explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1787: Voice Commands

2018-09-26T20:42:34Z

162.158.154.103: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1787
| date = January 18, 2017
| title = Voice Commands
| image = voice_commands.png
| titletext = Dvorak words may sound hard to pronounce, but studies show they actually put less stress on the vocal cords.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic [[Cueball]] has shown [[Ponytail]] something relevant to her on his smartphone and she asks if he can send it to her. He agrees but then says something completely incomprehensible to Ponytail, but obviously his phone understands and sends the message with a beep.

The caption explains that he was speaking using the {{w|Dvorak encoding}}. This is a simple encoding when using a {{w|QWERTY}} keyboard layout and writing as it was a {{w|Dvorak Simplified Keyboard}} or vice versa. Cueball can be sure that nobody else will be able to use voice commands on his phone.

The sentence Cueball tells his phone translates to "Okay Google send a text" -- he says it as if he were typing the sentence on a Dvorak layout with the keyboard set to a QWERTY layout. How such words would be pronounced is a mystery, as the letters in the words are merely substituted with others with no regard to phonetics; without standardized pronunciations, a speech-to-text program would be useless. To add to the confusion, one of the words in Cueball's sentence includes a semi-colon as one of its letters despite the fact that semi-colons are punctuation rather than phonemes, which only complicates the pronunciation further.

The title text is a reference to the fact that many users of Dvorak keyboards claim they may be hard to learn, but they are more movement efficient and put less stress on your fingers due to less movement. This makes little sense in the scenario set up by the comic, as speaking gibberish using oddly placed vowels would be equally difficult, if not in fact harder, on the vocal cords.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail is looking at Cueball facing her, and he looks down at the smartphone he is holding in his hand.]
:Ponytail: Can you text it to me?
:Cueball: Sure!
:Cueball: ''Svat Ussupd ;dlh a kdbk''
:Ponytail: ...What?
:Phone: ''*Beep*''

:[Caption under the panel:]
:Setting my phone's speech recognition to Dvorak was a pain at first, but it's more efficient in the long run.

==Trivia==
*Dvorak was also mentioned in [[977: Map Projections]], and it seems likely that Randall took a look at that comic before making [[1784: Bad Map Projection: Liquid Resize]] which where released the week before this comic.
*So it is realistic that the reason this comic came out now, was because Randall was thus reminded about his aversion to people advocating for Dvorak enabling people to type faster than on QWERTY.
*Using a Dvorak keyboard layout on a smartphone (for actual typing, not voice commands) is possible, but the very features that make it desirable in a physical touch-typing environment are drawbacks on a swipe-enabled keyboard. A placement designed to alternate a typist's left and right hands requires the finger of a swipist to travel back and forth across the keyboard more often. Fitting commonly-used letters onto the typist's home row reduces finger movement but makes many words the swipist enters indistinguishable. On a QWERTY swipe keyboard, four English words can be entered by swiping right to left from P to T: "pot", "pit", "put", and "pout"; however, setting the layout to Dvorak causes this to happen with many more common sets of words.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]
[[Category:Dvorak]]

2048: Curve-Fitting

2018-09-22T00:42:58Z

162.158.154.103:

{{comic
| number = 2048
| date = September 19, 2018
| title = Curve-Fitting
| image = curve_fitting.png
| titletext = Cauchy-Lorentz: "Something alarmingly mathematical is happening, and you should probably pause to Google my name and check what field I originally worked in."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Please edit the explanation below and only mention here why it isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

An illustration of several plots of the same data with {{w|Curve fitting|curves fitted}} to the points, paired with conclusions that you might draw about the person who made them. This data, when plotted on an X/Y graph, looks somewhat random and there is a desire or need to determine some kind of pattern. With some kinds of data the pattern can be visually obvious, and perhaps a straight or diagonal line, represented by a simple mathematical formula, hits or comes very near hitting all the points. In other cases where it's not as intuitively obvious, one begins to look for more sophisticated mathematical formulas that appear to fit the data, in order to be able to extrapolate or interpolate other data that wasn't in the initial sampling.

When modeling such a problem statistically, it is common to search for trends, and fitted curves can help reveal these trends. Much of the work of a data scientist or statistician is knowing which fitting method to use for the data in question. Here we see various hypothetical scientists or statisticians each applying their own interpretations, and the comic mocks each of them for their various personal biases or other assorted excuses. In general, the researcher will specify the form of an equation for the line to be drawn, and an algorithm will produce the actual line.

Nonetheless scientists work much more seriously on the reliability of their assumptions by giving a value for the {{w|Standard deviation|standard deviation}} represented by the Greek letter sigma σ or the Latin letter s as a measure to quantify the amount of variation of the data points against the presented ''best fit''. If the σ-value isn't good enough an interpretation based on a specific fit wouldn't be accepted by the science community.

Since [[Randall]] gives no hint about the nature of the used data set - same in each graph - any fitting presented doesn't make any sense. The graphs could represent a star map, the votes for the latest elected presidents, or your recent invoices on power consumption. This comic just exaggerates various methods on interpreting data, but without the knowledge of the matter in the background nothing makes any sense.

===Linear===
[[File:Anscombe's quartet 3.svg|thumb|200px|Different data sets result in the same regression.]]
<math>f(x) = mx + b</math>

{{w|Linear regression}} is the most basic form of regression; it tries to find the straight line that best approximates the data. As it's the simplest, most widely taught form of regression, and in general derivable function are locally well approximated by a straight line, it's usually the first and most trivial attempt of fit.

The picture to the right shows how totally different data sets can result into the same line. It's obvious that some more basics about the nature of the data must be used to understand if this simple line really does make sense.

The comment below the graph ''"Hey, I did a regression."'' refers to the fact that this is just the easiest way of fitting data into a curve.

===Quadratic===
<math>f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c</math>

{{w|Polynomial regression|Quadratic fit}} (i.e. fitting a parabola through the data) is the lowest grade polynomial that can be used to fit data through a curved line; if the data exhibits clearly "curved" behavior (or if the experimenter feels that its growth should be more than linear), a parabola is often the first, easiest, stab at fitting the data.

The comment below the graph ''"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with math."'' refers to the fact that quadratic correlations like this are mathematically valid (and probably the simplest kind of curve in math) but rarely occur in real life.

===Logarithmic===
[[File:Logarithm_plots.png|thumb|200px|Common logarithm functions.]]
<math>f(x) = a\log_b(x) + c</math>

A {{w|Logarithm|logarithmic}} curve growths slower on higher values, but still grows without bound to infinity rather than approaching a horizontal asymptote. The small ''b'' in the formula represents the base which is in most cases 2, ''{{w|e (mathematical constant)|e}}'', or 10. If the data presumably does approach a horizontal asymptote then this fit isn't an effective method to explain the nature of the data.

The comment below the graph ''"Look, it's tapering off!"'' builds up the impression that the data diminishes while under this fit it's still growing to infinity, only much slower than a linear regression does.

===Exponential===
[[File:Exponential.svg|thumb|200px|Exponential growth (green) compared to other functions.]]
<math>f(x) = a\cdot b^x + c</math>

An {{w|Exponential growth|exponential curve}}, on the contrary, is typical of a phenomenon whose growth gets rapidly faster and faster - a common case is a process that generates stuff that contributes to the process itself, think bacteria growth or compound interest.

The logarithmic and exponential interpretations could very easily be fudged or engineered by a researcher with an agenda (such as by taking a misleading subset or even outright lying about the regression), which the comic mocks by juxtaposing them side-by-side on the same set of data.

The comment below the graph ''"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"'' gives an other frivolous statement suggesting something like chaos. Also this even faster growth is well defined and has no asymptote at both axes.

===LOESS===
A {{w|Local regression|LOESS fit}} doesn't use a single formula to fit all the data, but approximates data points locally using different polynomials for each "zone" (weighting differently data points as they get further from it) and patching them together. As it has much more degrees of freedom compared to a single polynomial, it generally "fits better" to any data set, although it is generally impossible to derive any strong, "clean" mathematical correlation from it - it is just a nice smooth line that approximates well the data points, with a good degree of rejection from outliers.

The comment below the graph ''"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."'' emphasis this more complicated interpretation but without a simple mathematical description it's not much helpful to find academic descriptions on the underlying matter.

===Linear, No Slope===
<math>f(x) = c</math>

Apparently, the person making this line figured out pretty early on that their data analysis was turning into a scatter plot, and wanted to escape their personal stigma of scatter plots by drawing an obviously false regression line on top of it. Alternatively, they were hoping the data would be flat, and are trying to pretend that there's no real trend to the data by drawing a horizontal trend line.

The comment below the graph ''"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."'' is probably done by a student who isn't happy with it's choice of field of study.

===Logistic===
[[File:Logistic-curve.svg|thumb|200px|A standard logistic function between the values ''0'' and ''1''.]]
The {{w|Logistic regression|logistic regression}} is taken when a variable can take binary results such as "0" and "1" or "old" and "young".

The curve provides a smooth, S-shaped transition curve between two flat intervals (like "0" and "1").

The comment below the graph ''"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough Math."'' implys the experimenter just wants to find a mathematically-respectable way to link two flat lines.

===Confidence Interval===
Not a type of curve fitting, but a method of depicting the predictive power of a curve.

Providing a confidence interval over the graph shows the uncertainty of the acquired data, thus acknowledging the uncertain results of the experiment, and showing the will not to "cheat" with "easy" regression curves.

The comment below the graph ''"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."'' is just an honest statement about this uncertainty.

===Piecewise===
Mapping different curves to different segments of the data. This is a legitimate strategy, but the different segments should be meaningful, such as if they were pulled from different populations.

This kind of fit would arise naturally in a study based on a regression discontinuity design. For instance, if students who score below a certain cutoff must take remedial classes, the line for outcomes of those below the cutoff would reasonably be separate from the one for outcomes above the cutoff; the distance between the end of the two lines could be considered the effect of the treatment, under certain assumptions. This kind of study design is used to investigate causal theories, where mere correlation in observational data is not enough to prove anything. Thus, the associated text would be appropriate; there is a theory, and data that might prove the theory is hard to find.

One notable time this is used is when a researcher studying housing economics is trying to identify housing submarkets. The assumption is that if two proposed markets are truly different, they will be better described using two different regression functions than if one were to be used.

The additional curved lines visible in the graph are the kind of confidence intervals you'd get from a simple OLS regression if the standard assumptions were valid. In the case of two separate regressions, it would be surprising if all those assumptions (that is, i.i.d. Normal residuals around an underlying perfectly-linear function) were in fact valid for each part, especially if the slopes are not equal.

A classical example in physics are the different theories to explain the black body radiation at the end of the 19th century. The {{w|Wien approximation}} was good for small wavelengths while the {{w|Rayleigh–Jeans law}} worked for the larger scales (large wavelength means low frequency and thus low energy.) But there was a gap in the middle which was filled by the {{w|Planck's law}} in 1900.

The comment below the graph ''"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."'' is a bit ambiguous because there are many data points ignored. Without an explanation why only a subset of the data is used this isn't a useful interpretation at all.

===Connecting lines===
This is often used to smooth gaps in measurements. A simple example is the weather temperature which is often measured in distinct intervals. When the intervals are high enough it's safe to assume that the temperature didn't change that much between them and connecting the data points by lines doesn't distort the real situation in many cases.

The comment below the graph ''"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in Excel."'' refers to the well known spreadsheet application from Microsoft. Like other spreadsheet applications it has the feature to visualize data from a table into a graph by many ways. The usage of the ''Smooth Lines'' feature here just sounds more like playing rather than investigating.

===Ad-Hoc Filter===
Drawing a bunch of different lines by hand, keeping in only the data points perceived as "good". Not really useful except for marketing purposes.

The comment below the graph ''"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"'' admits that in fact the data is whitewashed and tightly focused to a result the presenter wants to show.

===House of Cards===
Not a real method, but a common consequence of mis-application of statistical methods: a curve can be generated that fits the data extremely well, but immediately becomes absurd as soon as one glances outside the training data sample range, and your analysis comes crashing down "like a house of cards". This is a type of ''overfitting''. In other words, the model may do quite well for (approximately) {{w|Interpolation|interpolating}} between values in the sample range, but not extend at all well to {{w|Extrapolation|extrapolating}} values outside that range.

''Note:'' Exact polynomial fitting, a fit which gives the unique (n-1)-th degree polynomial through n points, often display this kind of behaviour.

The comment below the graph ''"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!"'' refers to a curve which fits the data points relatively well within the graph's boundaries, but beyond those bounds fails to match at all.

Also a potential reference to the TV show, House of Cards ("WAIT NO, NO, DON'T EXTEND IT!").

===Cauchy-Lorentz (title text)===
{{w|Cauchy_distribution|Cauchy-Lorentz}} is a continuous probability distribution which does not have an expected value or a defined variance. This means that the law of large numbers does not hold and that estimating e.g. the sample mean will diverge (be all over the place) the more data points you have. Hence very troublesome (mathematically alarming).

Since so many different models can fit this data set at first glance, Randall may be making a point about how if a data set is sufficiently messy, you can read any trend you want into it, and the trend that is chosen may say more about the researcher than about the data. This is a similar sentiment to [[1725: Linear Regression]], which also pokes fun at dubious trend lines on scatterplots.

A brief Google search reveals that Augustin-Louis Cauchy originally worked as a junior engineer in a managerial position. Upon his acceptance to the Académie des Sciences in March 1816, many of his peers expressed outrage. Despite his early work in "mere" engineering, Cauchy is widely regarded as one of the founding influences in the rigorous study of calculus & accompanying proofs.

==Transcript==
:'''Curve-Fitting Methods'''
:and the messages they send

:[In a single frame twelve scatter plots with unlabeled x- and y-axes are shown. Each plot consists of the same data-set of approximately thirty points located all over the plot but slightly more distributed around the diagonal. Every plot shows in red a different fitting method which is labeled on top in gray.]

:[The first plot shows a line starting at the left bottom above the x-axis rising towards the points to the right.]
:Linear
:"Hey, I did a regression."

:[The second plot shows a curve falling slightly down and then rising up to the right.]
:Quadratic
:"I wanted a curved line, so I made one with math."

:[At the third plot the curve starts near the left bottom and increases more and more less to the right.]
:Logarithmic
:"Look, it's tapering off!"

:[The fourth plot shows a curve starting near the left bottom and increases more and more steeper towards the right.]
:Exponential
:"Look, it's growing uncontrollably!"

:[The fifth plot uses a fitting to match many points. It starts at the left bottom, increases, then decreases, then rapidly increasing again, and finally reaching a plateau.]
:LOESS
:"I'm sophisticated, not like those bumbling polynomial people."

:[The sixth plot simply shows a line above but parallel to the x-axis.]
:Linear, no slope
:"I'm making a scatter plot but I don't want to."

:[At plot #7 starts at a plateau above the x-axis, then increases, and finally reaches a higher plateau.]
:Logistic
:"I need to connect these two lines, but my first idea didn't have enough Math."

:[Plot #8 shows two red lines embedding most points and the area between is painted as a red shadow.]
:Confidence interval
:"Listen, science is hard. But I'm a serious person doing my best."

:[Plot #9 shows two not connected lines, one at the lower left half, and one higher at the right. Both have smaller curved lines in light red above and below.]
:Piecewise
:"I have a theory, and this is the only data I could find."

:[The plot at the left bottom shows a line connecting all points from left to right, resulting in a curve going many times up and down.]
:Connecting lines
:"I clicked 'Smooth Lines' in Excel."

:[The next to last plot shows a echelon form, connecting a few real and some imaginary points.]
:Ad-Hoc filter
:"I had an idea for how to clean up the data. What do you think?"

:[The last plot shows a wave with increasing peak values. Finally the plot of the wave is continued beyond the x- and y-axis borders.]
:House of Cards
:"As you can see, this model smoothly fits the- ''wait no no don't extend it AAAAAA!!''"

==Trivia==
*This is the comic 2048, or 2<sup>11</sup>. In addition to being the name of a popular app referenced in [[1344: Digits]], this is an extremely round number in binary (100,000,000,000<sub>2</sub>). [[1000: 1000 Comics]] pointed out that comic 1024 would be a round number, but there were not any comics noting 2048.

*This comic is similar to [[977: Map Projections]] which also uses a scientific method not commonly thought about by the general public to determine specific characteristics of one's personality and approach to science.

*Regressions have been the subject of several previous comics. [[1725: Linear Regression]] was about linear regressions on uncorrelated or poorly correlated data. [[1007: Sustainable]] and [[1204: Detail]] depict linear regressions on data that was actually logistic, leading to bizarre extrapolations. [[605: Extrapolating]] shows a line extrapolating from just two data points.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Scatter plots]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:1313: Regex Golf

2018-09-20T16:02:38Z

162.158.154.103: President Regex

Does this work for Trump v Hillary?

This is fairly simple fun little one.

Regex is sort for regular expressions. A regular expression is a series of characters that denotes a search criteria. For example, you could write a regular expression that would search for anything that looks like an address (a la [http://www.xkcd.com/208/ comic 208]).

Regex golf is a game in which you attempt to write a regular expression that will search through a list of items and bring back only those items that meet a certain criteria, but not anything else. The joke is that regular expressions are used to search text, but themselves are text strings. This means that you could write a regular expression that would look for another regular expression. You can then apply ''ad infinitum'', and the universe implodes or something.

--[[User:Holshy|Holshy]] ([[User talk:Holshy|talk]]) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The last panel includes, of course, a regex "/(meta-)*regex golf/," which represents the phrase "regex golf" preceded by the phrase "meta-" up to ''infinite'' times.

As a punchline, it also refers to Jamie Zawinski's well-known quote about regex,

<blockquote>Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.</blockquote>

Thus, the punchline is that the addition of meta layers to regex golf generates more problems for the programmer, but that was also the setup of the comic. So either the punchline is really weak—worth a chuckle if you got the above two references—or I missed the joke.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.63|199.27.128.63]] 06:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Could anybody comment on the first regex? Do I get it right that
beyond others it will match all strings that contain a "b"? I can hardly believe that is not the case for any star trek subtitle... [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.194|173.245.53.194]] 06:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:This is the case for all Star Trek Subtitles. Wikipedia's list of movies had no b. It'll match anything containing a word ending in ''m'', any word beginning with ''n'' or ''t'' that is not the first word, or any word with a ''b''. No Trek movies match. Oddly, so far as I can figure out, the regex in the first panel is wrong, in that it doesn't match the second Star Wars movie at all. And before you tell me prequels don't count, the sole purpose of "m " is to match The Phanto''m ''Menace.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 07:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Attack of[ t]he Clones (to be read plainly, not as a regular expression). [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.107|173.245.53.107]] 07:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:Ah, I thought it was ''The Clone Wars''. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
So, if I add an "e" to the "tn" and delete the "|b" I'm a better golf player than her? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.194|108.162.212.194]] 08:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
:Or you could just move the "b" into the "tn" group. --11:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I got a sneak preview of this comic at about 6:34 EST...at first it appeared to be random text in a irc message, but with this comic it now makes sense to me. [[User:Verticalbar|Verticalbar]] ([[User talk:Verticalbar|talk]]) 09:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

'''Regex golf''' (c.f. {{w|Perl golf}}) is a programming competition / is a pastime of finding regular expression that matches one set of strings while matching none of the other set. See for example http://regex.alf.nu --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 11:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The title text isn't exactly true... I haven't tried everything, but that regex doesn't match "gerald ford" at all. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.109|199.27.128.109]] 11:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
: Gerald Ford wasn't elected, he became President following Nixon's resignation.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.209|173.245.52.209]] 12:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Inspired by regex.alf.nu, a reader built a page where the objective is to make a regular expression to match all Star Wars and no Star Trek: http://zegnat.github.io/xkcd1313/. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.127|173.245.53.127]] 14:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I added a list of all US elected presidents and the part of the title regex they match. I used a python script to generate it, with input from [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_candidates here], then I removed all presidents that do not match after finding they really weren't elected. There may still be superflous ones, that weren't elected but do match the regex, please check. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.64|173.245.49.64]] 14:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone understand the final "No, I had those already"? Is it a reference to regexes in some way or could it be something like that there are infinite problems in life, even when not doing (Meta-)*-Regexes? --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.199|173.245.53.199]] 20:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Peter Norvig (Director of research at google), one of the Regular Expression of Randall is wrong as demonstrated here : http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/xkcd1313.ipynb [[User:Mbussonn|Mbussonn]] ([[User talk:Mbussonn|talk]]) 20:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
: It's happening. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.153|173.245.53.153]] 11:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"No one wins at [^ ]+ golf." [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.209|141.101.98.209]] 09:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
: Gee, would that be "No one wins at \S+ golf."? [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 23:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does this say that it is Case Sensitive. As far as I can tell it would not work if that were true.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.59|108.162.219.59]] 02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"Note that if one included the animated film “Star Wars: The Clone Wars” it would be matched by “ [tn]”."
- I don't see how this is true, since the T is at the beginning of the subtitle. If this matched, then surely so would all of the original series Star Trek films. {{unsigned ip|141.101.99.41}}

"I got infinite problems and a bitch ain,t one" 15:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC) {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.191}}

Looks like the algorithm is a bit outdated. It fails to match {{w|Star Wars: The Force Awakens|The Force Awakens}} but matches {{w|Star Trek Beyond|Beyond}}--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.51|108.162.212.51]] 17:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For the 2016 election, the regex predicts that a Democrat (either) will beat Donald Trump, who will win the Republican primaries. {{unsigned ip|141.101.106.233}}

I like that linked article, even though I'm not really into programming. Just noticed Norvig misspells Randall's last name as Monroe instead of Munroe.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.71|108.162.237.71]] 03:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

How would Trump work with this?
EDIT: Hillary works but Trump doesn't. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.73|162.158.75.73]] 00:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The article says that the Presidents Regex is now impossible to update after Trump's win over Hillary. However, if Hillary were to win in a future election, it would work again as per the rule stated above the list, wouldn't it? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.35|162.158.91.35]] 09:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't true either - there was already a presidential loser whose surname was Clinton (DeWitt Clinton, 1812). So presumably Hillary Clinton is likewise not considered in terms of regex eligibility. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.59|172.68.132.59]] 23:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

For the Star Wars/Star Trek golf, including the new films, I've got /m | [tn]|ba|a[sw]/. Can anyone do better? {{unsigned|Misterblue28}}

Talk:1960: Code Golf

2018-09-19T15:16:52Z

162.158.154.103:

What's the programming language? It seems to me like a special reverse golf variant of Python, where <code>def</code> is replaced by <code>define</code>, just to make it longer. Or is there a real language with that syntax? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.106|172.68.110.106]] 08:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
: Lisp/some derivatives (I'm most familiar with scheme) use <code>define<define></code> as does Slate, however both have a different syntax. Most likely, this is just pseudo-code. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely going to have to include a link to the actual longest language: Unary, which is literally just a certain length of 1s. No one actually writes in it: you write in another language and then it gets converted. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 10:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
: You could make a longer programming language by representing "1" with some longer string; perhaps the entire text of Moby Dick. And now the file size can be arbitrarily big. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.100|198.41.230.100]] 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
:: Though this idea is still quite compressible. It might be better (?) to make a language where the file size cannot be easily significantly compressed.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.25.106|172.68.25.106]] 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This might be directed at a code golfing challenge currently taking place: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/152856/write-moby-dick-approximately. The goal is to write a program that outputs a text, that is as closly as possible to moby dick, while no containing it, and of course beeing as small as possible.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.150|141.101.105.150]] 13:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why JSFuck is included in the explanation. Not sure how it really has any relevance here as it is not mentioned in the text and is not the programming language being used by Randall in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

: agreed, JSFuck is not relevant in the explanation. moved it to the discussion (see below) [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

:: Instead of {{w|Python (programming language)|Python}}, one could use {{w|JSFuck}} though, which is valid {{w|JavaScript}} code - but written with only six different characters. Even mundane variable names like `LowestDenominator` will take up hundreds, if not thousands, of bytes in JSFuck. {{unsigned|Comment Police}}
: I added it because JSFuck allows you to write you simple and useful tasks with zillions of bytes, each of which is needed for the programm to run correctly. It's the ultimate Reverse Coding Golf.--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.178|172.68.50.178]] 13:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Off Topic: I just realized that statistical thermodynamics is nothing else than reverse molecule golf: The entropy of a given system is equal to the maximum score you can achieve in reverse molecule golf. [[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Java programmers play this game all the time.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.100|162.158.234.100]] 20:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Someone made everyone's comments monospaced. Please fix this. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.100|198.41.230.100]] 14:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
:Fixed [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.26|162.158.155.26]] 15:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
:They just wanted to play reverse comments golf with the comments section by making the comments take as much space as possible. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.76|162.158.126.76]] 15:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This is called Code Bowling.

I would like to point out that there may be a ReCaptcha site shutdown? It will occur on the 1st of March (maybe). [[User:QATEKLYXM|QATEKLYXM]]

Is the explanation thinking of miniature golf when it mentions a hedge or border and the need for a ramp? In actual golf you can easily hit the ball through the air with almost every single club...and just as easily hit it off of the golf course.
[[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.64|172.69.62.64]] 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)]

Curious Georges also likes Reverse Regular Golf! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.232|108.162.237.232]] 02:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I found this xkcd confusing because there appears to be no obvious limiting principal. The code in the panel is written verbosely, but it could easily be a word longer, a paragraph longer, a page longer, a chapter longer, an entire book longer. Nor is skill (or chance!) particularly required to do such a thing [I suppose in "blinded reverse code golf" the question might be to guess how much length your opponents would bother to express and then to top that]. The result is I feel confused. Maybe my standards for humor are too high, but maybe, also, I'm just missing something here? [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 12:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
: +1 [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
: I think that is the joke: what a stupidly bad game reverse code golf is. ditto for reverse regular golf. Or a dumb excuse for writing unreasonably long code/playing with a golfball in random settings [[ User:00N8 ]]

No mention of The International Obfuscated C Code Contest? It's about as close to reverse code golf as there is. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.255.158|172.68.255.158]] 14:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

If Randall plays Reverse Golf while playing out-of-bounds, and that means he's getting at least one penalty stroke for every regular, out-of-bounds stroke, it seems to me he perfectly well understood the rules of both golf and reverse golf. He's gaining strokes at twice the regular speed. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.17|141.101.104.17]] 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
:this guy gets it [[ 00N8 ]]

I was so confused by this comic it took me a few minutes to figure out "This was the first comic in the My Hobby series for over a year" is supposed to read "''in'' over a year" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.95|108.162.221.95]] 05:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Code golf is the attempt to use as few *key-strokes* as possible, that makes the analogy with regular golf strokes clearer. (currently reads "Code golf is the attempt to use as few characters as possible") [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 15:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-07T08:35:00Z

162.158.154.103:

Now we wait for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroes_theorem. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.165|172.69.54.165]] 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:Can't wait to see how long it takes to remove the article. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:I do not have the time to do it good, so here a suggestion: Would someone go to the wikipedia page of Rolle's theorem and add a "in popular culture" section? may be a first? Not even "Nash equilibrum" has that :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.16|162.158.234.16]] 08:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::Speaking of popular culture, there's a (moderately) well known Ballad of Rolle's theorem [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0BXv90MlhA Balada o vete Rolleovej] ("moderately" meaning some people who studied at Faculty of mathematics in Bratislava might have heard (of) it) --[[User:Kventin|Kventin]] ([[User talk:Kventin|talk]]) 07:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like Euclid beat Randall to the punch here, a couple millennia. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that Thales has proven Randall's theorem. Do not to be confused with {{w|Thales's theorem}}, that's about right angles. Maybe I'm blind or just dumb, but if so it has to be explained with more traceable background. I just believe that this diagonal is so trivial that even the ancient Greeks weren't engaged on a proof. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
* From {{w|Thales|Wikipedia}}: Other quotes from Proclus list more of Thales' mathematical achievements: "They say that Thales was the first to demonstrate that the circle is bisected by the diameter, the cause of the bisection being the unimpeded passage of the straight line through the centre." [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
* On the other hand not all historian believe Proclus. But van der Waerden does: [https://books.google.com/books?id=HK3vCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false]. [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

:''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?''
Isn't the TAN(x) function a counterexample to this? Starting at a given point, it rises to infinity, then returns from negative infinity to the same point without ever having a slope of zero. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:TAN(x) isn't differentiable at pi/2, hence the theorem doesn't apply--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.40|162.158.92.40]] 07:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::And tan(x) has a slope of 0 at pi, so even if it applied, it wouldn't prove it wrong. A better example would be 1/x, but still invalid. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Nope: tan(x) has a slope of 1 at pi, and its slope is never less than 1. Of course, that doesn't make it a counterexample. Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

''Clueless Museum Visitor''

The math in the comic is well explained, but shouldn't there be something about the "math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor..." part? Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: Seconded, all the argument here is about math that isn't even *in* the comic, whereas the bit that confuses me is the cultural metaphor... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.235|162.158.154.235]] 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
: I had a go.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 08:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, while the proof of Rolle's theorem is not completely trivial, neither is it difficult by any means. Proving it seems to be a pretty common homework assignment in undergrad math classes, for example, so one might legitimately ask why it deserved to be named. Perhaps it's simply that it's old enough that the methods at the time were crappy, and so modern proofs are much easier. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.140|172.69.22.140]]
: It is named because it's a very important theorem in calculus, used to prove many other theorems or results. So when you need to prove something using this property, instead of re-demonstrating it or merely saying "it is well known that..." (which often raises alarm bells in the mind of the reader/corrector), all you have to do is reference Rolle's theorem.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.158|162.158.155.158]] 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: When I am teaching Rolle's theorem, I always make it a point to draw the link to reals. Rolle's theorem fails when the output is complex valued. Then you can see for yourself how non-trivial this is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the irony of having a wiki page to explain a comic whose subject is how some things are self-evident? [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the Kepler Conjecture actually belong on that list at the end? Most of the others are "derp" level intuitively obvious and/or essentially tautological on a very basic level, but the Kepler Conjecture couldn't actually be exhaustively proven until machine computation, nor is it intuitively definitive--if you've ever stacked round things into a box you've noticed that it feels like you're wasting a lot of space at the edges. So...? [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus be removed from this list. Firstly, the beginner student, just introduced to derivatives and antiderivatives, will not easily see that antiderivatives are the same as finding areas under curves. Instead, it is only obvious upon hindsight, after instruction. More importantly, a restriction of the FTC to better-behaved spaces shows a far greater insanity: the restricted FTC is a consequence of generalised Stokes's theorem '''applied twice'''. This operation is so highly unintuitive, that one simply cannot claim that this is in any way, shape, or form, trivial. I think that trying to pretend that anything in beginning calculus is obvious to students is just going to alienate them rather than soothe their worries. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-06T12:28:00Z

162.158.154.103:

812: Glass

2017-02-21T20:04:30Z

162.158.154.103: /* Explanation */ spelling

{{comic
| number = 812
| date = October 29, 2010
| title = Glass
| image = glass.png
| titletext = I read in this one article that the breaking of electroweak symmetry is the reason we have SOULS. This guy with a degree said so!
}}

==Explanation==
In the beginning of the comic, [[Megan]] is trying to break a wine glass like an opera singer. This is a rather famous trick where the vocalist sings at the resonant, or natural frequency of the glass and cause it to resonate more and more until it can no longer handle the stress and breaks - for more info, see the {{w|Mythbusters}} episode about the Earthquake Machine. If the resonant frequency of the glass is outside of the singer's range, then putting some water in the glass will lower its resonant frequency. This effect can be used to play different notes on the rim of a glass by varying the amount of water in it. For example, see this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULiNR-k4m70 video].

While Megan is trying to break the glass by hitting its resonant frequency, she is actually creating something new. This is similar to particle physics where a new particle can be identified by a {{w|Resonance_(particle_physics)|resonance}} peak in the differencial cross section of a scattering experiment: Known particles plus some very specific amount of energy lead to the creation of a new particle, the Higgs boson. This is represented in the comic with the water and the pitch of Megan's voice creating blood.

The term "God Particle" was coined by 1993 by physicist {{w|Leon M. Lederman}} to describe the {{w|Higgs boson}} because it's "central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive." He originally called it the "goddamn particle", but this was considered offensive, and his editor shortened it to just "God particle", maybe to promote interest in the particle from non-academics too. Many people misinterpret the name to be some kind of link between physics and religion, so physics is getting back at them by playing pranks that resemble famous miracles from Christian tradition:
*Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage in Cana.
*The first of the ten plagues in Egypt turned all of the water into blood — the rivers, canals, ponds, pools, and every sort of container holding water.
*The wine turning into blood is a reference to the Catholic ritual of {{w|Transubstantiation}}.

The title text refers to the fact that people would believe anything that comes from someone with a college degree, since the degree implies that he was highly educated, thus very knowledgeable.

==Transcript==
:[Megan is singing, Cueball is staring at a glass of water on a table.]
:Megan: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE... Anything break?
:Cueball: No, but the water in the glass turned to wine.

:[Cueball picks up glass]
:Megan: Weird.
:Cueball: No, wait. This is blood.

:Megan: Okay, physics, quit fucking with us.
:Physics: You stop looking for the Higgs boson and we'll talk.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Religion]]