explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3023: The Maritime Approximation

2024-12-11T21:37:32Z

162.158.91.2:

{{comic
| number = 3023
| date = December 11, 2024
| title = The Maritime Approximation
| image = the_maritime_approximation_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x126px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It works because a nautical mile is based on a degree of latitude, and the Earth (e) is a circle.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SEMICIRCULAR SAILOR - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-26T22:23:43Z

162.158.91.2: /* Explanation */ clarity of wording

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an TOTALLY CONFORMING TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the {{w|thermometer}}, a number of different {{w|temperature}} scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses the 1742 {{w|Celsius}} scale for everyday temperature measurements. A small number of countries (the USA and {{w|Territories of the United States|its territories}}, the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia, and Palau) retain the {{w|Imperial units|imperial system}} (or the related {{w|United States customary units|US customary system}}), which uses the 1724 {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale. The other widely used temperature scale is the 1848 {{w|Kelvin}} scale, which uses the same degrees as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius (which, along with degrees Fahrenheit, is now defined relative to kelvins.) The Kelvin scale has been part of the widely adopted official {{w|metric system}} since 1954. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit, scientific measurements are usually made in degrees Celsius or kelvins.

The comic compares these scales, and a number of others, on [[Randall]]'s scale of "cursedness." The joke is highlighting how different the temperature scales are, and how impractical most of them are. All of the listed scales (except Randall's new °X scale defined in the title text) are real, but most are obsolete. Please see also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of degrees Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water freezes
! scope="col" | Water boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || The Celsius (°C) scale, also known as "centigrade", was devised by Swedish astronomer {{w|Anders Celsius}} in 1742 and revised in 1745, a year after his death. 0°C represents the freezing point of water and 100°C represents the boiling point, both under {{w|standard atmospheric pressure}}. The Celsius scale is now defined in terms of kelvin. By the given "cursedness," it is regarded as one of the least problematic temperature scales.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvins (plural with a lowercase 'k' as a temperature unit, like meters, ohms, watts, and amps; or as the symbol 'K', without the degrees symbol '°', unlike most other such units) are a unit of temperature devised by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} in 1848. It uses the same degrees as Celsius but is shifted by 273.15 to set absolute zero at 0K (based on the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}.)
<center>Celsius = kelvin – 273.15.</center>
<center>kelvin = Celsius + 273.15.</center>
While kelvins are very useful for calculations in {{w|thermodynamics}} and material physics, they can be unintuitive to laypersons.
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit (°F) is officially used in a few countries and informally in several others. It originated in a time when factors of 360 were favored in science over powers of ten, which is why the freezing and boiling points of water are set 180° apart. Devised around 1724, {{w|Daniel Fahrenheit}} chose not to base 0° on the freezing point of water, instead originally setting it at the coldest temperature he could achieve: the freezing point of an {{w|ammonium chloride}} {{w|brine}} solution.
<center>Celsius = (Fahrenheit – 32) × 5/9.</center>
<center>Fahrenheit = Celsius × 9/5 + 32.</center>
Although those reference points are now considered arbitrary and outdated by modern scholars, the scale gained popularity in Anglophone countries, possibly because everyday weather conditions usually fall handily all across the range 0–100°F. 100°F is {{w|Human body temperature#Historical understanding|close to normal human body temperature}} (the original intent was to set 90°F as exactly this, 90 being a quarter of 360). The Fahrenheit scale remains officially used only in Randall's home country (the U.S., and its territories), the Bahamas, Belize, the Cayman Islands, Liberia and Palau.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || Abbreviated as °Ré, this system devised by {{w|René Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur}} in 1730 was used in some places until the early 20th century, mostly for cheese-making.
<center>Celsius = Réaumur / 0.8.</center>
<center>Réaumur = Celsius × 0.8.</center>
The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labeling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Abbreviated as °Rø, this scale was created by the Danish astronomer {{w|Ole Rømer}} around 1702. Much like Fahrenheit, it originally used the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Rømer, but the scale was later updated to give the value of 7.5 at this point.
<center>Celsius = (Rømer – 7.5) × 40/21.</center>
<center>Rømer = Celsius × 21/40 + 7.5.</center>
The Rømer scale is considered the predecessor of both the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales, because Réaumur was inspired by Rømer's scale, Celsius based his work on Réaumur and Fahrenheit specifically designed his scale with more divisions than Rømer's to reduce the necessity for fractions.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°Ra] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || The Rankine scale (°R or °Ra), devised in 1859 by {{w|William Rankine}}, is to Fahrenheit what kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute (rather than a relative) scale. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. It is described as more cursed than the otherwise identical Fahrenheit scale, despite being rooted at a more universal zero point.
<center>Celsius = (Rankine – 491.67) × 5/9.</center>
<center>Rankine = (Celsius + 273.15) × 9/5.</center>
Another comic, [[2292: Thermometer]], expresses disdain for this scale.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || The famous scientist and mathematician {{w|Isaac Newton}} published this scale in 1701, which was referred to by the the °N symbol. Sadly, the degrees of temperature specified do not correlate exactly with amounts of {{w|heat}}. The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition. So, as a linear appproximation:
<center>Celsius = Newton × 100/33.</center>
<center>Newton = Celsius × 33/100.</center>
Very few scientists other than Newton ever used this scale,{{Actual citation needed}} but it did appear on commercial thermometers around 1758.[https://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?image=10413117&wwwflag=&imagepos=43]
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by the potter {{w|Josiah Wedgwood}} in 1782, the '°W' scale was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inconsistent.
<center>Celsius = (Wedgwood + 8) × 100/1.3.</center>
<center>Wedgwood = (Celsius × 1.3/100) – 8.</center>
The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood, without the second 'e'.
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || The Greek physician {{w|Galen}} suggested a "neutral" temperature around 180 A.D.,[https://www.loebclassics.com/view/galen-temperaments/2020/pb_LCL546.3.xml] when he was a prominent physician in the {{w|Roman Empire}}. Created by mixing equal parts of boiling water and ice, on either side of this neutral point he described four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold. Assuming his extremes were those points:
<center>Celsius = (Galen × 100 / 8) + 22.</center>
<center>Galen = ((Celsius – 22) / 100) × 8.</center>
This range from +4 to –4 is humorously used as its rating, implying –100% cursedness. Technically this makes it the least cursed of all the listed scales, but the idea of negative cursedness, and cursedness itself, is not clear. There is no standard modern abbreviation for Galen's scale.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original 1742 specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures through 1.42×1032K, the maximum attainable physical temperature,[https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2024.1210198] will be negative in this implementation. The cursedness rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius. Division by zero is strictly undefined (see [[2295: Garbage Math]]) and may be interpreted in a number of counter-intuitive ways.
<center>Celsius = 100 – real_Celsius.</center>
<center>real_Celsius = 100 – Celsius.</center>
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a {{w|Millimetre of mercury|column of mercury}} at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This orientation survives in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}} devised in 1732 by French astronomer {{w|Joseph-Nicolas Delisle}}, which arguably inspired the Celsius scale. The scale originally used by Professor Celsius was changed, to more or less the form already described above, after his death in 1745. Delisle's scale was never reversed.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale in 1802 during his work on what became {{w|Charles's Law}}. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100:
<center>Celsius = 273.15 × ''e''(Dalton / 320.55) – 273.15.</center>
<center>Dalton = 320.55 × {{w|Natural logarithm|''ln''(}} (Celsius + 273.15) / 273.15 ).</center>
There is no standard abbreviation for Dalton's scale. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures. The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton equates to 50 degrees Celsius — i.e., it could be said to be 107.8% (even more than entirely) cursed.
|-
| °X || 42.9 || 151.4 || '''Title text:''' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [''sic''] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || Randall has not stated the cursedness of his new scale. || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.8°C (58.6°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and boiling points of water

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, '''the freezing point is 42.9 °X.'''

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, '''the boiling point is 151.4 °X.'''

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
<center>Celsius = (°X – 42.9) / 0.48 if °X < 50; or (°X – 32.4) / 1.19 if °X ≥ 50.</center>
<center>°X = 0.48 × Celsius + 42.9 if Celsius < 14.8; or 1.19 × Celsius + 32.4 if Celsius ≥ 14.8.</center>

Due to high and average temperature records increasing almost every year as a result of {{w|climate change}},[https://www.space.com/last-12-months-broke-temperature-records] Randall's new °X scale must be re-calibrated each year. While such °X values for to everyday temperatures will vary over time, more extreme values like absolute zero or the {{w|Tungsten#Physical properties|melting point of tungsten}} will shift vastly more.

("Surface" temperatures are measured 1.5 meters above ground inside a shaded shelter, to accurately represent air temperature, because measurements closer to the ground are usually quite different due to sunlight, {{w|albedo}}, and the thermal capacity of soil.)
|}

[[File:Temperature Scales.png|center|600px]]

===Examples===

Here are some various temperatures in the above scales:

{| class=wikitable style="text-align: center;"
! Unit scale
! Typical {{w|room temperature}}
! {{w|Properties of water#Melting point|Freezing point of water}}
! {{w|Boiling point#Boiling point of water with elevation|Boiling point of water}}
! Midrange {{w|human body temperature|human body core temperature}}
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Temperature zones and ratings|refrigerator temperature}}[https://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/food/refrigerator-temperature]
! Recommended {{w|Refrigerator#Freezer|freezer temperature}}[https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/freezing-and-food-safety]
! Typical warm bath temperature[https://www.kohlerwalkinbath.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ideal-bath-temperature/]
! Typical {{w|Coffee#Brewing|hot coffee}} temperature
|-
| Celsius || 22 °C || 0 °C || 100 °C || 37 °C || 2.5 °C || –18 °C || 39 °C || 77 °C
|-
| Kelvin || 295 K || 273 K || 373 K || 310 K || 276 K || 255 K || 312 K || 350 K
|-
| Fahrenheit || 72 °F || 32 °F || 212 °F || 98.6 °F || 36.5 °F || 0 °F || 102 °F || 171 °F
|-
| Réaumur || 17.6 °Ré || 0 °Ré || 80 °Ré || 29.6 °Ré || 2 °Ré || –14.4 °Ré || 31.2 °Ré || 61.6 °Ré
|-
| Rømer || 19.1 °Rø || 7.5 °Rø || 60 °Rø || 26.9 °Rø || 8.8 °Rø || –2 °Rø || 28 °Rø || 47.9 °Rø
|-
| Rankine || 531 °Ra || 492 °Ra || 672 °Ra || 558 °Ra || 496 °Ra || 459 °Ra || 562 °Ra || 630 °Ra
|-
| Newton || 7.3 °N || 0 °N || 33 °N || 12.2 °N || 0.8 °N || –5.9 °N || 12.9 °N || 25.4 °N
|-
| Wedgwood || –7.71 °W || –8 °W || –6.7 °W || –7.52 °W || –7.97 °W || –8.23 °W || –7.49 °W || –7 °W
|-
| Galen || 0 || –1.76 || 6.24 || 1.2 || –1.56 || –3.2 || 1.36 || 4.4
|-
| ''Real'' Celsius || 78 || 100 || 0 || 63 || 98 || 118 || 61 || 23
|-
| Dalton || 24.8 || 0 || 100 || 40.7 || 2.9 || –21.9 || 42.8 || 79.6
|-
| °X || 59 °X || 43 °X || 151 °X || 76.4 °X || 44.1 °X || 34.3 °X || 78.8 °X || 124 °X
|-
| Felsius || 47 || 16 || 156 || 67.8 || 19.5 || –9.2 || 70.6 || 123.8
|}

Here are the conversion formulas for the [[1923: Felsius|Felsius scale from comic 1923]]:
<center>Celsius = (Felsius − 16) / 1.4.</center>
<center>Felsius = Celsius * 7/5 + 16.</center>

==Transcript==

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Science]]

3001: Temperature Scales

2024-10-24T01:30:39Z

162.158.91.2: /* Explanation */ goes without saying/redundant/speculation

{{comic
| number = 3001
| date = October 21, 2024
| title = Temperature Scales
| image = temperature_scales_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x535px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an EXPONENTIAL TEMPERATURE SYSTEM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Since the invention of the thermometer, a number of different temperature scales have been proposed. In modern times, most of the world uses {{w|Celsius}} for everyday temperature measurements, as it is part of the {{w|metric system}} that has been widely adopted for official uses. A small number of countries (namely Liberia, the USA and its three associated free states in the Pacific) retain the US customary (or 'imperial') system, which uses the ''slightly'' older {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale (°F was initially defined in 1724, the general current form of °C was created in 1743). The other widely used temperature scale is {{w|Kelvin}}, which uses the same scale as Celsius, but is rooted at {{w|absolute zero}}, making it both useful in scientific calculations and easy to convert to and from Celsius. Even in countries that use Fahrenheit regularly, scientific measurements are typically done in Celsius and/or Kelvin.

The strip proceeds to compare these scales, and a number of others, on a scaled of "cursed"-ness. The joke is highlighting how strange and generally difficult to use many older proposed systems were. All of the listed scales are real, but may be considered obsolete to varying degrees. See also [[1923: Felsius]], a combination of Fahrenheit and Celsius.

{| class=wikitable
! scope="col" | Unit
! scope="col" | Water Freezes
! scope="col" | Water Boils
! scope="col" | Notes
! scope="col" | Cursedness
! scope="col" | Explanation
|-
| {{w|Celsius}} || 0 || 100 || Used in most of the world || 2/10 || Celsius is defined (indirectly, these days, by way of comparison to Kelvin) so that the freezing and boiling points of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure are 0 and 100 degrees respectively. Celsius is tied for least cursed.
|-
| {{w|Kelvin}} || 273.15 || 373.15 || 0K is absolute zero || 2/10 || Kelvin is a scientific unit of measure invented by {{w|Lord Kelvin}} that intends to use the same scale as degrees Celsius, but is offset by 273.15, in order to set the zero point at absolute zero (by way of using the {{w|Boltzmann constant}}, as of 2019). This is very practical for the math of thermodynamics, but unintuitive for non-expert users. Kelvin and Celsius are, by far, the most common units used in scientific measurements and calculations. Their utility and inherent logic is likely what makes them the least "cursed".
|-
| {{w|Fahrenheit}} || 32 || 212 || Outdoors in most places is between 0–100 || 3/10 || Fahrenheit is officially used in several countries across the globe, and unofficially in several others. It was derived in an era where factors of 360 were more popular in science than powers of ten, so water freezing and water boiling were calibrated to be 180° apart. In addition, Daniel Fahrenheit believed that pure water freezing was not worthy of the 0° benchmark and resolved to set 0° to the coldest possible temperature he could create: the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine. While modern scholars find these benchmarks arbitrary and outdated, it gained usage, primarily in Anglophone countries, likely due to the scale being considered intuitively useful for some common functions (the range roughly matches the typical span of weather conditions, for various ranges of climate, and the 100 point is quite near normal human body temperature, even though 90 was initially presumed to be this). While it was largely displaced by the Celsius scale, the US, [[Randall]]'s home country, continues to typically use it. It is ranked as slightly more cursed than Celsius.
|-
| {{w|Réaumur scale|Réaumur}} || 0 || 80 || Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100 || 3/8 || A historical French system used in some places until the early 20th century. In modern times mostly used in cheesemaking. The rating (3/8) is a joke on the boiling point of water in this system being 80 instead of 100 as it is in Celsius; converting this to an out-of-ten scale would give 3.75/10, labelling it as more cursed than Fahrenheit but less so than Rømer.
|-
| {{w|Rømer scale|Rømer}} || 7.5 || 60 || Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design || 4/10 || Created by the Danish astronomer Ole Christensen Rømer in around 1702, while the Fahrenheit scale was proposed in 1724. Much like Fahrenheit, it uses the freezing point of ammonium chloride brine as the benchmark for 0°, and the scale is built with factors of 360 in mind with the boiling point of pure water at 60°. Like the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point of pure water was not originally considered significant by Ole Rømer, but the scale was later updated to fix it to 7.5. The scale is also the last common ancestor of Celsius and Fahrenheit, as Reuamur was inspired by it, and Celsius by Reamur, and Fahrenheit specifically wanted a Rømer scale with more steps to avoid using decimals.
|-
| {{w|Rankine scale|Rankine}} || 491.7 || 671.7 || Fahrenheit, but with 0°F [''sic;'' should be 0°R] set to absolute zero || 6/10 || As the chart mentions, Rankine is to Fahrenheit what Kelvin is to Celsius, an absolute scale rather than a relative one. The scale is mostly obsolete, but is still occasionally used in legacy industrial operations where absolute temperature scales are required. [[2292: Thermometer]] expresses disdain for this scale,.
|-
| {{w|Newton scale|Newton}} || 0 || 33-ish || Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in" || 7-ish/10 || Created by Isaac Newton, measuring "degrees of heat". The cursedness rating (7-ish/10) is a joke about the vagueness of the scale's definition.
|-
| {{w|Wedgwood scale|Wedgwood}} || –8 || –6.7 || Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about || 9/10 || Created by potter Josiah Wedgwood in the 18th century. The measurement was based on the shrinking of clay when heated above red heat, but was found to be very inaccurate. The comic has a typo, as the scale is called Wedgwood (''without the e'').
|-
| Galen || –4? || 4?? || Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?) || 4/–4 || {{w|Galen}}, in his medical writings, is said to have proposed a standard "neutral" temperature made up of equal quantities of boiling water and ice; on either side of this temperature were four degrees of heat and four degrees of cold, respectively. The rating (4/–4) is a joke about the scale being defined between positive and negative 4, and could be interpreted as –100% cursedness, though it's not clear what negative cursedness would mean, or "cursedness" itself.
|-
| {{w|Celsius#History|''Real'' Celsius}} || 100 || 0 || In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it || 10/0 || Most scales' temperatures can be indefinitely large, but have an absolute minimum temperature. By starting at a maximum value and counting down, this scale is indeed cursed, as nearly all possible temperatures (an indefinite range of them) will be negative. The rating (10/0) is a joke on the scale "flipping" the fixed points of modern Celsius, because division by zero is undefined.
The original logic was that zero could be easily calibrated to the height of a column of mercury at the temperature of boiling water, and further measurements then made of the amount it ''reduced'' in height under cooler conditions. This direction 'survives' in the historic {{w|Delisle scale}}, which predates (and arguably helped greatly inspire, though with a different factor) the classic version of °C. The version originally used by Anders was only 'corrected' posthumously, but nobody seemed bothered enough to do the same with Delisle's scale.
|-
| [https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/459851/john-daltons-temperature-scale#459863 Dalton] || 0 || 100 || A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton || 53.9/50 || {{w|John Dalton}} proposed a logarithmic temperature scale. The scale is defined so that absolute zero is at negative infinity, with the exponent chosen to match Celsius at 0 and 100. While Dalton temperature is defined for all positive and negative numbers, the nonlinear scale is difficult to work with since the amount of heat represented by a change of one degree Dalton is not constant. Degrees Dalton differs from Celsius by as much as 3.9 degrees between 0 and 100, but diverges much more for more extreme temperatures.

The rating (53.9/50) is a joke about the unit, as 53.9 Dalton would be 50 degrees Celsius — i.e. the cursedness could be understood as 50/50 (or 10/10, entirely cursed), but perhaps instead as 107.8% (even more than entirely cursed).
|-
| °X [Randall's new scale] || 42.9 || 151.4 || ''Title text:'' "In my new scale, °X, 0 is Earths' [sic] record lowest surface temperature, 50 is the global average, and 100 is the record highest, with a linear scale between each point and adjustment every year as needed." || ''not provided'' || The {{w|Lowest temperature recorded on Earth|record lowest surface temperature on Earth}} as of 2024 is –89.2°C (–128.6°F), recorded at the {{w|Vostok Station|Vostok Research Station}} in Antarctica on July 21, 1983.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-lowest-temperature] The average surface temperature as of 2023, the most recent available, is 14.4°C (57.2°F.)[https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/temperature] The {{w|Highest temperature recorded on Earth|record highest temperature}} is 56.7°C (134.1°F), recorded on July 10, 1913 at {{w|Furnace Creek, California|Furnace Creek Ranch}} in Death Valley, California.[https://wmo.asu.edu/content/world-highest-temperature]

{{cot|Derivation and graph}}
To break the scale into two linear parts (below and above 14.8°C), we define two separate equations for each range:

1. Below 14.8°C (from –89.2°C to 14.8°C):
* 0 °X corresponds to –89.2°C
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C

We calculate the slope m₁:

<center>m₁ = (50 – 0) / (14.8 – (–89.2)) = 50 / (14.8 + 89.2) = 50 / 104 ≈ 0.48</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₁:

<center>50 = 0.48 × 14.8 + b₁</center>

<center>50 = 7.1 + b₁</center>

<center>b₁ = 50 – 7.1 = 42.9</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''below 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 0.48 × C + 42.9'''</center>

2. Above 14.8°C (from 14.8°C to 56.7°C):
* 50 °X corresponds to 14.8°C
* 100 °X corresponds to 56.7°C

We calculate the slope m₂:

<center>m₂ = (100 – 50) / (56.7 – 14.8) = 50 / 41.9 ≈ 1.19</center>

Now, using the point (14.8°C, 50 °X), we calculate the intercept b₂:

<center>50 = 1.19 × 14.8 + b₂</center>

<center>50 = 17.6 + b₂</center>

<center>b₂ = 50 – 17.6 = 32.4</center>

Thus, the equation for temperatures '''above 14.8°C''' is:

<center>'''X = 1.19 × C + 32.4'''</center>

;Freezing and Boiling Points

Freezing point of water (0°C): Since 0°C is below 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 0.48 × C + 42.9:

<center>X = 0.48 × 0 + 42.9 = 42.9</center>

So, the freezing point is 42.9 °X.

Boiling point of water (100°C): Since 100°C is above 14.8°C, we use the equation X = 1.19 × C + 32.4:

<center>X = 1.19 × 100 + 32.4 = 119 + 32.4 = 151.4</center>

So, the boiling point is 151.4 °X.

[[File:XvsC.png|400px|center]]

See also [[2701: Change in Slope]] for a general discussion of separate linear scales between three points.
{{cob}}
Since average and high temperature records are being broken frequently due to {{w|climate change}}, this scale is defined as being re-calibrated annually. Any noted °X values of Absolute Zero or (for example) the melting point of tungsten would vary much more than those of 'everyday' temperatures, although the record books will at least ''ne er'' need to be updated to reflect changes in the current low/high/mean details (just historic ones).
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:Temperature Scales

:[A table with five columns, labelled: Unit, water freezing point, water boiling point, notes, cursedness. There are eleven rows below the labels.]

:[Row 1:] Celsius, 0, 100, Used in most of the world, 2/10
:[Row 2:] Kelvin, 273.15, 373.15, 0K is absolute zero, 2/10
:[Row 3:] Fahrenheit, 32, 212, Outdoors in most places is between 0–100, 3/10
:[Row 4:] Réaumur, 0, 80, Like Celsius, but with 80 instead of 100, 3/8
:[Row 5:] Rømer, 7.5, 60, Fahrenheit precursor with similarly random design, 4/10,
:[Row 6:] Rankine, 491.7, 671.7, Fahrenheit, but with 0°F set to absolute zero, 6/10
:[Row 7:] Newton, 0, 33-ish, Poorly defined, with reference points like "the hottest water you can hold your hand in", 7-ish/10
:[Row 8:] Wedgewood, –8, –6.7, Intended for comparing the melting points of metals, all of which it was very wrong about, 9/10
:[Row 9:] Galen, –4?, 4??, Runs from –4 (cold) to 4 (hot). 0 is "normal"(?), 4/–4
:[Row 10:] ''Real'' Celsius, 100, 0, In Anders Celsius's original specification, bigger numbers are ''colder''; others later flipped it, 10/0
:[Row 11:] Dalton, 0, 100, A nonlinear scale; 0°C and 100°C are 0 and 100 Dalton, but 50°C is 53.9 Dalton, 53.9/50

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Science]]

1867: Physics Confession

2024-10-08T22:30:50Z

162.158.91.2: /* Trivia */ Replaced outdated link with closest Wayback Machine snapshot.

{{comic
| number = 1867
| date = July 24, 2017
| title = Physics Confession
| image = physics_confession.png
| titletext = "You know lightning, right? When electric charge builds up in a cloud and then discharges in a giant spark? Ask me why that happens." "Why does tha--" "No clue. We think it's related to the hair thing."
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|Theory of Everything}} is a goal of modern physics which would describe the properties of all fundamental particles and all the interactions between them. The current approach to a theory of everything is to describe how at high energies different interactions, such as electromagnetic forces and the strong and weak nuclear interactions merge. It would be possible, in principle to demonstrate how the rest of known physics can be derived from that quantum behavior. This approach, however, leaves many everyday phenomena which are not understood by modern physics, and many {{w|Theory_of_everything#Arguments_against|arguments against a theory of everything}} suggest that it won't ever be able to actually precisely describe everything. This comic lists several of those phenomena:

The fine detail of how ice skates work is unknown. It is known that there is a film of water between the skate and the ice that lubricates sliding, but scientists dispute how the film gets there. The commonly held belief is that it is caused by the pressure of the narrow skate; another belief is that the ice is melted by the friction of movement; but both fail to fully explain why skating continues to be possible at temperatures that are significantly below 0 Celsius. A better explanation is simply that, near the melting point of a solid, there will be a thin layer of liquid on the surface due to the dynamic equilibrium between the two phases, hence why ice is slippery. This happens regardless of the presence of skates. A more complete explanation is given in the linked article: [http://lptms.u-psud.fr/membres/trizac/Ens/L3FIP/Ice.pdf Why is ice slippery?].

Physicists lack a clear understanding of the interactions involved in the flow of {{w|granular material}}s, such as sand. It is known that the behavior diverges greatly from that of a liquid, but it is unknown exactly how the flow works. [http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/granular.cfm PhysicsCentral:Granular Materials]

Modern physics also doesn't understand what makes electrons move from one material to another when two materials are rubbed against each other (the {{w|triboelectric effect}}), and why the transfer takes more electrons in one direction than in the other. However, this happens, and it's the cause of {{w|static electricity}}, which can be seen when one rubs a latex rubber balloon against hair.

The title text mentions another common phenomenon that is poorly understood: the separation of charges in a cumulonimbus cloud. It is thought that interactions between ice and water transfer electrons, and then the different motion of ice (as hail) and water droplets in the cloud separates the charge. [http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/lightning/lightning.html NOAA How lightning is created].

5 years later, the triboelectric effect was brought up again as an unsolved problem in [[2682: Easy Or Hard]].

==Transcript==
:[Megan is facing Ponytail and Cueball.]
:Megan: I'll be honest: We physicists talk a big game about the theory of everything, but the truth is, we don't really understand why ice skates work, how sand flows, or where the static charge comes from when you rub your hair with a balloon.

==Trivia==
*Randall modified the xkcd header on July 25, 2017 to ask readers to "...tell your senators to vote against this health care bill. It will hurt people." This is accompanied by a phone number, 202-224-3121, and a link to [https://web.archive.org/web/20170719162735/https://www.trumpcareten.org/ TrumpCare Ten]. An archived version of the image is available [https://web.archive.org/web/20170726150959im_/https://imgs.xkcd.com/notes/call-senate.png here].
*Later, after the senate rejected several versions of the bill, Randall replaced this message with a "thank you" message and a [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/25/us/politics/senate-votes-repeal-obamacare.html link] to an article showing the senate votes.

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

2964: Olympic Sports

2024-08-07T03:48:38Z

162.158.91.2: oops

{{comic
| number = 2964
| date = July 26, 2024
| title = Olympic Sports
| image = olympic_sports_2x.png
| imagesize = 553x328px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Thankfully for everyone involved, the Winter Olympics officials spotted me and managed to stop me before I got to the ski jump.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BUNCH OF XKCD EDITORS AND POSSIBLE TROLLS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic was officially published on the day of the opening ceremony of the {{w|2024 Summer Olympics|2024 Paris (Summer) Olympics}}, though it actually appeared early the following day.

In this comic, [[Randall]], who has no athletic training, imagines himself participating in various Olympic events, with his degrees of failure measured in terms of their humor potential.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Olympic sports ranked by how funny it would be if a regular person competed
! How funny !! Sport !! Reason
|-
|rowspan=5| Not that funny || {{w|Rowing}} - One or more people row a boat to a destination.|| The person would struggle to row effectively, falling out of cadence and fouling the oars of the other rowers in their boat. However, if Randall competed in the single sculls, such coordination would not be an issue, and he would likely just be much slower than the other competitors. Or fall in the water.
|-
| {{w|Fencing}} - Two contestants attempt to land hits on each other with a long fencing weapon.|| Contrary to what is often portrayed in movies, sword fights of any kind are very quick, often lasting just a few seconds. Olympic fencing matches are especially fast, and an untrained layman watching the fight would probably be unable to tell the difference between a fight between two experts and a fight in which one person had no experience, aside from that said person would lose every bout.
|-
| {{w|Weightlifting}} - Contestants lift weights, which, in the Olympics, get heavier with each round, until all but one fail to lift.|| They might just fail to lift the weights or injure their back.
|-
| {{w|Golf}} - Contestants attempt to use golf clubs to hit a golf ball into one or more holes in as small a number of hits as possible.|| They would likely miss the ball or hit poorly, due to an incorrect stance/swing when hitting, using a club whose loft (angle of the front face) is inappropriate, or just basic lack of skill.
----
''The comic illustrates this by having Randall putt and miss the hole at very close range.''
|-
| {{w|Archery}} - Using a bow and arrow, contestants attempt to hit a target with as much accuracy as possible.|| Arrows might miss the target, but this wouldn't be particularly amusing (unless Randall forgoes armbraces & discovers the bowstring's propensity for smacking the inside of his wrist after releasing it).
----
''The comic shows Randall missing all his shots on the target.''
|-
|rowspan=5| Pretty funny || {{w|Swimming}} - Contestants swim to a destination or complete lengths as fast as possible.|| They might struggle to stay afloat (particularly in open water swimming, where they would be buffeted by other contestants) or {{w|Eric Moussambani|swim awkwardly}}. They are also likely to have a markedly different physique to the other competitors, which would have a comic effect.
|-
| {{w|Long jump}} - Contestants, with a running start, attempt to jump as far as possible.|| They would likely make a very short jump, or perhaps foul every jump.
|-
| {{w|Pole vault}} - Using a bendable pole, contestants attempt to propel (vault) themselves over a bar.|| They might miss the plant and end up dropping the pole and running under the bar. If they did manage to get some lift, but failed to get enough to reach the mat, it would probably be concerning, rather than funny.
|-
| {{w|Diving}} - Contestants attempt to fulfil multiple criteria while diving into water.|| Awkward or painful-looking dives could ensue. Potential for injury would be high.
|-
| {{w|Hurdles}} - Contestants run on a track with hurdles positioned at various places.|| They might trip and fall over the hurdles, just knock them all over as they fail to clear them, or [https://www.npr.org/2023/06/26/1184329986/belgian-shot-putter-runs-hurdles-belgium carefully step over each hurdle].
----
''Drawn in this section, Randall repeatedly and unpleasantly runs into the hurdles, unable to jump over any of them. He has his arm raised bent in front of his face in a classic hurdler's pose, but appears to have failed to get much, if any, height off the ground.''
|-
|rowspan=5| Incredibly funny || {{w|Figure skating}} [The only Winter Olympic discipline featured in the main comic] Competitors perform artistic routines set to music while skating on an ice rink, and are judged on a combination of skating skill, composition, and presentation. || They might slip and fall continually on the ice, with a high risk for sprained joints or bone fractures. This might have particular comic potential if Randall were skating as part of a pair, awkwardly attempting to lift and spin a partner, or perhaps doing nothing but being lifted and dragged around by them.
|-
| {{w|Horizontal bar}} - A horizontal bar is used to perform gymnastics.|| They might fail to perform any flips or lose their grip on the bar, falling to the safety mats below. In all likelihood, having been lifted to the bar, they would simply hang helplessly beneath it, managing minimal swings backwards and forwards.
|-
| {{w|Equestrian sports}} - Various activities involving the use of horses.|| They might struggle to control the horse or fall/get thrown off.
----
''Randall is shown completely unable to control his horse. He is in the process of falling off and is flailing his arms.
|-
| {{w|Freestyle BMX}} - Contestants ride BMX bikes and perform various tricks, and are then judged by trick quality.|| They might crash or fail to perform tricks.
|-
| {{w|Pommel horse}} - Using a gymnastic device somewhat similar to a horse, gymnasts perform various tricks.|| They might awkwardly flop around, fall off, or lose their balance & risk crushing {{tvtropes|GroinAttack|a particularly squashy part}} of their anatomy, which could, depending on one's sense of humor, the context, & the exact aesthetics of the incident, elicit laughter.
----
''Randall is depicted awkwardly perched atop a pommel horse with a leg extended.
|}

The title text may be a reference to ski jumper {{w|Vinko Bogataj}}, whose spectacular crash at a (non-Olympic) {{w|Ski_flying|ski flying}} event in 1970 in Oberstdorf, (then) West Germany became emblematic of the expression "the agony of defeat" in the opening narration of the popular US television program "{{w|Wide World of Sports (American TV program)|Wide World of Sports}}". Alternatively the reference may be to {{w|Eddie the Eagle}}, whose poor performance in the {{w|Ski_jumping|ski jump}} at the {{w|1988 Winter Olympics}} led to the introduction of a rule requiring entrants to be ranked internationally in the top 50 and top 30%.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[A header is above three panels, with each panel containing a title at the top of how funny it would be, a bullet list of five sports, and one or two depictions of Cueball performing sports from that list.]
:Header: Olympic Sports ranked by how funny it would be if I, a regular person without athletic training, snuck onto the team to compete:

:[The first panel:]
:Title: Not that funny
:*Rowing
:*Fencing
:*Weightlifting
:*Golf
:*Archery
:[This panel shows Cueball putting a ball with a golf club and missing the hole from a close distance, and Cueball aiming a bow while three arrows are on the ground at various distances from the target.]

:[The second panel:]
:Title: Pretty funny
:*Swimming
:*Long jump
:*Pole vault
:*Diving
:*Hurdles
:[This panel shows Cueball running stomach-first into a hurdle, while holding an arm in front of his head. Another hurdle behind him has fallen down.]
:Cueball: [Bonk] Ow! [Bonk] Ow!

:[The third panel:]
:Title: Incredibly funny
:*Figure skating
:*Horizontal bar
:*Equestrian
:*BMX freestyle
:*Pommel horse
:[The first depiction of this panel shows Cueball balancing himself on a pommel horse as if he's riding a real horse, with both of his hands and one leg down and the other leg slightly raised.]
:Cueball: Look! Look!
:[The second depiction of this panel shows Cueball wearing black helmet and riding a horse, struggling to stay on the running horse with both hands and one leg raised.]
:Cueball: AAAAA!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Sport]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Randall Munroe]]

Talk:2892: Banana Prices

2024-02-09T19:19:36Z

162.158.91.2:

Is it a linear extrapolation? Or does it only appear so because the Y axis is logarithmic? Inflation is logarithmic, since it's expressed in percentages. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:Well, the lines of extrapolation are (invoked as) linear, by dint of the height above the baseline being preconverted to a logarithmic function of the represented axial value. Rather than taking exponential-style extrapolation of data and 'happening' to linearise it through the subsequent transformation, it is almost certainly going to have been merely establishing some trend point(s) through which such an exponential would pass and using that to directly guide the linear plot that (on the converted scale) is the functionally equivalent result to doing it with ''every'' point. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.77|172.71.178.77]] 17:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, so... my reading of the comic after studying it for a while is that Randall is making a sophisticated meta-joke about 'lying with data" and unreliable precision and how easy it is to be fooled. He knows, of course, that this graph's "prediction" is completely arbitrary and is likely to be VERY wrong. He is intentionally breaking a whole set of statistical best practices in this graph. If so, I think this comic is one of the most-layerd and subtle he's ever done. You have to know a lot about statistical best practices to see what he's really doing here. .. What's so interesting to me is him using the voice of the caption-writer -- usually good ol' reliable Randall -- to actually be the butt of the joke. ... If someone wants to claim that this is more sarcasm than "unreliable narrator," I guess that's a reasonable interpreation, but the use of the word "probably" in the caption makes me think we're supposed to take the caption-writer seriously. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 18:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Bananas are a special case: Basically we have a monoculture. With no genetic variations, bananas are highly vulnerable to the emergence of specialized pathogens and currently Panama 4 is threatening the Cavendish banana: https://www.theguardian.com/food/ng-interactive/2022/apr/14/climate-crisis-food-systems-not-ready-biodiversity So trying to fit this question of "will it go extinct soon?" into a smooth inflation price increase might be another butt of the joke [[Special:Contributions/172.71.246.88|172.71.246.88]] 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Randall is way off-base here, by about an order of magnitude. The episode is about Bluth frozen bananas, which require refrigeration, chocolate, and custom labor; they also do not have the economies of scale of fresh bananas. The AD wiki says the prices are >$1; in "Top Banana," Maeby says they cost at least $1. In real life, frozen bananas cost $5 in LA, $8 at ice cream shops on LA-area beaches. This is a joke similar to the Pulp Fiction $5 milkshake; milkshakes have been much more expensive than that for years. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.149|172.70.207.149]] 19:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2497: Logic Gates

2021-08-16T15:25:04Z

162.158.91.2:

As someone has just Transcripted basically almost all the fine detail I had planned to entable in the Explanation, I shall not now create repetition. Though I had a little more description to the NORXONDOR GOGONAX, in particular, to reference bidirectional (antiparallel) diode pairings (e.g. an LED assembly that glows a different hue depending upon the applied current bias) as probable inspiration, and that latched Flip-Flops surely inspired some part of the Frankensteinian gate-types, too. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.119|141.101.99.119]] 00:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(Also, surprised there was no direct "GONDOR" reference. Or maybe that's because it was ''too'' obvious?) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.211|141.101.99.211]] 00:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

: I was also missing a "GONDOR" reference, and all the X's also made me think XEHANORT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.174|172.70.126.174]] 03:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

: Never mind GONDOR, surely "The black GATES of MORDOR" should feature heavily? 11:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

...So, who's ready to draw up some truth tables? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.211|172.70.126.211]] 01:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't get the lines in the bitwise-operation example to align properly; the first one is indented a tad. Can someone please fix that? Thanks... [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 04:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The symbol for norx gate (1-input OR, two outputs) I'd read as a noninverting buffer to increase another gate's usable fan-out. Xand gort resembles the symbol for an [[wikipedia:Operational amplifier|op-amp]]. Given the subtraction that an op-amp does, the xand gort's truth table probably resembles that of the [[wikipedia:Material conditional|"implies" operator]]. [[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 04:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

the "NORG XORT" is not equivalent to an XOR, as the symbol is round on the right. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.186|141.101.69.186]] 06:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, "NORG XORT" would be a XNAND with inverted inputs, though I don't know what the logic table from a XAND or XNAND gate would look like. If De Morgan applies to XAND/XOR the same way as with AND/OR, would a "NORG XORT" then be equivalent to a XOR ? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.129.43|162.158.129.43]] 15:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
:: I think it is specifically a hybrid between XOR and NAND. The left edge is curved like OR, and the right edge curved like AND. I did spend some time thinking about XAND, though. One of my ideas was a >2-input AND that is only true if exactly 2 inputs are true. I wonder what qubit gates are like. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.174|108.162.219.174]] 16:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

;Logic Gates
It seems to me that their ought to be 16 possible logic gates. Although some would ignore one or both inputs. [[User:Algr|Algr]] ([[User talk:Algr|talk]]) 07:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
:Yes. The 74181 4-bit arithmetic logic chip implements all 16 possible binary logic operations. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/74181 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.253|162.158.94.253]] 07:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
:: It doesn't say the names of the various gates. On my list I made up a few, like "Only B" that only returns true if B is true and A isn't. Are their real names for this? [[User:Algr|Algr]] ([[User talk:Algr|talk]]) 18:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
::: I could suggest "Unless" (as in 'B unless A', or maybe to counterpart 'A unless B' with standard order of operands, 'A disallows B'). Though the partially composite construct '!A && B' would be easier to grasp by those already handling logic statements, I think. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.78|141.101.76.78]] 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
::: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function#Table_of_binary_truth_functions --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.135|162.158.126.135]] 23:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
:::: So '''"Only B"''' is called '''"Converse nonimplication"'''?! Maybe I'm the ''only'' logical person. [[User:Algr|Algr]] ([[User talk:Algr|talk]]) 06:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
:As Randall drew gates with two outputs, these would have 256 (16^2) possible functions [[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.252|162.158.94.252]] 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
:: That couldn't logically be anything but two logic gates sharing the same input. [[User:Algr|Algr]] ([[User talk:Algr|talk]])

there should be a category of comics where it starts out like a normal list and gets weirder and weirder like [[2070:_Trig_Identities|Trig Identities]] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.164|172.70.34.164]] 18:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Bumpf

What, no IMPLIES gate? I actually used this once to implement a NOT operation in a database see search. [[User:Joem5636|Joem5636]] ([[User talk:Joem5636|talk]]) 11:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
: Yeah, neither IMPLY nor NIMPLY, the only asymmetric gates where the inputs can't be arbitrarily swapped. IMPLY: 0,0->1; 0,1->1; 1,0->0, 1,1->1; NIMPLY 0,0->0; 0,1->0; 1,0->1, 1,1->0 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.2|162.158.91.2]] 15:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears to me that the new gate names are just taken from the letters of the original gate names: NAND, NOR, XOR,and GATE. They're just stuck together in ways that tickled the creator's fancy. OK, tha's already been noted. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.108|172.70.130.108]] 11:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.239|108.162.216.239]] 11:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Unlike professional devs, I don't have a multiocular O key on my keyboard, so I verbosely write out __norxondor_gorgonax_bitwise everywhere in my code when writing kernel modules :-/ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.44|172.70.110.44]] 22:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
:You need a [http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/space-cadet-keyboard.html better keyboard]. :-) [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 23:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did the first four gates sound Seussy to someone else? "AND gate, OR gate, NOT gate, NOR gate." [[User:GreatWyrmGold|GreatWyrmGold]] ([[User talk:GreatWyrmGold|talk]]) 04:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

there should be a category of comics that start out with obvious/known things and get weirder and weirder like this. the only other one i can think off the top of my head is [[2070:_Trig_Identities|2070: Trig Identities]] though [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.221|172.68.65.221]] 01:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Bumpf