explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2326: Five Word Jargon

2020-06-30T13:02:03Z

162.158.155.240:

Approximate nonnegative matrix factorization algorithms

That's all. -[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.119|162.158.62.119]] 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

super cali fragilistic expiali docious
[[User:Bo Lindbergh|Bo Lindbergh]] ([[User talk:Bo Lindbergh|talk]]) 22:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Over at [https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/ Language Log] they have fun documenting bewildering "noun piles". In the post '''[https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3341 noun pile blog post madness]''' for example
: '''data bound control table row action links'''
:: is a header in this page from Microsoft: '''[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.web.dynamicdata.dynamichyperlink?view=netframework-4.8 DynamicHyperLink Class]'''
[[User:JohnB|JohnB]] ([[User talk:JohnB|talk]]) 23:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

All cyanobacteria are unicellular. That word is just an imposition. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 02:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
: Cyanobacteria come in various types, such as unicellular, filamentous or colonial. Or even part of a composite organism such as lichen. Plastids, which are intracellular endosymbiotic organelles are technically acellular cyanobacteria. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.8|162.158.165.8]] 04:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
::Plastids are still unicellular. Living as endosymbionts doesn't make them multicellular, it makes them endosymbionts. Colonial unicellular organisms are still unicellular. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.188|108.162.219.188]]

Cueball could be Randall copying down the phrase into his collection. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.131|173.245.54.131]] 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I was expecting these would in fact all mean something incredibly simple. I'm a little disappointed :( [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.108|198.41.238.108]] 04:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My undergraduate research was on fluxional behavior in zwitterionic isoindoline complexes, so this struck close to home.[[User:Eärendil|Eärendil]] ([[User talk:Eärendil|talk]]) 04:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The phrase from the caption '''really satisfying-sounding five-word technical phrases''' also meets (almost) every criteria it states (except maybe 'technical') - having read many of Randall's comics, I can't imagine this to be a coincidence... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.50.54|172.68.50.54]] 07:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Before reading this explanation, I was convinced these were nonsensical phrases that Randall had made up![[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.168|162.158.155.168]] 08:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

anomalous electroweak sphaleron transition baryogenesis - roughly translates out of Jargon as Weird Forces Slippery change creation [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.228|162.158.155.228]] 11:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I really want to dive into the word relationships within these 'semantically multityped divaricatedly polyconstructed descriptors' and see how much or little they obey the 'rules' for {{w|Branching_(linguistics)|word order}} of component {{w|Adjective#Order|adjectives}}, etc. Maybe when I get a piece of paper and pencil and a bit of time to tease them apart. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.240|162.158.155.240]] 13:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

2325: Endorheic Basin

2020-06-29T10:47:48Z

162.158.155.240: /* Explanation */ Saw no reason why the pun part was edited out, assume it went during the relevent mass-edit. And changed it from a 'torso-centric' attraction to make slightly more sense with what we see.

{{comic
| number = 2325
| date = June 26, 2020
| title = Endorheic Basin
| image = endorheic_basin.png
| titletext = My biggest fear is that colonial engineers will try to flood me to generate electricity. My biggest hope is that I'll develop sailing stones.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an ENDORHEIC BASIN. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Yet another comic with one of [[Beret Guy|Beret Guy's]] [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|strange powers]]. This time he attracts water so it flows to him rather than running out towards the nearby oceans. He thus claims he is like an {{w|endorheic basin}}, hence the title.

An endorheic basin is a limited drainage basin that normally retains water and allows no outflow to other external bodies of water, such as rivers or oceans, but converges instead into lakes or swamps, permanent or seasonal, that equilibrate through evaporation. The {{w|Caspian Sea}} in Asia is the largest such basin. It is debated if it is a lake or a sea (it is salty, but not connected to the oceans). If it is a lake then it is the world's largest lake.

Real-life endorheic basins do not attract water in any unusual ways. Rather, then form when low-lying, inland areas receive water from rivers and streams, but not enough to flood them completely and allow the water to overflow into an ocean. As the surface of the lake grows, so do the rate of evaporation and seepage into the ground, until they're equivalent to the inflow of water (at least, on a yearly average). Obviously, Beret Guy's inexplicable effect on water is distinct from the way actual endorheic basins function.

The panel showing Beret Guy after a shower looks similar to what could happen in a space station if you have liquid water in zero gravity. The water sticks to any surface it encounters. See for instance the start of this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeDJABZpVlI Water in zero gravity] and this one [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TssbmY-GM Wringing out Water on the ISS - for Science!] to see how water reacts to human skin in zero gravity. It is thus almost impossible for him to dry off after a shower. It seems like the water is attracted onto him is still somewhat subject to gravity, as it pools downwards upon him; presumably he knows to finish showering before it floods over his face.

In fact he needs someone to come with a {{w|siphon}} to get rid of the water. A siphon is an u-shaped pipe, where the downward pipe is longer than the upward section. Thus the water falling in the downward section creates a pull lifting the water in the upward section up to the highest point, from which it will flow down pulling more water up. As the Endorheic Basin caused by Beret Guy seems to have a limited reach, placing on end of the pipe sufficiently far outside creates a similar effect: The water outside Beret Guy's area of effect flows down under the influence of gravity, creating a pull lifting the water near him "up" out of the Endorheic Basin.

As with real endorheic basins, if the water is allowed to sit, it will eventually evaporate. but he notes that he'll "develop salt flats". Water from rivers carry salts, typically in low concentrations, and if a lake lacks outflows, the salts build up over time, as the water evaporates. If a salt lake evaporates completely, it can create {{w|Salt pan (geology)|salt flats}} (or salt pans), like those near {{w|Salt Lake City}} in {{w|Utah}}, e.g. the {{w|Bonneville Salt Flats}}. These salts come in a variety of forms, including minerals. Sometimes, endorheic basins have high enough concentrations of dissolved minerals to be worth extracting, which is presumably what he means by "let me know if you need any minerals".

There may also be a contrived pun here, in that "flats" is a description of various types of footwear (among them: women's shoes that are not high-heeled and ballet shoes not specifically reinforced for advanced 'pointe' dancing), and the water would clearly leave the 'flats' on his feet.

In the title text, Beret Guy mentions his "biggest fear" due to his water attracting abilities is being flooded to by "colonial engineers" in order for them to use him and the water to generate electricity. This is very likely a reference to the {{w|Qattara Depression Project}}. The Qattara depression is a low-lying region near the Egyptian coast. For nearly a century, there have been proposals to dig a canal from the sea to flood this depression, deliberately creating a huge endorheic basin. By placing hydroelectric dams along the canal, the proposals hoped to generation huge amounts of electricity. At least one proposal included the use of nuclear explosions to create the canal, which may help to explain why he considers this his biggest fear.

He then mentions that his "biggest hope", due to his ability, is that he will generate {{w|sailing stones}}. Sailing stones (also known as sliding rocks, walking rocks, rolling stones, and moving rocks), are a geological phenomenon where rocks move and inscribe long tracks along a smooth valley floor without human or animal intervention. The movement of the rocks occurs when large ice sheets a few millimeters thick and floating in an ephemeral winter pond start to break up during sunny days. Frozen during cold winter nights, these thin floating ice panels are driven by wind and shove rocks at speeds up to 5 meters per minute. The reference here is to {{w|Racetrack Playa}}, an endorheic basin in Death Valley, one of the most famous locations for sailing stones.

This comic came out just a bit more than a month after the previous comic with one of Beret Guy's strange powers, [[2310: Great Attractor]], in which strange forces exerted a pull on Beret Guy. It does not appear that he himself is drawn to water, and we cannot determine if the Great Attractor is drawn to him, so Newton's Third Law may be constantly being broken, along with the more obvious scientific impossibilities that surround Beret Guy.

==Transcript==
:[Megan, holding a glass of water up in one hand, is talking to Beret Guy, who has water surrounding his feet, with small droplets falling off the two small water triangles that cover his feet. The water in her glass is leaning towards Beret Guy.]
:Megan: Why are your feet wet?
:Beret Guy: I'm an endorheic basin!

:[Megan looks down at her glass as the water in it is flying out towards Beret Guy's arm, which he has stretched out towards the glass.]
:Megan: Huh?
:Beret Guy: Nearby water flows toward me, not the ocean.
:Beret Guy: See?
:Megan: Oh, cool.

:[At the top of this panel is a box with text being said by Beret Guy to Megan. Beneath it is a depiction of what he is explaining to Megan. Beret Guy is shown standing in a bathroom, with a towel around his waist. Almost his entire body is covered completely in water, except most of his head above mouth level, and both his feet are beneath the water bubble. He yells to someone outside the bathroom. A shower-tray or partially sunken bathtub can be seen to the left with a closed shower curtain across it. To the right of him is the sink with mirror above it. Further right is the door. The floor is tiled.]
:Beret Guy - narrating: The most annoying part is drying off after a shower.
:Beret Guy: Can someone bring me the siphon?

:[Back to the situation from the first panel, although Megan has lowered her glass a bit. The glass seems to be as full as in the first panel though, even though Beret Guy now also has water on his arm where it was pulled out off Megan's glass in panel 2.]
:Beret Guy: But I have to get rid of it or I'll develop salt flats.
:Beret Guy: Anyway, let me know if you need any minerals!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Geography]]

Talk:2325: Endorheic Basin

2020-06-27T10:57:09Z

162.158.155.240:

I think it is a funny comic, but the way water acts towards Beret Guy has nothing to do with what happens in an Endorheic basin. And also if he attracts water more than gravity, then a siphon is no help at all to get rid of the water. A pump would be needed that could make a larger pull then gravity. But the name is just something Beret Guy gives it. And since he is the only hydrophilic person in the world it is hard to say how it will work for him. But given that Randall named the comic it seems to me that either he did not care about this, did not think about it correctly, or else, also a possibility, I do not understand these concepts well enough --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I sort of disagree with Kynde. I think the idea here is that Beret Guy is a local low point where water flows toward. It's not that he's "more attractive that gravity" but that from the perspective of the water he's now the lowest point around and thus it flows toward him. Like a Endorheic basin it can't flow out to somewhere else. This makes the siphon comment funnier in my opinion as they're suggesting that if then found an even lower point than Beret Guy they could siphons water off of him and to that lower point. Something that the water wouldn't do on its own because of "walls" in his water potential function. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.172|162.158.63.172]] 23:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Max

Do we have a category for comics where Randal is suspected of trolling the explainxkcd community? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.132|108.162.245.132]] 00:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
:"All Comics"? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.167|162.158.158.167]] 00:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Generating Electricity" is most likely a reference to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project

(Prior item is unsigned.) Worth a link to https://what-if.xkcd.com/143/ aroujd the subject of siphons? If nothing else, it shows that Randall knows how they work (even if there's confusion over whether BG does, or just has the laws of nature do what he ''thinks'' they should do, as per Vacuum Energy). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.240|162.158.155.240]] 10:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2323: Modeling Study

2020-06-24T15:18:11Z

162.158.155.240:

Also known as

''I still have no clue about my subject, partly because I devised this study when I knew even less, but I need to write a paper anyway or I can never finish my PhD programme ...''

vs.

''I have now fiddled four years with my model assumptions to get the data to fit without, well, fiddling with the data, so please bear with me and my paper, and for heavens sake graduate me so I can save what is left of my soul and sanity ... '' ;-) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.94|162.158.94.94]] 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
: One of my friends who studied thermal engineering remarked that if his model agreed with the test data to within ten degrees, it was acceptable, but if it agreed to less than five degrees, he was suspicious, because it was probably over-fit to the peculiarities of his thermal chamber, thermocouple placement, and so on, and less applicable for the system's real operational environment. --[[User:NotaBene|NotaBene]] ([[User talk:NotaBene|talk]]) 23:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
::We got trolled by our physics teacher in high school, during a calorimetry experiment (where you measure the changes in temperature of a system). All our measurements were way off from theoretical results, so we "adjusted" the reported values to make them fit the expected curve. Unfortunately, the prof knew that the thermometers were too inaccurate to produce precise results, so it was more of a test of our honesty, which we all failed miserably :-/[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.167|162.158.158.167]] 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
:::In our Physics A-Level (normal post-Secondary and pre-University stage, for non-UKians) class, the 'trick' played on us was a 'black box' of components that we had to record the resistance/impedence/whatever of when raising the voltage (can't recall if DC or AC) from zero up to a level and then back down again. One of a number of such tests, to be done by rotating around the lab, you'd be tempted to just run it up and record the down as mirror image, or fudgingly near. Except that there was some sort of latching trip, once a given voltage went through the box, that changed the circuit significantly on the return trip. Only the honest (and possibly honest enough to show the 'error' that crept in, when thinking they'd messed it up - and no time to rerun it from scratch!) gave in the two-slope graph or whatever was the record. Can't tell you whether I was a Goody-Two-Shoes or not, though I like to think I was (and would have known about zenor diodes and self-reinfor ing flip-flop circuits, which this may have crudely used). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 23:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Looks like your teacher was trying to illustrate the principle of {{w|Hysteresis#Electronic_circuits|hysteresis}}
:I once proof read a master thesis, where an experimental setting to optimize a problem in certain network arrangements was set up (basically a laboratory with 15 desktop PCs, communicating with each other on a specific protocol, etc.). The guy who wrote it found out on the first afternoon after setting it up, that the professor who found and described the problem he was about to tackle made a mistake, and the problem didn't exist. By that time he had already - due to university standards - handed in the name of his thesis. While negative results in research are also good results, the problem is, that by the same standards of his university his master thesis had to be a certain size - if I remember correctly, at least 50 pages in small font, excluding data and images - he managed to stretch his afternoons work and some subsequential tests on it to the required number of pages though. I am sure there is a lesson to be learned here, but... I haven't figured it out yet. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
::well, I gues the most important lesson would be "minimum length of text" is not a good requirement for any academic work. ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
:::No. The most important lesson is "always name your thesis vaguely enough you can scale the content between 5% and 2000% or what you originally planned to do". -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 22:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Various "<Problem> Denier" groups, (Climate Change, Covid, other things not ''necessarily'' starting with "C") do tend to lose their shit over "models" that aren't right (whether 1% out or 50%, they'll take any 'error', or just the failure to model what happened later ''because'' the model was heeded and behaviours changed to avoid the outcome) ironically using their clutched-at-straws to model all ''future'' models as wrong/intentionally-misleading-for-nefarious-intent. They also misunderstand the models (witness them dragging out old "85% chance Hillary will win" predictions against the roughly(-and-slightly-more-than) 50% of the votes she got - a different measure and far from incompatible with the other), whether innocently or deliberately, to 'prove' their point. And that's just done by regular Joes/Josephines. I'm sure you can be far more competently incompetent in your modelling (i.e. sneak sneaky shit past more and more learned people) if you're an actual modeller yourself who feels the need to drive towards an end for which you then look for the means. (Or modes, or medians.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.168|162.158.155.168]] 11:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
:I'm nearly 18 hours late reading this comic, but the above is exactly why I'm so surprised to see it. Given Randall's apparent faith in mathematical modeling from other comics that this should be linked to (including the infamous vertical hockey stick temperature graph stretching back several millennia, and all the pro-Hillary bandwagon comics) I found this comic shocking in the extreme- he clearly knows the limitation of the method, and yet is still a true believer. Either that or he's finally growing up on the "A man who is not a liberal when he is young has no heart, a man who is not a conservative when he is old has no brains" spectrum. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

:: You seem to have taken the exact opposite of the message of the post above you. The point was that the science is accurate--the problem were people interpreting it wrong. They didn't get that Trump's 85 percent chance of losing meant he'd win roughly 1 in 7 times--only a little less than the probability you role a 1 on a single die. People mixed up his chances of winning with what percentage of the vote he'd get. Plus they lack an intuitive sense of how percentages work, which is why FiveThirtyEight moved to using "1 in X" numbers instead.

:: And I have no idea what any of this has to do with political beliefs: thinking models are inaccurate wouldn't make you change political philosophies. Plus, well, the aphorism you gave has been found to be untrue--it's quite uncommon for liberals or progressives to become more conservative as they age. What does happen is that what counts as progressive changes, which makes sense. The whole concept is trying to make progress, of continually changing. Saying women should be able to vote was progressive in the 1920s, for example. It's not now.

:: Anyways, I hope I've fought some misconceptions. I find a lot of our disagreements are based on these sorts of things, so I make it my goal to clear this stuff up--even if it means I sometimes come off like a know-it-all. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 07:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

:Well, whoever makes statements like the one paraphrased above from the 2016 US election, or merely one like "there is a 75% chance of rain tomorrow", is a moronic pseudoscientist, and ought to be flogged, tarred, feathered, and sentenced to clean out public toilets 8h/d for two months, in that order. Such "measures" (of course they aren´t, they are merely a statement about how firmly one believes in his model extrapolating past measurement results into the future) have only one advantage for the "statistican" and newspapers, they can never be proved wrong. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.44|162.158.92.44]] 20:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
:Ummm. If you run a thousand related but variously hedging weather simulations and 750 of them suggest rain (for a given set of criteria - temporal, geographical and terminological limits), then there's 75% chance of rain. This doesn't mean it'll rain only 75% of the typical raincloud or be raining steady for just 45 minutes in any hour. And the same with polling. No, you ''can't'' prove it "wrong" (unless you said 0% or 100% chance and it did or did not happen; anyone who said such things would be taking their own risk), and that's the point. If the models suggest a majority of at least one vote (EC, ideally, but based on the balloting levels) for one party in 85% of circumstances, it is valid to suggest an 85% chance. However tightly packed the scatter is across all half-reasonable patterns. (Which can be enumerated, for those that understand the enumerations, but how many who don't understand the original figure would understand any additional ones?) So you can't prove it wrong, just an unfortunate 'miss' (like a bet that two dice won't come up snake-eyes; even more certain, but it still does fail to go the promised way), and yet some would say it invalidates all modelling. That they don't like the look of. They'll happily use spurious/selective models that seem to share their viewpoint. (As will many different people with many different viewpoints, of course. Hopefully enough people consider enough competent models to appreciate enough of the true uncertainty. But I'm not sure the models support the more optimistic levels of 'enough'.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.130|141.101.98.130]] 23:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

[https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-06-23 Dilbert makes the same point the next morning in a slightly different way]--[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral

2020-06-19T22:40:00Z

162.158.155.240: Sorry, realised I was wrong about that additional bit now commented out. After all, the origin does not move between squares, so the "flat gradient of curve derivative" only applies if you change the reference origin each time.

It annoys me that the hover text says 11/8.5 = pi/4, when 8.5/11≈0.77272727272 and pi/4≈0.78539816339. Claiming 8.5/11 equals pi/4 would be a much more beleiveable lie. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.37|162.158.79.37]] 15:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The explanation says that the A series "side lengths shrink by a factor of the square root of two" but that's not true. The width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n) as depicted. The sqrt(2) ratio referenced is between the length and width of any one piece of paper.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.124|172.69.62.124]] 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:The side lengths do shrink by a factor of sqrt(2): the width of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the width of A(n+1), the length of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the length of A(n+1). Your statement that "the width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n)" is also true, but it does not contradict that each step in the A-series shrinks the sides by a factor of sqrt(2). [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 16:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.61|162.158.74.61]] 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi ! How come 11/8.5 = Pi/4 ? First one is more thant 1, second one is less than one... Although Pi/4 and 8.5/11 (or the reverse) are pretty similar, as usual in "let's annoy mathematicians" Randall's style...

https://xkcd.com/spiral/ --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.103.233|188.114.103.233]] 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand why it annoys mathematicians (it's not the golden ratio), but why does it annoy graphics designers? Please add explanation!

It should be noted that the logarithmic spiral this comic implies it is would actually go outside the bounds of the paper. The leftmost point of the spiral would be about 6.4mm to the left of the left edge of the A1 sheet. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:This drawing (as opposed to the singular mathematical formula behind the idealised spiral for the partitioning used) basically takes a simple quarter-oval across each distinct sheet size (with, as essentially mentioned elsewhere, the root(2) ratio between sides) alternating x/y and y/x as major and minor axes respectively. Even if it is not obviously discontinuous (x and y inflection transitions occur subtly) any derivative of the curve (as polar, say) would show jumps in gradient at each stage - probably an inclined-stepped/saw-toothy pattern whereas the true logarithmic line would demonstrate itself as a continuous function at any such level of derivation. The true spiral line followed from origin outwards would ''almost'' (not quite, because of the polar gradient) hit the 'outer edge' first in line with the ultimately recursive centre-point then withdraw again to hit the next transition slightly 'inward' of the next level out. The Golden Spiral approximation uses squares for each quarter, which therefore does not switch major and minor axes, but still changes the curve  and thus has the same not-quite-Golden nature. Although it's hard to describe, as you can see from my poor attempt that's probably inadvertently fallen foul of more specialised Pure Mathematics terminology due to the Pedant's Curse... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.240|162.158.155.240]] 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral

2020-06-19T22:33:38Z

162.158.155.240: Tyops corrected, and info added

It annoys me that the hover text says 11/8.5 = pi/4, when 8.5/11≈0.77272727272 and pi/4≈0.78539816339. Claiming 8.5/11 equals pi/4 would be a much more beleiveable lie. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.37|162.158.79.37]] 15:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The explanation says that the A series "side lengths shrink by a factor of the square root of two" but that's not true. The width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n) as depicted. The sqrt(2) ratio referenced is between the length and width of any one piece of paper.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.124|172.69.62.124]] 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:The side lengths do shrink by a factor of sqrt(2): the width of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the width of A(n+1), the length of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the length of A(n+1). Your statement that "the width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n)" is also true, but it does not contradict that each step in the A-series shrinks the sides by a factor of sqrt(2). [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 16:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.61|162.158.74.61]] 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi ! How come 11/8.5 = Pi/4 ? First one is more thant 1, second one is less than one... Although Pi/4 and 8.5/11 (or the reverse) are pretty similar, as usual in "let's annoy mathematicians" Randall's style...

https://xkcd.com/spiral/ --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.103.233|188.114.103.233]] 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand why it annoys mathematicians (it's not the golden ratio), but why does it annoy graphics designers? Please add explanation!

It should be noted that the logarithmic spiral this comic implies it is would actually go outside the bounds of the paper. The leftmost point of the spiral would be about 6.4mm to the left of the left edge of the A1 sheet. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:This drawing (as opposed to the singular mathematical formula behind the idealised spiral for the partitioning used) basically takes a simple quarter-oval across each distinct sheet size (with, as essentially mentioned elsewhere, the root(2) ratio between sides) alternating x/y and y/x as major and minor axes respectively. Even if it is not obviously discontinuous (x and y inflection transitions occur subtly) any derivative of the curve (as polar, say) would show jumps in gradient at each stage - probably an inclined-stepped/saw-toothy pattern whereas the true logarithmic line would demonstrate itself as a continuous function at any such level of derivation. The true spiral line followed from origin outwards would ''almost'' (not quite, because of the polar gradient) hit the 'outer edge' first in line with the ultimately recursive centre-point then withdraw again to hit the next transition slightly 'inward' of the next level out. The Golden Spiral approximation uses squares for each quarter, which therefore does not switch major and minor axes, but still changes the curve (stepped, but 'flat' treads between the abrupt risers) and thus has the same not-quite-Golden nature. Although it's hard to describe, as you can see from my poor attempt that's probably inadvertently fallen foul of more specialised Pure Mathematics terminology due to the Pedant's Curse... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.240|162.158.155.240]] 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral

2020-06-19T22:23:26Z

162.158.155.240:

It annoys me that the hover text says 11/8.5 = pi/4, when 8.5/11≈0.77272727272 and pi/4≈0.78539816339. Claiming 8.5/11 equals pi/4 would be a much more beleiveable lie. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.37|162.158.79.37]] 15:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The explanation says that the A series "side lengths shrink by a factor of the square root of two" but that's not true. The width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n) as depicted. The sqrt(2) ratio referenced is between the length and width of any one piece of paper.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.124|172.69.62.124]] 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:The side lengths do shrink by a factor of sqrt(2): the width of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the width of A(n+1), the length of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the length of A(n+1). Your statement that "the width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n)" is also true, but it does not contradict that each step in the A-series shrinks the sides by a factor of sqrt(2). [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 16:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.61|162.158.74.61]] 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi ! How come 11/8.5 = Pi/4 ? First one is more thant 1, second one is less than one... Although Pi/4 and 8.5/11 (or the reverse) are pretty similar, as usual in "let's annoy mathematicians" Randall's style...

https://xkcd.com/spiral/ --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.103.233|188.114.103.233]] 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand why it annoys mathematicians (it's not the golden ratio), but why does it annoy graphics designers? Please add explanation!

It should be noted that the logarithmic spiral this comic implies it is would actually go outside the bounds of the paper. The leftmost point of the spiral would be about 6.4mm to the left of the left edge of the A1 sheet. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:This drawing (as opposed to the singular mathematical formula behind the idealised spiral) basically takes a simple quarter-oval across each distinct sheet size (with, as essentially mentioned elsewhere, the root(2) ratio between sides) alternating x/y and y/x as major and minor axes respectively. Even if it is not obviously discontinuous (x and y inflection transitions occur subtly) any derivative of the curve (as polar, say) would show jumps in gradient at each stage - probably a saw-toothy pattern whereas the true logarithmic line would deminstrate itself as a continuous function at any such level of derivation. The true spiral line followed from origin outwards would ''almost'' (not quite, because of the polar gradient) hit the 'outer edge' first in line with the ultinately recursive centre-point then withdraw again to hit the next transition slightly 'inward' of the next level out. Although it's hard to describe, as you can see from my poor attempt that's probably inadvertently fallen foul of more specialised Pure Mathematics terminology due to the Pedant's Curse... ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.240|162.158.155.240]] 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)