984,003,868% || 9,920,019,840,040 || 6.4e+13|| 68,889,026,666.94 || 1,581,474.44139 || style="background-color:lightgreen;"|6,400,000,000 (80,000x80,000) || 6,400 ||2,471.053814672
|-
! 11
| +0% || +992,001,984,003,868% || 9,920,019,840,040 || 6.4e+13|| 68,889,026,666.94 || 1,581,474.44139 || 6,400,000,000 || style="background-color:lightgreen;"|6,400 (80x80) ||style="background-color:green;"|2,471.053814672
|-
! 12
| +252,928% || +2,509,056,048,112,096,000% || 2.509056e+16|| 1.6187426e+17 || 1.7424e+14|| 4,000,000,000|| 1.6187426e+13 || 16,187,425.69 || style="background-color:lightgreen;"|6,250,000 (2,500x2,500)
|-
|}
The land area of Australia is 7,688,287 square km or 2,968,464 sq mi, making it the 6th largest country on Earth by area. A 2,500 mile square would actually be 2.1 times greater than the land area of Australia, once again having a rounding error.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Arrows point to each consecutive panel.]

:[Megan is looking at her phone, with Cueball standing next to her.]
:Megan: This newly-described insect can devour up to a square inch of grass per day.
:Cueball: Oh, neat.

:[Cueball is speaking to Ponytail.]
:Cueball: ...it eats a square inch, or 6 cm², of grass per day...

:[Ponytail is speaking to Hairy.]
:Ponytail: ...a 6-centimeter (2½ inch) square of grass, or 36 cm²...

:[Arrows now point to each consecutive conversion.]
:Written out of panel: ...a 36 centimeter square, or over a square foot...
:Written out of panel: ...a square foot, or 900 cm²...
:Written out of panel: ...a 900 cm (30 foot) square...
:Written out of panel: ...a 30 foot square of grass (900 square feet)...
:Written out of panel: ...a 900 foot square, or almost 20 acres...
:Written out of panel: ...20 acres (8 hectares, or 80,000 square meters)...
:Written out of panel: ...an 80,000 meter (80 km) square...
:Written out of panel: ...a square 80 km wide, or roughly 2,500 square miles...
:Written out of panel: ...a 2,500-mile square, or twice the land area of Australia, per day...

:[An arrow points from the last conversion to the last panel.]
:[Hairbun is looking at her phone, with White Hat, Danish and Blondie standing next to her.]
:Hairbun: Did you hear about this insect that defoliates the entire land area of Australia twice a day?
:White Hat: Gosh!
:Danish: Wow.
:Blondie: I hope at least it's contained there...

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Danish]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Blondie]]

Talk:3053: KM3NeT

2025-02-21T16:50:49Z

141.101.99.69:

First groan! (Not that I don't appreciate it, but definitely the most groanworthy comic in a long while...) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.229|172.69.195.229]] 17:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
For future context, this array has risen in notoriety thanks to the recent [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00444-1 detection] of the highest energy neutrino yet, but sadly I need to take this occasion to note how the deadliest thing in the strait of Sicily are not superluminal alien fish, but human traffickers moving people on botched up vessels from the north African coast for the past fifteen years, often resulting in shipwrecks in the waters right above KM3NeT. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.216.67|172.70.216.67]] 22:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I heard about this last week from a BBC Podcast (Inside Science?). The telescope is only part complete*, and consists of photo-multipliers (can detect a single photon) in glass spheres on a string rising from the sea floor to create a 3D grid (as illustrated). As the decay results in further luminescent particles the direction can be determined and the muon was travelling tangentially to the surface. *As with LIGO, the observation was made when the facility wasn't fully commissioned, so they had to carefully check for other light sources (possible joke source) that they weren't being 'swallowed' by bioluminecence? [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 08:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

So... excuse my naivité, but how do they, in reality, ensure bioluminescent fish are not confusing the neutrino detectors? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.101|162.158.155.101]] 19:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:As it depends upon a 'track' of light, you can work out how likely it is that a set of bioluminescent fish happened to spontaneously 'flash' (in a line, in sequence and at a superluminal velocity for the medium) that coincidentally looks like the non-fish detection signature that they're looking for. (That and/or other factors, looking for particular wavelengths, without known bioluminescent sources, etc.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.229|172.69.195.229]] 20:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:They just discount anything that looks a bit fishy.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.78|172.71.178.78]] 09:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerenkov_Radiation Cerenkov radiation], at any time, looks like a giant cone with the tip at the position of the generating particle. So I assume they can track the progress of the detections with time and dismiss anything that's not compatible with that geometry and time dependency. [[User:Nomentz|Nomentz]] ([[User talk:Nomentz|talk]]) 15:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Please,[citation needed] for "undersea life does not move at the speed of light"? It's mildly humorous, but in contrast to the mission of this site to EXPLAIN xkcd and just sheer ignorance, we do not need a cite for any life, undersea or not, travelling at less than the speed of light! [[User:Cuvtixo|Cuvtixo]] ([[User talk:Cuvtixo|talk]]) 21:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
: you may find it was added by a bot. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.39.130|162.158.39.130]] 11:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel that Randall missed a chance at a "Cherenkov Angle" pun in the title text [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.237|172.70.134.237]] 23:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Woah! Was that a Dad Joke? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.168.161|162.158.168.161]] 11:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the explanation of the title text is incomplete (but I'm a Physicist with a diploma); which part do you want to be explained further? [[User:Nomentz|Nomentz]] ([[User talk:Nomentz|talk]]) 15:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
:Looking at the revision history, it appears there's a glitch in the matrix. The incomplete tag was removed, nobody reinstated it, but then several edits later it reappears in the pre-edit version.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.69|141.101.99.69]] 16:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:1516: Win by Induction

2015-04-28T21:22:24Z

141.101.99.69:

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
::Seconded. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I'd think it's a reference to the rate of twins, which is currently almost exactly 1/30 (and on the rise) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Statistics] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.186|173.245.56.186]] 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Merkky[[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.186|173.245.56.186]] 17:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
:The problem being that we don't have an exact number for how many steps include double Pikachus. Granted, this is just a problem of practice, not theory. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.88|173.245.50.88]] 12:37, 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)ū
:Someone doesn't understand countability. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.217|141.101.89.217]] 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::enumeration is counting, in the simplest sense. "To name one by one; specify, as if in a list". That said, the whole of infinite whole numbers CAN be counted, just not by a human and not within a reasonable amount of time. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 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)
:Are Megan and Cueball supposed to fight each other? It seems like Cueball still has his closed Pokéball in his hands. Is it then Megan's Pokéball that has evolved into all these Pikachu? And is it because she waits for her Pokémon to be ready to fight Cueball, that she checks her watch? I do not know anything about the Pokémon game/world. But it seems to me that some part of this setup is unexplained by the above... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:23, 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)
:Ah, the immortal quip from Jerry Bona: "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?" [[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:29, 25 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}}
:Yes, I think this is right. Something about Maxwell's equations and induction. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.203}}
::From an engineering standpoint, in my opinion, Pikachu act more like biological capacitors (stored electric charge at potentially high voltage able to deliver large discharge currents) than inductors ("storing" magnetic energy via constant current, able to deliver high voltage when interrupted, like the ignition coil for an older automotive engine). I'm not too familiar with the Pokémon in-game/in-show universe, but I would imagine the Nurse Jenny corps could use electric Pokémon such as Pikachu (or Raichu) like defibrillators for cardiac events! --BigMal // [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.177|173.245.50.177]] 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::There are certain moves, including some that Pikachu can learn, that appear to be based on induction (Thunder Wave and Shock Wave). Besides, they build up charge in their bodies from somewhere; I'd suspect induction from the surrounding environment is what charges them up. --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.110.52|188.114.110.52]] 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a point floating about how infinity doesn't imply completion. For instance, the number of all even integers is infinite, yet any given integer "only has a 50% chance of being even", so the series is quite obviously incomplete. This article seems to tend towards the idea (in diction) that an infinite number of pikachu would result in a win based on a 'logical' premise, without referring specificially to the terms of it's assumption. [[User:Xerxesbeat|Xerxesbeat]] ([[User talk:Xerxesbeat|talk]]) 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:The observation proceeds from the fact that the cardinality of all even integers is the same as the cardinality of all natural numbers (and the cardinality of all rational numbers). You can say that there are as many even integers are there are integers, conterintuitive as that seems. This, however, has nothing to do with the reasoning behind induction. Suppose that there is a finite number that doesn't correspond with a Pikachu, we can pick the least number for which this is the case (just check all the lower numbers until we find the least non-pikachu number N). But there is a pikachu corresponding to N-1, and it is holding a pokeball with a pikachu. So the pikachu in the pokeball of pikachu N-1 is pikachu N, and we have a contradiction to our supposition. Therefore there is no finite number that doesn't correspond with a Pikachu, QED.[[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What happens if the Pikachu in the ball is recursing - picking himself? That doesn't fit the 30-40 double yolk thing, but would explain an infinite series. Food for thought. Megan is bored, waiting for the fight to start. I thought the game was supposed to begin when the players choose, though, so I don't understand why the wait is happening at all. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.151}}

I doubt this is an intentional part of the joke, but the strongest Ground-type moves (Earthquake, Precipice Blades, etc.) are multi-target, hitting all foes in a 1v5 situation such as Horde Battles. In theory, a strong enough super effective move from Cueball's lead would still end the battle in one turn. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.176|173.245.56.176]] 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Not Land's Wrath, Dig, or Earth Power, which are strong ground-type moves.[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.126|173.245.48.126]] 13:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Actually, Land's Wrath is multi-target. (The ones you named are also weaker than Earthquake and Precipice Blades, so the original comment stands regardless. Although a lucky Magnitude is more powerful than any of those.) --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.98|108.162.221.98]]

I normally get a hearty chuckle out of Randall's graphical musings, but this one had me scratching my head. Fortunately, ExplainXKCD always comes to the rescue! After reading this page, my first thought was: Pokéception! 13:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This sentence is nonsensical: ''When Trainers do battle, the anime's dub has immersed the phrase "<Pokémon's name>, I choose you!" into popular culture memory, which is accompanied by throwing the ball containing the selected Pokémon to the ground, which releases the Pokémon at full size.'' [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.161|108.162.219.161]] 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Should it be noted that the Pikachu is drawn without its tail? It would normally a have lightning bolt shaped tail that appears to the side or from behind its head. (Trivia or other note?) [[User:Azule|Azule]] ([[User talk:Azule|talk]]) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:I agree it looks weird, but can it be written off as it's being obscured by itself? {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.89}}
::I would say not. Look how the left arms are all a bit obscured by the body. This indicates that the Pikachu are turned slightly toward a side view. That would mean the back end would more visible, including the tail. [[User:Azule|Azule]] ([[User talk:Azule|talk]]) 09:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In Pokemon games from Gold and up, pokemon are able to hold items, including pokeballs. While in the game, once a pokeball is filled it is no longer available to select as an item, this comic would seem to imply the possible 'inception' scenario of having a pokemon hold an active pokeball (as the games have already shown that a pokeball can go into a pokeball). --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.193|173.245.54.193]] 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
: ahem... "pokeception" short for "pocket inception" - I can't be the first one to coin this (?) - [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

With Megan looking at her watch and Cueball holding the ball, I think we're meant to understand that Megan IS the Pokémon Cueball intends to use against Pikachu.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.153|108.162.221.153]] 19:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:Since Cueball has a closed ball in hand he has yet to choose a Pokemon. Tjus Megan cannot be his. She must have thrown the first Pikachu ball. Should be changed in explanation.[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It is possible the "win by induction" is from the Pikachu's opponent inferring the series in infinite, and conceding. 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something or does Randall not quite understand how Pokemon works? (Or is intentionally misrepresenting it for the sake of the joke) Pokemon don't come out with their own pokeball with them-- the pokemon aren't magically created. In theory, if someone were to give a pokemon its own pokemon, a chain could occur, but it would be limited to the number of pokemon previously caught. The pokemon are born in the wild and are captured inside pokeballs-- not created from them. {{unsigned ip|108.162.219.91}}
:If a Pikachu can catch another Pikachu in a Pokéball, then there is no reason why the Pikachu it just caught, did not think about this before, and that it had done the same. So when it was caught and put into the Pokéball, it already had a Pokéball with another Pikachu. Of this has occurred enough times you get the result of this comic. No one said this would go on forever, that is something we have interpreted from the comic. It does not come directly from Randall! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 05:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bother this. I send out Quagsire. Use Earthquake. '''Please''' do not wait.[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 05:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No mention of the exponential growth? If every 40th pikachu releases 2 and each of those also release their own pikachu then there is an average growth rate of the pikachu able to release another pikachu of 41/40 = 1.025. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.90|173.245.49.90]] 19:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

;Induction

Two other possibilities: one, in a bit of googling, it would appear that there is a type of Pokémon evolution called induced evolution, which involves stones of some kind? Alternately, we can use the term induction in the sense of soneone being ''inducted'' into a group. In this case, Megan has trained her Pikachu to be a Pokémaster. (Perhaps by arranging for it to be inducted into a rarified "gym"? I confess, I know nothing about the show.) [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.196|173.245.56.196]] 13:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one mentioned that Pokémon is a game a long time before becoming a show. Although it was because of the animated series that Pikachu became "special" among the hundreds of other cute critters.

Also, no mention to the russian matryoshka dolls? Come on...
Closest other xkcd I recall is https://xkcd.com/878/ {{unsigned ip|198.41.230.68}}

;Axiom of choice

Could this be to do with the {{w|axiom of choice}} from set theory? From my understanding, it's a fundamental axiom of set theory that says 'given a set of sets, it's possible to choose one element from each of those sets'. "Choosing" is in this case a specific operation that can be performed on an element.

One specific detail about the axiom is that all sets under consideration must be nonempty; that is, they must contain at least one element. So I think this is analogous to the situation of a Pokemon trainer owning multiple (full) Pokeballs: his Pokeballs are a collection of non-empty sets from which he is now trying to choose a single element ("Pikachu, I choose you!").

Under ''normal'' circumstances, he can do this without invoking the axiom of choice because he knows the names of all his Pokemon and so can select one from each set. In this case, he could prove his ability to make the choice simply by releasing all of his Pokemon from their balls one at a time. (The Pokemon's name is actually irrelevant, because simply releasing the Pokemon counts as a choice).

However, the situation becomes more complex if it turns out that his Pokemon also possess Pokeballs, because now his ability to make the choice is uncertain. In this situation, there could be ''infinitely many'' Pikachus, and so he can't definitely select a Pikachu from all the Pokeballs under his control. In a situation like this, a mathematician would invoke the axiom of choice.

However, it seems that Cueball is actually having a go at it using an inductive method of choice: first by choosing a Pikachu, then having each Pikachu choose a Pikachu. If the number of Pikachus carrying Pokeballs is finite, then eventually, this will demonstrate that the choice can be made and so the axiom of choice is unnecessary. However, if it's ''infinite'', then this will generate a neverending stream of Pikachus. In the latter case, the game never begins, because you can't begin a Pokemon battle until all participants have chosen Pokemon. Most likely, the other players would simply abandon the game, which Cueball could claim as a victory. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:I think you are confused about the AoC. AoC states that given any collection of elements, you can choose an element from EACH set. If you are choosing a pokemon from a collection of pokeballs, it's equivalent to choosing one full pokeball from the collection and you are picking an element from a single set, which doesn't involve the AoC (this is something you can always do as long as the set is non-empty). In the example in the comic, AoC is not needed because there is already a natural ordering (ignoring the alt-text, which would make the set a partial ordering), so it's trivial to construct a choice function for any subset (choose the "least" pikachu in the sequence). On the other hand, if we have infinite pikachus running wild, we would need the Axiom of Choice (preferably its equivalent, the Well-Ordering Theorem) to assert that they can be ordered so that all of them except one is captured in a pokeball held by another pikachu.[[User:Aube|Aube]] ([[User talk:Aube|talk]]) 05:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
::I was hoping a real mathematician would get involved. ^^ Do you think that this mathematical definition of 'choice' is the one being referred to in the comic, though? [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 13:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why don't those Pikachu have tails? Have they been sliced off? Is this some kind of mutation?-🐼🐯😺🐱 {{unsigned|FlyingPiggy}}

Its all moot anyway. Pokemon can't talk but to say their name. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|Yourlifeisalie]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 14:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1 in 30 or 40 could be a reference to the fact that twins account for around 1 in 30 child births in the US, following in this vein, induction could be wordplay on the act of inducing labour in pregnant animals. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.69|141.101.99.69]] 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

1515: Basketball Earth

2015-04-22T04:52:06Z

141.101.99.69: /* Explanation */ Sorry for stepping on the previous editor's toes. See Talk.

{{comic
| number = 1515
| date = April 22, 2015
| title = Basketball Earth
| image = basketball earth.png
| titletext = How many points do you get for dunking every basketball in existence at once?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Could definitely use review (or reversion to the first, simpler, explanation) and probably some handy hyperlinking for concepts.}}
It is common to describe the relationship of very large (and very small) objects to common or garden objects on a more human scale. (For small items, it might be something along the lines of if a certain single atom were expanded to the size of a particular sports stadium, such that the electrons would be on the perimiter of the complex, the nucleus is something still surprisingly small, by human standards, upon the centre-spot.) In the case of the Earth-Moon system the comparison can handily be made that for an Earth the size of a basketball, the Moon is about the size of a baseball. This certainly seems to be the comparison that Cueball is repeatedly attempting to make, with two invisibly suspended balls 'representing' each body, but is being interupted.

In the first interuption, Blackhat touches the 'Earth', generating a megatsunami of epic scale.

In the second interuption, ?Megan? pours water onto the Earthball, seemingly flooding its entire surface.

In the third interuption, a cat attacks the 'Earth' . Probably playfully, but it will have meant forces even greater than Blackhat's digital prodding, and may have even taken the Earth out of its (representative) orbit. One way or another, that will have been (unseen) disasters of far greater proportion.

The third interuption involves Ponytail taking the 'basketball' comparison at face value and actually trying to dunk the 'Earth' ''as'' a basketball. This would ''not'' be good for any residents of Earthball who have yet to succumb to the events so far. This simile-callback is continued in the titletext with the idea that "every basketball in existence" (i.e. every basketball upon the Earthball, as well as the Earthball itself) is counted towards the score from a single dunking. (Randall may or may not know exactly how many basketballs there are, perhaps through research for some What-If question or other, but almost certainly assumes that there are no basketballs ''not'' on Earthball, even without allowing for recursion. But there might be some question about whether the Earthball's own sub-scale basketballs are within code.)

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript| Formatting and description of images}}

:[Cueball is standing next to a basketball-sized Earth with a hand near it.]
:Cueball: If the Earth were the size of a basketball,
:[Cueball is now holding a baseball-sized moon. The basketball-sized Earth is still there. Black hat is in panel.]
:Cueball: The Moon would be -
:Black Hat: Hey, cool!
:Cueball: Um.
:[Unclear scene.]
:AAAAAAAA

:[Back to Cueball standing with the basketball-sized Earth.]
:Cueball: Let's try that again. If the Earth were the size of a basketball,
:[Cueball holding baseball-sized moon, with Megan in frame holding a sports water bottle.]
:Cueball: The Moon would be -
:[Megan squirts the moon with her water bottle.]

:Cueball: If the Earth were the size of a basketball,
:Cueball: The Moon- would...
:Cat: MROWL! [Cat jumps at Earth.]
:Cat: RRRRR! [Cat wrestling with Earth.]

:[Back to Cueball standing with the basketball-sized Earth.]
:Cueball: If the Earth were the size of a basketball,
:Cueball: The Moon would, uh...

:[Tooltip: how many points do you get for dunking every basketball in existence at once?]

<noinclude>{{comic discussion}}</noinclude>



[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]

Talk:1513: Code Quality

2015-04-21T17:51:50Z

141.101.99.69:

On the bright side, I now have a new array of phrases to keep me sane while doing code reviews... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 05:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the emojis were referring to swift where you can use emojis as variables.{{unsigned ip|108.162.250.168|05:53, 17 April 2015‎}}

Could we get a link for the Apple language? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.162|108.162.249.162]] 06:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This is going on our OneNote at work. It totally made my day [[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk:Jdluk|talk]]) 08:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet another reason I'm glad I'm not a coder anymore (went back to hardware design . . . with NO style guidelines ;^){{unsigned ip|173.245.56.182}}

The description reads as if camelCase is part of every style. There are styles containing camelCase, but not all of them do. Also, different styles contain different rules, so following one specific style guide will be in conflict with others, therefore it's not necessary good idea: unless you program in team which agreed upon which style to use, it may be better if you don't worry to much to follow style exactly. On the other hand, if Ponytail's similes are accurate, Cueball is likely to discover lot of basic rules which will make the program easier to read even for him.

For example, there are lot of styles for {{w|Indent_style|Indenting}} alone, but most readability comes from the basic idea to indent code according to block it belongs to. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 12:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I tried using 😭 as a variable name in Common Lisp. It works in SBCL, but fails in CLISP. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.112|108.162.221.112]] 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I really wish I knew anything about coding so I could contribute, but my 8th grade HTML class didn't help me that much. [[User:YourLifeisaLie|The Goyim speaks]] ([[User talk:YourLifeisaLie|talk]]) 12:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
:The cruel person might point out that HTML isn't even 'coding'. (It's markup, for the most part, unless you're dabbling in DHTML or some of the latest bastardisations that have crept into HTML5.) But you will of course know the bit where you get "Hang on, why is that table element on the wrong line/off the end of the line/short of the end/outside the table, even?" and how it makes it easier to use a new-line and indentation scheme at appropriate places (and a logical policy of which lines ''not'' to split) so that errors like unaccounted-for COLSPANs and bad tag-pairing can be tracked down easily.
:So it is with code. Liken it to obfuscation of HTML formatting (including using non-sensical, albeit consistent in themselves, id and name tags for the CSS to hang off of) can be employed deliberately (to prevent easy human readability/backformation) or incidentally (because it's created by a server-side/CMS generating script that hasn't been told to try to add useful whitespace). Moreso when it comes to <script> insertions (often deliberately obfuscated to single-letter variables, minimal whitespace and no line-feeds, perhaps in an misplaced attempt to enact 'security through obscurity', but of course that then ''is'' code. Arguably.
:One of the aims could be to reduce the size of the 'code' (even when that's Markup), which is laudible given how much over-padded stuff you can get (I don't know if Microsoft Word's "Save as HTML"/whatever is currently as bad as it was in the early days, but even a web-page with just "Hello World" was chockablock full of formatting information that it never even bothered to ask if were necessary), but unless you absolutely do not need (or do not want!) people to read the code, both people and auto-generation scripts should attempt to impart visual elegance. IMO! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 16:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the second paragraph of the explanation, beginning "A common technique," add anything to explain the comic? I don't see it, but then I am from the era of COBOL. [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 19:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
:I would propose a rewrite to something along the lines of "A common pattern in self-taught programmers...". As for the need of the paragraph, I feel it helps to explain where some programmers with bad (or a total lack of) employed standards come from. It's the kind of programmers that are used to copy and paste code examples and edit them until it does what they want, unknowingly introducing a horrible level of disparity to the code as well as disregarding any sensible coding standards and design patterns. I can speak from experience that such behavior exists, but that most such people either drop programming quickly or learn to adapt proper standards over time. I'm glad to say I'm in the latter group. — Erim Secla [[Special:Contributions/141.101.79.67|141.101.79.67]] 08:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How do we know that Agile and SaaS are relevant to this? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.84|173.245.50.84]] 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
: It has no relation, and futhermore whoever added software-as-a-service probably think it means something else than what it does [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 19:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
::It may even have been spam or a self promotion link. [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]]) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
;Emoji
IMHO the discussion on emoji is a bit off. Emoji are specifically the graphical representations (😢), not text-based smileys (T_T). And the sentences about language support use double negatives which is very confusing, and should probably mention that Javascript doesn't appear to allow it. (In my testing anyway.) [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
:I agree. {{w|Emoticons}} and {{w|Emoji}} are two different things.--[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
::Can we distinguish between graphical emoji and character-based unicode emoji? The difference being that one is swapped in to normal text via some form of markup code (client-side or server-side, either when it thinks it has an explicit emoticon/etc string like ":)" or encounters a coded statement like ":lol:") while the other one is there already with no extra image bytes necessary. Except for perhaps font-file downloading, of course.
::I assume the above (😢) is the latter, although that's an unrenderable character for me, as with most examples given on this page, and I assume I need some fancy new font installed to see it on any of the browsers I've tried it with. However, I ''do'' have ☺ and ☻ available to me. So I can at least emote in the manner of Dwarf Fortress (which, ironically, uses images ''of'' the original characters). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.69|141.101.99.69]] 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)