explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

804: Pumpkin Carving

2024-08-11T14:50:24Z

172.69.43.166: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 804
| date = October 11, 2010
| title = Pumpkin Carving
| image = pumpkin carving.png
| titletext = The Banach-Tarski theorem was actually first developed by King Solomon, but his gruesome attempts to apply it set back set theory for centuries.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a reference to the American custom of making {{w|Jack-o'-lantern|Jack-O'-Lantern}}s to set out on porches and front steps for the holiday of {{w|Halloween}}, which occurs on October 31. Typically they are made with {{w|pumpkins}} by emptying the inside leaving a hollow shell, carving a face or design on the side, then placing a light or candle inside. The Jack-O'-Lantern in the 3rd frame is the typical and standard design for a carved pumpkin.

The comic is set up as a typical TV program where an off-screen interviewer asks four (very) different people what they have made out of their Halloween pumpkin. In the [http://xkcd.com/804/info.0.json official transcript] the interviewer that talks in three of the panels is called an Interlocutor: "a person who takes part in dialogue or conversation."

In the first frame, [[Beret Guy]], naturally, stays oddly on-topic by physically carving an image of a pumpkin in his pumpkin. This means his answer, "I carved a pumpkin," could apply to either the image or the medium of his artwork.

In the second frame, [[Black Hat]] is shown with a container of {{w|nitroglycerin}} next to his pumpkin. Nitroglycerin is a highly explosive liquid that may explode violently with just a small bump. Black Hat has not carved a hole for his lamp, but it seems he has emptied the inside of the pumpkin as the stem at the top has been removed. This will make it possible to fill up the pumpkin with nitroglycerin. Teenagers are a rather impulsive and rebellious lot; as Halloween is a night with lots of meticulously erected decorations and more lax parental supervision, troublemaker teens see it as an enticing time to engage in rampant vandalism, including but not limited to pumpkin-smashing. Hence, the off-panel character presumes that Black Hat is setting up a trap to get back at these ne'er-do-wells. To top it off, Black Hat plans to put up a sign warning passers-by to not smash the pumpkin. This would only serve to tempt impulsive teenagers to disturb it, which is very likely what the sadistic and chaos-loving [[Classhole]] is hoping for. If he succeeds with his plan, with a completely hollowed out pumpkin of the shown size filled with nitroglycerin, it would seem likely that the resulting explosion would leave a largish crater, flatten wood-framed buildings nearby, shatter windows for blocks in all directions, and be more than sufficient to kill the vandal along with others in the surrounding area. This is clearly overkill for such a petty crime.

Black Hat, rather unconvincingly, insists that his pumpkin is suffering from chest pains, and that the nitroglycerin is merely intended for medical treatment. While it is true that this chemical is used to treat {{w|angina}} (chest pain due to blocked arteries in the heart), nitroglycerin used for this purpose is dispensed in the form of small pills containing only trace amounts, and controlled by prescription. Also, pumpkins are fruits and do thus not contain nervous or circulatory systems of mammalian complexity{{Citation needed}}; even if they did, the process of pumpkin carving involves hollowing them out, making it a moot point.

Also, the average weight of a pumpkin is 3kg, so if we ignited 3kg of nitroglycerin, it would be enough to destroy 3 small cars (oh dear)

In the third frame, [[Megan]] is our typical emotional xkcd comic character. She is the only one out of the four who actually carved a typical jack-o'-lantern; however, she is projecting herself onto it, and has named it Harold. Her dialogue suggests it (or he) is suffering from typical holiday depression, with symptoms such as using a lot of time daydreaming, worrying, and trying to distract herself with holiday traditions, but she already knows that it won't work. Some have speculated that this is a possible reference to the classic {{w|Internet meme|meme}} [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hide-the-pain-harold Hide The Pain Harold], but this is highly unlikely; the meme [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hide-the-pain-harold only surfaced in 2011], a year after the comic was published.

In the fourth frame, [[Cueball]] is shown in front of two un-carved pumpkins exclaiming that this is the result of carving one pumpkin. He is referencing the {{w|Banach-Tarski paradox}} (which is made clear in the title text), a theorem which states that it is possible to split a three-dimensional ball, in this case a pumpkin, into a finite number of "pieces," and then reassemble these "pieces" into two distinct balls both identical to the original. This paradox has been proven for theoretical shapes, but requires infinitely complicated pieces which are impossible for anything made of physical {{w|atomic theory|atoms}} rather than mathematical {{w|point (geometry)|points}}.

The off-screen interviewer in that frame references the {{w|Axiom of Choice}}. This axiom is the foundation for many theorems (including the Banach–Tarski paradox) and is extremely influential to modern mathematics; however, it has been historically controversial precisely because it enables this kind of weirdness. It is called an "axiom" because it is a statement that is not meant to be proven or disproven—only accepted or rejected depending on the theoretical framework one wishes to work with. Rejecting the Axiom of Choice results in a perfectly coherent alternate form of set theory. Since the proof for the Banach–Tarski paradox relies on accepting the axiom of choice, the interviewer is suggesting Cueball's unexpected result would not have happened without using the axiom.

The title text references a biblical story involving {{w|Solomon|King Solomon}}. In the story, known as the {{w|Judgment of Solomon}}, two women were brought before him both claiming that a particular child was their own. Solomon tested the women by saying the only solution was to cut the baby in half and give each woman one of the halves, knowing the real mother would fight to save her child's life even if the price was giving up the whole child to the other woman. The joke is that if Solomon had developed the Banach–Tarski theorem first, then he could have actually believed cutting the baby into pieces was a valid solution. In that scenario, he would have tried to make two whole children from the original and given one to each woman. However, since babies are not infinitely divisible,{{Citation needed}} his attempt would have failed miserably and set back set theory for centuries due to the appearance that he has "proved" the theorem wrong. Note that the title text actually mentions ''attempts'' indicating that King Solomon killed several babies in this fashion.

The axiom of choice and set theory was later referenced in [[982: Set Theory]] and, much later, the axiom of choice was mentioned again in the title text of [[1724: Proofs]].

This comic was released 20 days before Halloween in 2010, possibly to inspire people with some great ideas for their pumpkins. It has been known (particularly by Randall) that people copy his ideas, for instance this earlier [http://xkcd.com/chesscoaster/ post] on xkcd based on [[249: Chess Photo]]. Soon after he even made a comic, [[254: Comic Fragment]], that was supposed to be impossible to copy, which he mentioned himself later (see the explanation).

==Transcript==
:[Beret Guy, holding his arms out, stands behind a large orange pumpkin with the stem on top. It is sitting on a table. The pumpkin has been carved out as a lamp with large hole, and a lit candle is visible in the hole. The hole is in the shape of another carved out pumpkin. An interviewer speaks from off panel.]
:Interviewer (off-panel): So what did you—
:Beret Guy: I carved a pumpkin!
:Interviewer (off-panel): ...

:[Black Hat stands behind a large orange pumpkin which has not been carved out as a lamp, but the stem at the top has been removed and is placed tilting on the side of the pumpkin. It is sitting on a table. A gray box stands next to and partly in front of the pumpkin. On the end of the box there is a label at the top with unreadable text and below that some kind of drawing with a circle at the top. The interviewer speaks from off panel.]
:Interviewer (off-panel): Taking on teen vandals, I see.
:Black Hat: Heavens, no. My pumpkin simply has chest pains. In fact, I'll leave a note ''warning'' them not to smash it.
:Text on box:
::Nitro-
::glycerin
::Do Not
::Shake

:[Megan stands next to a large orange pumpkin with the stem on top. It is sitting on a table. The pumpkin has been carved out as a typical Halloween lamp. The bottom part of a white candle stick is visible in the mouth shaped hole. The hole is in the shape of a typical jack-o' lantern, with two slanted eyes, double slit nose and a smiling mouth with a tooth sticking out from both upper and lower lip, on either side of the candle stick.]
:Megan: My pumpkin's name is Harold. He just realized that all the time he used to spend daydreaming, he now spends worrying. He'll try to distract himself later with holiday traditions, but it won't work.

:[Cueball stands next to a two orange pumpkins with their stems on top, the left pumpkin is slightly larger than the right which is partly in front of the larger pumpkin. They have not been carved out even though a knife lies next to them to the right in front of Cueball on the table where they both stand. The interviewer speaks from off panel.]]
:Cueball: I carved and carved, and the next thing I knew I had ''two'' pumpkins.
:Interviewer (off-panel): I ''told'' you not to take the axiom of choice.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Logic]]

2966: Exam Numbers

2024-08-01T11:50:03Z

172.69.43.166: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2966
| date = July 31, 2024
| title = Exam Numbers
| image = exam_numbers_2x.png
| imagesize = 553x400px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Calligraphy exam: Write down the number 37, spelled out, nicely.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by 10 MORE THAN AVERAGE MATH TEACHERS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The comic depicts various similarly formatted examination questions that might appear on test papers at various points in a student's potential academic career. While they all share a similar feel, they are asking for different things, some of which might be considered more serious and examinable proofs of study than others. The joke is that the first and last questions are the same, but have very different interpretations based on the context.
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Exam numbers
! Exam level !! Question !! Answer
|-
| {{w|Kindergarten}} math || Write down the biggest number you can think of || At a kindergarten-level education, it is assumed that an individual might write down a relatively small number like 300, depending upon whether they have encountered the concept of hundreds. It might also be interpreted as "what's the highest number that you (think you) can count up to". Given the nature of a child's exuberant glee at learning about ''really'' big (but otherwise normal) numbers, they may even try an answer something like "a million billion squillion gazillion". It is not certain what criteria would be used to mark this question correct or otherwise, it may actually be a stealth question in child psychology or a question that everybody "gets right" so long as they answer it.
|-
| Pre-{{w|algebra}} || Write down the value of x if x=3x-8 ||

''3x'' refers to the multiplication of 3 and the originally unknown number ''x'', as a convenient shorthand.

By subtracting ''3x'' from both sides, ''-2x = -8''. Divide both sides by -2 to find ''x''=4. Alternately, subtract ''x'' from both sides to give ''0 = 2x - 8'', and as taking 8 from two ''x''s makes it zero, one ''x'' is half that

(Verify by plugging ''x''=4 into the original equation. '''4''' = (3*'''4''') - 8 -> '''4''' = 12 - 8 -> '''4''' = 4.)
|-
| {{w|Calculus}} || Write down the value of ∫0π x sin2 x dx || The integral of the expression is ''((x-sin(2*x))*2*x-cos(2*x))/8 + C''. Plugging in values for ''x'' gives the result as π2/4 = 2.4674...

If one assumes sin2 is an {{w|iterated function}} instead of a square, one instead gets π2{{w|Struve function|H0(1)}}/2 = 2.8062...
|-
| PhD {{w|Cosmology}} || Write down the Hubble constant to within 1% || The Hubble constant is a component of {{w|Hubble's law}}, which describes the relationship between the distance between galaxies and their speed of separation. Its exact value is not known to this level of accuracy; it is about 2.3×10-18 Hz. Different methods of measuring it have come up with significantly different values, and resolving this difference (the {{w|Hubble's law#Hubble tension|Hubble tension}}) is one of the great challenges of modern cosmology. This question might have a different acceptable answer in the future, depending upon further developments in cosmology (although the 'constant' itself changes over time).
|-
| {{w|Game Theory}} || Write down 10 more than the average of the class's answers || Game Theory studies "games" (and 'game-like' situations) in which two or more participants take actions that will succeed or fail based on other participants' decisions. In this case, all students' answers will be averaged (what kind of average is not stated, but the common assumption would be an {{w|arithmetical mean}}), and the highest- (or perhaps only) scoring answer will be one that is 10 more than that average.

If a student knew what everyone else was thinking, this would incentivise them to answer 10 more than the consensus (taking into account their own forthcoming answer), which would not necessarily be the largest number written down. For instance, if the answers end up being 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70, the (mean) average would be 50, making 60 the most correct answer. Since they presumably do not know each other's answers, they will have to guess what those answers are likely to be, factoring in that each of the other students will also be guessing everyone's answers and responding accordingly.

In reality, most game theory exams test your understanding of game theory as an academic subject, not your ability to win games. (A type of class where actual results may result in better grades is a business negotiation class where the results of practice negotiations can determine one's grade on the assignment.)

Something similar to this question is found in the title text of [[2385: Final Exam]].
|-
| Postgraduate Math || Write down the biggest number you can think of || This question echoes the very first example, but would be expected to be answered very differently (unlike a revisiting of most of the others).
Postgraduate math students can probably think of ''very'' large numbers. While the "best" answer could be "{{w|infinity}}" (since, depending on your definition of the word "number", infinity may be the largest possible number that you will have encountered), students familiar with the field of [https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Googology#History Googology] may consider infinity a concept rather than a number, and might give an answer such as Rayo's Number, which was the winning entry in the [https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Big_Number_Duel Big Number Duel]. Even if infinity is an acceptable answer, some infinities are bigger than others.

This might heavily depend upon the branch of mathematics you are studying. However, as named (finite) numbers, or ones with specific and useful notations, might satisfy some questioning contexts, whilst the existence of a whole further set of trans-finite numbers (i.e. increasingly large types of "infinity") would be important considerations in others. For those associated with more computational mathematics, any infinity would be {{w|NaN|Not a Number}}, and their answer might instead be the ceiling of some binary representation (typically ''28n-1'' for some value of ''n''), the largest unsigned value reliably storable in a given byte form for an integer (e.g. a {{w|Integer (computer science)|double quadword}}).

As with the kindergarten question, there may be no previously anticipated "correct" answer. It could be another "correct just so long as you answer it" (or perhaps "sensibly" so) or the mark goes only to those giving the greatest valid number across all submissions.
|-
| {{w|Calligraphy}} (title text) || Write down the number 37, spelled out, nicely || Calligraphy is the art of artistic writing. The title text expands the joke outside the realm of math and points out that since calligraphy does not require any math skills, the only way a calligraphy exam would even mention numbers is if one had to write them out in such a way as to showcase their calligraphic skill and aesthetic judgement (choosing a form and adornement of script that is "nice", which may be a highly subjective choice). In this case, it could be rendered as "thirty-seven" or "thirty seven". {{w|37}} is a number that some people believe [http://thirty-seven.org mysteriously appears more often than it should]; this was a subject of a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6iQrh2TK98 recent Veritasium video].
|}

This style of final exam question, un-numbered and therefore possibly the ''only'' question upon the whole of each final paper, in some ways (for some instances) echoes the question "What is your name?" that Randall will be aware was the sole question given to Discworld's {{w|List of Discworld characters#Victor Tugelbend|Victor Tugelbend}} in an attempt to ensure he comprehensively passed (or utterly failed) his final student-wizard's exam, after many prior times of deliberately not-quite-passing.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[6 different math test questions.]

:[The first panel:]
:Kindergarten math final exam
:Q. Write down the biggest number you can think of
:A. [empty box]

:[The second panel:]
:Pre-algebra final exam
:Q. Write down the value of x if x=3x-8
:A. [empty box]

:[The third panel:]
:Calculus final exam
:Q. Write down the value of [integral sign, from 0 to pi] x sin^2 x dx
:A. [empty box]

:[The fourth panel:]
:PhD cosmology final exam
:Q. Write down the Hubble constant to within 1%
:A. [empty box]

:[The fifth panel:]
:Game theory final exam
:Q. Write down 10 more than the average of the class's answers
:A. [empty box]

:[The sixth panel:]
:Postgraduate math final exam
:Q. Write down the biggest number you can think of
:A. [empty box]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Talk:2966: Exam Numbers

2024-08-01T09:03:42Z

172.69.43.166:

pre-algebra: 4, calculus: pi^2 / 4 (about 2.467), physics: cosmological constant: depends on how you measure it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.48|162.158.167.48]] 18:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Game theory: -5x10⁶ (maybe helpful, maybe not... just be thankful I didn't include an ''i'' factor in there somewhere...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.185|172.70.162.185]] 18:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting; I went with ∞+10. So, between our answers, that makes the average...
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 05:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Could somebody reformat all the math here in whatever LaTeX plugin this wiki uses? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.102|162.158.222.102]] 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Probably not, because the MathML here is broken. But, also, nothing I see requires anything particularly complicated, it can all stay in fairly straightforward (standardly formatted) text. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.224|141.101.98.224]] 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I had to look up "TREE(3)." Seriousness aside, I think the largest number would be the astrological sign 1 that has its end_points_ as galaxy clusters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.184|172.68.245.184]] 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Which astrological sign? Search engines aren't helping. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 20:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::The nonexistent one I just made up that looks like a "1." 😃 [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.6|172.71.222.6]] 21:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:'OAK'? 'ELM'? 'ASH?' 'BOX'? 'YEW'? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.165|141.101.98.165]] 08:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If infinity _is_ a number, it might be a possible solution to the game theory question. The average of any set of numbers that includes infinity is infinity, and infinity + 10 is still infinity. I probably wouldn't try that in most classes, but a game theory professor might approve "gaming" the system, as it were.
:If I would prefer no-one (else) to win, I might submit -∞ as my answer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.74|172.70.90.74]] 20:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::If I really wanted to mess with them, I would submit i. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.248|172.70.160.248]] 08:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I did a bit of a deep dive into wikipedia and the googology wiki and the answer to the last question depends on a few things (along with assuming ZFC). If transfinite ordinals count as numbers, then those at the end of {{w|List of large cardinal properties}} take the cake (if i'm reading it right). Otherwise, something based off [https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Rayo%27s_number Rayo's number] is the best googologists have come up with so far. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 20:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Bumpf

Isn’t the joke in the pre-algebra that it would require algebra in order ro calculate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I agree that it would be worth adding wording along the lines that “the joke here is that you need algebra to solve the equation”. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
: I interpreted the 'pre-' bit as being more like 'proto-' - i.e. it's not fully proper algebra, but it's the kind of work you would do in preparation for tackling proper algebra.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.186.156|172.68.186.156]] 08:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You know, formatting math on this wiki would be a lot easier if the Math extension were correctly installed, but evidently it's not: <math>\int_0^\pi x \sin^2 x \;dx</math> [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 22:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Is that integral really correct? I asked Wolfram Alpha and it gave me
: integral x sin^2(x) dx = 1/8 (2 x (x - sin(2 x)) - cos(2 x)) + constant
which does not seem to be the same as
: −2x sin(2x)+cos(2x)−2x)/28 + C.
But maybe there's something with half-angle formulas that makes them the same? … but I don't think so, they don't evaluate the same for x=0. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 02:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:Yup, looks like it was supposed to be
:: -(2x sin(2x)+cos(2x)-2x^2)/8
:but they messed up the places of the negation and square.
:Though the important part here isn't what it is at any f(x), but what it is for any f(x)-f(y). In this particular case, f(pi)-f(0). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.121|162.158.41.121]] 04:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

== What is a number? ==

Infinity is _not_ a number. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Infinity is absolutely not a number, and is the one answer I would mark as unambiguously wrong for the last one. Just say TREE(G_64) or something. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 20:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:This is correct. No one in post-grad math would write “infinity” and expect that answer to work. Infinity is NOT a number except for seven-year-olds. Yet the explanation above continues to posit it as a possible correct answer. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::I qualify as a "post-grad math", and yet, I think infinity would have been a perfectly valid answer. Let me explain. The term "number" without further context is a bit vague, because there are several possible generalizations of natural numbers (something that presumably everyone agrees to call a "number"), and they are not compatible, ie. there is not a single generalization that generalizes them all. So we have to choose which generalization makes sense in the current context. Since the question is about thinking how big a number is, I naturally thought that the adequate generalization would be one that focuses on the order on natural numbers, ie. ordinals. In that case, my answer to this question would be "the class of numbers I can think of is not bounded, therefore there is no such thing such as a 'biggest number I can think of'". But if I had to write down a big number, I would write ε_{ε_{ε_{...}}} up until I filled the page, because that's the most efficient way I know to write a big, *big* infinity. Which is a number. (and I'm not seven, just to be clear) [[User:Jthulhu|Jthulhu]] ([[User talk:Jthulhu|talk]]) 08:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
:In IEEE floating point math, Infinity is ''not'' Not A Number. The latter is an indication of error (in a context where errors can't be signalled immediately) and an entirely separate concept to infinity. But both are not Normal Numbers. Or even Denormalized Numbers. Floating point math is a whole lot trickier than it appears to be at first glance, and only extremely tangentially related to mathematical reals. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.54|172.68.205.54]] 00:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
::I would have written this, but I saw that your comment already explained the two points I would have made, so, well, well done! [[User:Jthulhu|Jthulhu]] ([[User talk:Jthulhu|talk]]) 08:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A number, by definition, is a construct used to classify and/or compare values. How rigorous this needs be for one limits the extent to which they accept things as being a number. Even things like "apple" could be interpreted as (dimensioned) numbers, with a possible value being "1 fruit"; In that regard, one may consider things like apple=orange<grapes.

Just "infinity" is nearly useless in this regard, as it's "no end thing". Usually interpreted (when necessary) as the countable infinite cardinal x=aleph_null, this prevents most useful comparisons, including dimensional analysis since x^n=x for all counting (aka. finite positive integer) n. Spacetime may or may not be boundless, but we can't tell how many edges may or may not loop. Is it infinity? Yes. Is it infinite? God only knows. Can you *count to it*? God can. Does that make it a number? Depends. Is "infinity plus one" a sane concept? No, it can't be finite, ordinal, and/or real in a way addition is defined; It's without end, and if you could add to it, that would indicate an end.

In contrast, classification has its roots in trade, and barter, and tipping. How much of a thing is enough, but not too much. Somebody may accept between 1/2 and 2/3 of a pie you're splitting, because less wouldn't be fair and more may give them a stomach ache; Is 3<=6x<=4 a number? It's similar in uselessness to "infinity", but whether something is less or more can at least still be established within its range. In the limit, Surreal numbers are the principal example of classification, taking the arithmetic mean of the maximum and minimum of their lower and upper bounds, or the predecessor or successor, or zero. For example, y={y|1} is the biggest number less than one, with z<=y<1 for all z<1. It's less than one, but not any "smaller" than one, with an immeasurably infinitesimal difference 0<1-y.

Choice of axioms is very important for all this, since its full extent can render everything except finite non-negative integers "not a number" (by Presburger Arithmetic), or allow everything up to and including unique antichain cardinalities (by Martin's Maximum).

The sixth power of the smallest ordinal with the cardinality of the continuum in the constructed universe (w_1^6 where beth_n=C(w_n)) is the biggest number I can personally conceptualize, although I can consistently work with w_2 in this system as well. Does the fact that this is infinite make it any less useful as a number than 2.5? No. It says I can think accurately about all the standard ways of comparing things in up to 6 infinitely divisible dimensions. Just because one cannot necessarily picture something others can't doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a one-eyed person can only see a 2 spatial + 1 temporal dimensional image, that doesn't mean depth doesn't exist, it just means it's "hidden" from that perspective. 3+1+2 has two "hidden" dimensions compared to normal 3+1 spacetime, and beth_1 is infinitely divisible unlike the quantum (at most beth_0) nature of our known universe, but I can still work with 3+1+1, and 3+1+2 in the same way people can think about a (possibly looping) universe where everything can be bigger or smaller, and spatial geometry itself may be some degree of spherical, and people have been working with fractions since antiquity, so why should I limit myself to what other people can grasp?

In summary: "number" is too vague for claiming most things "aren't" to be reasonable. Infinite values (that aren't just "infinity", that's vague enough by itself to be almost as unreasonable) are just one one example of a valid answer most people seem to be up in arms about. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.181|162.158.41.181]] 01:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

:All right, all right. I yield. That’s some... _impressive_ reasoning. If we are going to redefine words to meaninglessness then there is no hope of engaging in useful discussion. I’m sure Randall will at least get a good laugh out of the idea that post-grad math students would submit “infinity” as the largest number they could think of. I still think it a disservice to readers to posit infinity as a _valid_ answer, though. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 05:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2024-07-31T09:54:17Z

172.69.43.166: /* Issues with Math display */

Darn, I have no idea what this comic is about. Randal has eluded my yet again. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Calculus. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.143|162.158.79.143]] 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
::Basically, differentiation is easy to do by hand, but integration, even of things that look simple on paper, can be very difficult, as well as easy to mess up or get lost in. [[User:Glassvein|Glassvein]] ([[User talk:Glassvein|talk]]) 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

And Calc 2 is why I stopped being a Computer Science major and moved (eventually) to majoring in English. Consistent 4.0s in math through Trig and Calc I ... 1.6 in Calc II, retook and got a 1.8. Without the Calc, couldn't do the physics; without the physics, couldn't get my 2-yr degree and move on from community college to a full university. I don't know what all the integration stuff in the flowchart is (since I didn't do well in Calc and it was a long time ago), but there's so very many things that become [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonelementary_integral nonelementary integrals] that all sorts of special tricks have to be employed for things that look like they should be easy. It's like having a problem that's very easy to do division on, but requires special advanced mathematical tricks to use multiplication upon.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.208|108.162.216.208]] 19:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Going to start learning integration in 3 weeks... Wish me luck. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.96|162.158.62.96]] 12:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Basic ideas:
Integration by parts is the reverse of the Product Rule.
Substitution is the reverse of the Chain Rule.
Cauchy's Formula gives the result of a contour integration in the complex plane, using "singularities" of the integrand.
Partial fractions is just splitting up one complex fraction into a sum of simple fractions, which is relevant because they are easier to integrate.
Stokes theorem is the relationship between an integral over an area, and an integral over the boundary of said area.
Riemann integration was the first rigorous definition of integration. This has been superseded by Lesbesgue integration.
Bessel functions are like 2d versions of sin and cos, and turn up sometimes when doing integration.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.89.61|162.158.89.61]] 20:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:"Lesbesgue integration." Best. Freudian. Slip. Ever. SCNR :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 08:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I know what you mean ;). After all, Gen 8 Pokemon was announced the other day, so you read it as "Pokemon League Integration". Completely understandable. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.78.28|172.68.78.28]] 14:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wolfram Alpha be somewhere in that flowchart? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.142|162.158.255.142]] 20:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who is too dumb to integrate [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.36|162.158.90.36]] 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
:Symbolic differentiation is just going through algorithm ; there are few functions which don't have it but they tend to be constructed in complicated way, and if function have differentiation it's usually easy to find it. Symbolic integration requires lot of thinking and trial and error ; even very easy function may lack primitive function and even if they don't, you may be unable to find it except randomly. If it's exercise in book, the ones for differentiation are done by thinking about some interesting function and putting it there. The ones for integration are done by thinking about some interesting function and putting it's differentiation there. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Oddly enough it mentions Riemann integration, but that is the integral most people know how to use. Turns out there are a lot more (e.g. lebesgue and generalized riemann integrals). I'm halfway through a second semester of real analysis and was floored by how involved integration can be. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.106|172.68.34.106]] 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One of my professors once said: "Never try to integrate a function. Almost all (in a strict mathematical sense) functions are impossible to integrate, so there is no reason why you should even try." --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.128|162.158.88.128]] 07:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How is there no "+ C" joke in there [[User:Blagae|Blagae]] ([[User talk:Blagae|talk]]) 13:16, 28 February 2019
(UTC)

Probably because he put a +C joke in 1201:_Integration_by_Parts. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.160|108.162.219.160]] 13:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is all the maths broken [[User:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e]] ([[User talk:GcGYSF(asterisk)P(vertical line)e|talk]]) 22:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
== Risch algorithm ==

I thought I could contribute to the article with a better explanation of the Risch algorithm, since I have a bit of expertise here -- I've read all the original papers, plus the Cherry papers that add the extra features like Li and erf. I pulled out some of the old papers to review my knowledge of symbolic differential algebra (it's been a while!) then typed up a careful explanation which corrected some errors in the original description and fleshed out many more details... possibly excessively, but hey, that's kind of our calling here.

Then I saw that Glassvein completely removed my version for what appears to be the original without so much as a mention in the edit description. What gives? I

[[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
: Probably due to simultaneous editing. I've restored your definition. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.128|162.158.88.128]] 16:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

:: OK, wasn't sure if it was intentional (if somehow it was worse). Thanks! [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 01:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
That was indeed an accident due to simultaneous editing. My bad!
[[User:Glassvein|Glassvein]] ([[User talk:Glassvein|talk]]) 02:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

== Numerical Integration ==
Better still...plot the graph - cut along the line - weigh the part under the line. :-) [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

[Anonymous: I understand mathematically that integration is much more difficult than differentiation, but is there a possibility that Randall is making the comment that the same is true for Society? Integration has proved very difficult, and has led to riots, but experience shows that dividing our society up into small subgroups (that then argue with each other, but don't spend enough time together for riots) is relatively easy.]{{unsigned ip|108.162.219.112}}

:Good luck plotting {{w|Weierstrass function}}. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

== overstates the case? ==

Current summary says that the comic overstates the case of how difficult integration can be. I'm not sure that's true. Sure, you can use numerical integration to get a specific area under the curve, but that's not what the comic is referring to. Unless some mathematician can show here how integration can be done by repeatedly following a set of fixed rules, Ithis comic is actually completely accurate. And that's why it's funny. :-)

== Purify the Power rule? ==
The derivative power rule shown is combined with the chain rule. I think it should be stated to be a pure power rule, without the chain rule components. When I tried making that adjustment, I got error messages that I could not resolve, so could someone who knows how the MATH feature works remove the chain rule from the power rule? [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 18:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

== Change to explanation of substitution ==

So the LaTeX on this wiki is apparently broken, meaning we can't change the math things without stuff screwing up. Unfortunately, there are a lot of alterations I'd like to make. Most are minor, like simplifying the power rule explanation, but more importantly, the explanation for integration by substitution is straight-up wrong. I'm going ahead with the change anyway, because hey, a broken explanation can't be any worse than a wrong explanation, right? I'm just gonna wait and hope that this gets fixed in the future. [[User:ISaveXKCDpapers|ISaveXKCDpapers]] ([[User talk:ISaveXKCDpapers|talk]]) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

== Issues with Math display ==

I'm not a CS student... but I do software engineering and web servers including MediaWiki. The issue is described here: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Enable_TeX/problems#Error_:_Failed_to_parse_(Missing_texvc_executable) Missing texvc executable error]

I will note that the installed version of Math per the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Version Special:Version] page is 7 years old... Yikes. [[User:EricM|EricM]] ([[User talk:EricM|talk]]) 03:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

:It's from [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2117:_Differentiation_and_Integration&diff=prev&oldid=344193 this point] that the math-markup went wrong (it was corrected, factually, but using unsupported markup). I don't have enough experience with MathML to know why the Substitution rewrite fails to redtext whilst the Cauchy markup (and others) does not, with substantially the same invoked formatting. Is it just an unbalanced paren or incorrect delimiter..? Visually, seems not, but the failover text seems to refer to errors in the layers of parsing module(s) beyond the edited source and thus not as explanatory or demonstrably obvious as to where the mishandling gets invoked.
:From a purely eyeballed parsing, the markup grammar looks consistent, though. I mean, the difference between the <code><nowiki><math></nowiki></code> being immediately followed by the apparently more usual algebra of having a ''whitespace'' between it and the algebra seemed to be a possibility (an easy work-around, one perhaps imagining that the current library has a slight regex error when looking for initial components), but that doesn't really match the pattern of what does and doesn't (apparently) work.
:So let's look at three things that don't and do render...
<math> d(f(u)) = f'(u) \frac{du}{dx} dx </math> '''note: is mathtag-space-algebra, still does not work'''
<math>f(u) = \int f'(u) \frac{du}{dx} dx</math>
<math>\int f'(u) \frac{du}{dx} dx</math>
:...and compare with one (more complicated) bit that clearly does work...
<math> \frac{d^n}{da^n}f(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{\left(z-a\right)^{n+1}}\, dz.</math>
:Try sub-elements, first testing \frac usage
<math> \frac{du}{dx} </math> '''fails'''
<math> \frac{x}{y} </math> '''fails''' (so not du or dx at fault
<math> \frac{d^n}{da^n}f(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{\left(z-a\right)^{n+1}}\, dz.</math> '''works''' (as we know, taken from Cauchy)
<math> \frac{d^n}{da^n}f(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{\left(z-a\right)^{n+1}}\, dz</math> '''does not work''' (just an ending dot removed)
<math> \frac{du}{dx}.</math> '''fails''' (dot added to barebones, so it's not that)
<math> d(f(u)) = f'(u) \frac{du}{dx} dx.</math> '''fails''' (dot added to full version)
<math> \frac{d^n}{da^n}f(a) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i} \oint_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{\left(z-a\right)^{n+1}}.</math> '''does not work''' (just an ending dot removed)
:...you know, this set of results (described as failed or working as I currently see them, in case this changes in the future) leads me to just one particular conclusion. The working Cauchy formula is cached from when the "TEX validator and converter" worked (and piped through the postcript/whatever rendered), meaning that this formula image isn't broken because it's remembered from when it was Ok.
:Anything ''new'' we try, however, finds no cached result and fails because of an actual (failed) later update of the texvc. (Conceivably, the >7yo version of Math would be happily working, even today.) Note that there are many comments that Latex (if we use that) can be finicky, and getting ImageMagick binaries manually compiled properly (if that's the chosen renderer) has been known to be very difficult.
:One could say that it's more that it was actively broken, rather than fell into unupdayed obselesence. Yes, by not updating something, there may be further dependancies that later get invoked that fail/complain about the older element (perhaps for good reasons, or perhaps just for "I'm not going to test my product against anything older than <version X>, so I'll just make it failover to make it the end-user's problem") and stagnating software isn't exactly best practice, but I see no obvious signs that the vital (half-)updated library was actually necessary to patch anything as severe as a security exploit, probably just version-tweak that the lack of probably shouldn't have mattered too much unless a specific new feature (not being used here) was desired.
:But then, I'm personally running software and OSes a full quarter of a century old (knowing how much 'risk' I'm taking... practically zero, given that it's not networked up) on hardware that's slightly older, ''plus'' have some of the very latest systems that have totally annoying new behaviours (how on earth can you make Notepad more difficult to use..? ...and my muscle-memory is now nearly useless when trying to use Win11's folder windows with long-used keyboard shortcuts that have worked pretty much since Windows3.0!), so perhaps I'm naturally more ambivalent against just updating everything at all times (never mind anything like CrowdStrike, which I thankfully dodged being affected by).
:So, anyway, yes something (system-deep) needs updating ''properly''. Or else get another system to render what we want and then upload ''that'' image to use here as an inline image. If I actually had an upload-enabled account then that's what I'd try myself, next. Or perhaps the solution (this side of the necessary server-priviliges) is access an existing version as a cross-server transcluded resource. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2964: Olympic Sports

2024-07-29T10:05:42Z

172.69.43.166:

What took bro so long
Is he stupid [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.119|141.101.98.119]] 13:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:Seems totally unclear what you're referring to, here. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::i think they're referring to this comic being somewhat late. [[user talk:lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/miLcaqq2Zpk]] 15:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:: The comic appeared around 0800 EDT 20240727 (Saturday, a day late). As most folks here surely know, late posts are common on xkcd but aren't often later than the stated "MWF". After 19 years, and without the "weeks ahead" buffer insisted upon by "traditional" syndicated comics (as shown by [https://xkcd.com/2961/ Crowdstrike], posted the day of the event), I think Randall has done remarkably well. I'd struggle to keep a schedule like this for 19 weeks.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.95|172.71.151.95]] 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think "''Synchronized'' Swimming" would be the most hilarious. One person flailing while a whole team tries to make it look choreographed. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 15:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:I picture two people that are synchronized to each other while the third person tries to look choreographed - [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.172|162.158.212.172]] 15:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:Why must I think of "The fox has left his lair"... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.71|172.71.160.71]] 16:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:Google "SNL synchronized swimming". There's a classic sketch. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:I reckon discus has got to be up there. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 10:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I hear there's an opening on the GB equestrian team. Just sayin'... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.119|141.101.69.119]] 19:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree about a couple. Beginning pole vaulters are incredibly funny. Beginners on the pommel horse aren't usually very funny. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.252|162.158.186.252]] 19:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:I also think pole vault would be in the last category. It has always looked to me like an incredibly difficult maneuver. And I remember doing pommel horse in school; I wasn't very athletic, but I could swing around a little. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"Ski jump" has got to be a reference to Eddie the Eagle.{{unsigned ip|172.70.115.96}}
Eddie was British champion. And he changed Olympic qualification rules.{{unsigned ip|172.69.43.166}}
: Both Bogataj and Edwards were competitive ski jumpers (Edwards, admittedly, marginally so), whereas the trope of this cartoon is that the protagonist (presumably Randall) is trying to enter the competition without any prior experience. The vibe seems to be - Challenger: "Can you fail more spectacularly than these two?" Randall: "Hold my beer." Olympic official: "Nice try, stick guy, but no. Here's your beer back." 'Thankfully for all concerned' seems a better fit to the Bogataj case, in which he was injured, spectators were put at risk, and the competition schedule was likely disrupted, than the Edwards case in which the only injuries were to the reputations of Olympic administrators, and which yielded a nice 15 minutes for Edwards. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.253|108.162.245.253]] 00:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
: I really doubt the ski jump thing is a reference to anything specific. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.23|108.162.221.23]] 13:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Randall has clearly never heard of an ejector crab https://youtu.be/UcOjeneHJ6E [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.207|172.69.6.207]] 16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
: Actually this is an even better example https://youtu.be/hxOW739UlWk [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.144|172.69.6.144]] 16:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

A German surfer managed to moon all Olympics viewers today, so I doubt Randall could beat that... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.24|108.162.221.24]] 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the worst XKCDs I've ever seen, I think. {{unsigned ip|162.158.63.70}}

Possibly Randall is aware that an uncoached newcomer to the single sculls will almost certainly capsize their boat, quite possibly one the first stroke as this is the most unstable position. It might be possible to flip a pair oar as well, since the professional rower can only hold up the boat on one side. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.223|172.68.64.223]] 08:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Further, the the pair oar would likely inscribe a circle due to the asymetric thrust. In the larger boats he'd likely get smashed in the spine by an oar handle (TBF not that funny) or catch a crab (dig in an oar) that literally throws him out of the boat (both painful and funny) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.64.148|172.68.64.148]] 09:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2964: Olympic Sports

2024-07-27T23:27:53Z

172.69.43.166: Eddie the eagle

Talk:2962: President Venn Diagram

2024-07-26T16:46:48Z

172.69.43.166:

<noinclude>{{notice|This site is intended to explain the technical details and inspirations (perhaps humorous) behind the comics. This particular page is for Discussion/Talk about the particular comic in question, which ''will'' involve some personal overviews and meta-discussion. But it is not the ideal place to reproduce the wi(l)der issue of public opinion, which the actual political process will eventually establish, and many other public forums and outlets exist in which you can convey your own current leanings/observations on the whole election-related happenings. Please be <s>sensible</s> ''typically geeky in your wit'', and try to keep all the ideological heat and partisan arguments out of this as much as possible.|image=warning!!.png|}}</noinclude>

Another really timely comic. Biden just dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris yesterday. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Forget Biden, Hillary and Obama. This is the endorsement that counts. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.199|172.68.23.199]] 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose no one is allowed to say that the upper right circle is mislabeled. It was supposed to say incompetent, dishonest and despicable. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.25|162.158.90.25]] 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:You're allowed to say it, but then we're allowed to suggest (with rather more emperical proof) that her presumptive opponent better fits your rewording. How about we all just don't try to re-run the old arguments (or pre-run the upcoming election) in that sort of tone, eh?
:(To be clear, Randall has made positive comments to his favoured candidate, rather than stooping to arbitrarily attacking their opponent. If you can't at least be as positive in your own convictions then it's really not going to help your cause.) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.6|172.69.195.6]] 04:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::First, Harris has more than one opponent, not just within her own party, but in the general election to follow if she’s nominated. Second, the many good qualities of my favo[u]red candidate are irrelevant to this comic, so I didn’t mention ''her''. Third, I didn’t start this political discussion; Randall did, by making a refutable claim in his comic. Lastly, there’s nothing arbitrary about a resident of California pointing out [https://truthout.org/articles/kamala-harris-has-a-distinguished-career-of-serving-injustice/ facts about the former attorney general of California] that people in other states, such as Massachusetts, might be completely ignorant of. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.253|162.158.186.253]] 05:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Ugh, those abuses from the supposed party of police accountability. Politics in this country are so performative. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.75|108.162.216.75]] 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
: You could say it, but then the box which says 'Kamala Harris' is mislabeled and 'Donald Trump' should be placed in the box above the middle one. [[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 07:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::Also by saying the first circle is mislabeled you also say Randall is all those things. And if you feel that way, then remember you are free to NOT read his comics... I'm always on Randall's side in politics it seems, but I'm from another country, so I wont vote for any presidential candidates even if Randall was on the ballot ;-) I won't say more here now... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Note the difference between “upper right” and “upper left.” [[Special:Contributions/172.70.207.198|172.70.207.198]] 21:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well Kamala, you had a good run. Randall has the touch of death when it comes to picking political candidates. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.39|162.158.154.39]] 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:You mean that no candidate endorsed by XKCD has ever won? ;) https://xkcd.com/2383/ [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Randall was smart enough to not make a comic endorsing Joe *before* he got elected like he did with Hilldawg and (now) Kamala.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.31|162.158.154.31]] 11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
: Not so; Randall endorsed [https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/28/obama/ Obama in 2008]. [[User:-insert valid name here-|-insert valid name here-]] ([[User talk:-insert valid name here-|talk]]) 15:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe Randall secretly wants Kamala to lose and is doing 5D chess. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.130.122|172.69.130.122]] 16:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Randall angling for VP? [[User:Alcatraz ii|Alcatraz ii]] ([[User talk:Alcatraz ii|talk]]) 02:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think Randall would be good president. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Meh, he seems to at least not be good at public speaking. And from what he says about himself, he would be distracted way too easily. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:I, as an Epsilon Eridani native, think he would be a spectacular president, but his research priorities would swiftly result in [https://www.space.com/universe-end-false-vacuum-decay false vacuum decay], so please, for the sake of the universe, please do not elect him. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.218|172.70.214.218]] 20:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The layout of this Venn diagram reminds me of https://xkcd.com/112/ {{unsigned ip|162.158.166.234|03:04, 23 July 2024}}

I think I would probably swap the two. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.23|162.158.174.23]] 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be very interested in which non-Politicians Randall would put into the top middle section. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:People eligible to be president who would make a good president but aren't politicians? I would be much more interested in who he would list in the right middle section, that is, people who would make good presidents and love Venn diagrams, but are ineligible. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.133|172.69.6.133]] 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess Munroe has no issues with questions about ongoing U.S. backed genocides shrugged off with "shrimp and grits!"? {{unsigned|Markifi|05:39, 23 July 2024}}

What really strikes me is that the USA have a (de facto) 2-Party system and still go so much into personal attacks and endorsements, etc. which in my mind could be the decision-making bit between 2 similiar parties in a multi-party system, or 2 equally sympathic parties to me. But in my mind a 2-party system should at least have the upside of actually discussing policy, and voters deciding based on that... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If Randall was in charge he could stop supplying weapons to Israel probably [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.63|172.69.195.63]] 10:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

:Randall sempai- we are targeted too. {{unsigned ip|172.70.131.52|15:37, 23 July 2024}}

Re: the mouseover text: "[[1062:_Budget_News|I am more of a deficit sugar glider]]" ought to be in the running. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.157|172.69.58.157]] 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

personally I'd put most candidates either the top left [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.24|172.69.58.24]] 17:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Neat. A Euler diagram (and no, Venn cannot just have this one). {{unsigned ip|172.71.158.226|18:18, 23 July 2024}}
:Quite! Venn called his diagrams "{{w|Euler diagram|Euler circles}}." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.151.137|172.71.151.137]] 22:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the 'eligible' topic is related to a campaign against Harris saying she isn't eligible because she's not american enough. This (fake) news was reposted in France by french Trump's fans. {{unsigned ip|172.69.225.223|20:36, 23 July 2024}}
:No, the topic of Constitutional eligibility, it is more nuanced than each said is represented to state it. Kamala Harris was undisputedly (I believe) born in the US. This makes her a native-born citizen. The Constitution calls for a natural-born citizen but doesn't define that. From writings at the time (I don't remember which) natural-born means born to two citizen parents. Apparently, neither of her parents were US citizens at the time of her birth, so once again (as with Obama, Ted Cruz, others) there are fair questions by thinking people. [[User:ProfDigory|ProfDigory]] ([[User talk:ProfDigory|talk]]) 23:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

_sigh_ I was about to come in here and suggest that we don't do the obvious political battle here but then I realized I'd be up all night because someone was WRONG on the internet [[386: Duty Calls]]! [[User:Tomb|Tomb]] ([[User talk:Tomb|talk]]) 21:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I, too, have rather strong political opinions that absolutely nobody here cares about. But I also wanted to extend a heartfelt thank-you to the person who put the cautionary banner to not make the main article into a debate platform. I hope its presence becomes a staple of articles on all forthcoming controversial comics, as we commence our quadrennial plunge into the bubbling muck of American election season. -MeZimm [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.59|172.68.34.59]] 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to include a link to the actual United States Constitution in regard to the Presidential eligibility section? In other words, I'm wondering if it would be preferable to link directly to a primary source of information as opposed to a tertiary source like Wikipedia? Either way, I have a [https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-1-clause-5 link to the document on the Congress.gov website] for those who may want to have a read. [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 00:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have a longer version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWR2uTfrh-k&ab_channel=GOPWarRoom ? I want to see the diagram props! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.147.19|172.71.147.19]] 21:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:"So many memes" https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XOjRsJiBTF0&ab_channel=FoxNews [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.129|172.70.214.129]] 22:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:I see you are a netizen of exquisite taste. Might I suggest https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=kamala+venn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.29|108.162.245.29]] 22:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
::Oh my God, infinite anonymous clipping! https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5125621/user-clip-venn-diagram [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.3|172.71.150.3]] 23:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:::[https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5125622/user-clip-circle-venn-diagram A fourth Eulerian circle emerges!] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.5|162.158.186.5]] 23:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It has been decided. As per the [https://x.com/yashar/status/1815476912355205212 edict of the National Republican Senatorial Committee,] the problems with Kamala Harris are: (1) Her laugh is weird. And, (2) she loves Venn diagrams. Let the games begin! We shall [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI_lxFv203I&ab_channel=SaturdayNightLive focus on the two issues Americans do care about: swine flue and fracking.] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.200|172.68.23.200]] 22:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:For anyone who didn't click on the link provided above, "habit of laughing at inappropriate moments" (NOT "laugh is weird") and "loves Venn diagrams" were two bullet points out of seventeen, both of them listed under the final section labeled "Weird" after many more obviously concerning policy positions. So, this discussion entry is yet another example of dishonest misrepresentation from the Left. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.61|172.68.34.61]] 15:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
::And dishonest misrepresentation is definitely not something that you get from the Right, right?</sarcasm> "Crime Of The Century", I ''don't'' think...
::This is why I instantly and instinctively thought it a bad idea for Randall to make his opinion known, in this comic. Not because I have reason to diagree with his (singular boiled-down to minimal description) assessment, but because everyone not ''totally'' on the same hymnsheet is likely to start complaining that only ''their'' boiled-down assessment (usually an objection) has any veracity... And sparks an ideogical tit-for-tat with far more heat than light. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a really sad comic. Harris is a top cop and a corrupt one. America deserves better than either party is offering, and the supposed party of police accountability should not be running Harris. It's sad that Randall is telling himself otherwise. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.91|172.70.178.91]] 13:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:I was not aware that Harris was ever in the police, herself, and cannot find any reference to it in a quick search. I know she advocated police bodycams, which only corrupt cops need to properly fear/avoid using, though obviously one can always be corrupt "in your spare time", or if you're not a uniformed officer/just sat at a desk. Anyway, you have an opinion, and feel free to make your own webcomic if you have better names, wish to add other names and/or want to change the basis upon which Harris's name is judged. It might well be that (of all likely candidates, as well as the unlikely one that is "me") Randall honestly sees Kamala as (one of) the better individual(s) for the role. If everyone agreed, there'd be no need to ask everybody and try to distil the resulting popularity contest into a close-fought result that maybe half the country won't like (but who ''would'' like a result that the other half(ish) of the country wouldn't like), give or take various statistical anomalies. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.103|172.70.85.103]] 15:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
:: RE: [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-call-Kamala-Harris-a-cop Why do people call Kamala Harris a cop?] - Top answer: "Because she was a prosecutor, both for San Francisco and as Attorney General of California. Many people conflate cops and prosecutors as they work closely. Harris had a reputation as a tough prosecutor, but also refused to seek the death penalty against the killer of a San Francisco police officer, and started a rehabilitation program that let some offenders clear their records. So her record was mixed." {{unsigned ip|172.68.3.2|15:23, 26 July 2024}}
::: Right. That's an odd definition of a cop. You could almost call a fireman a cop (or a cop a fireman), or a donut-store owner.
::: And opinions about the efficacy of the Death Penalty varies (it stops reoffending, as well as any possible full exoneration in the event of a miscarriage of justice; the jury (figuratively and otherwise) is out whether it prevents further crimes by other people, especially those who are already subject to the pressures of 'street justice' with nonjudicial killing a constant threat anyway). Rehabilitation of ''receptive and truly repentent'' criminals is also surely better than letting everyone rot, regardless; or, if/when released, giving them no hope but to be more prolific criminals; and perhaps even relying upon being housed and fed by the penal system again as the only option, so caused more upset to force the courts' hands.
::: It's not really a mixed record, but a mixable interpretation. And "hang 'em all" people will have different perspectives from the "always be forgiving of mistakes" crowd, with the ideal 'truth' likely being somewhere between, and reality always going to err in both directions. So you can disagree about specific judgements and decisions, but be careful of either lauding or lambasting a wider policy shift. Hard cases make bad laws, and bad laws make individual cases hard to deal with.
::: Imagine that you're Glynn Simmons, or Sandra Hemme, or one of those eventually exonerated only ''after'' their exocutions (not necessarily all nice people, but doubts or actual disprooving facts about their parts in any particular Capital crime, or the social goalposts shifted away from discriminatory and heavy-handed policies, is a not an unusual event).
::: All I'm saying is that there's going to be nuance. And every person will have "mixed" approval ratings, even per a given individual's own personal assessment if they know enough to get at least a 2D viewpoint, and ideally at least 3D. And I don't know how anyone without an extreme view on the world would equate a general policy of enhanced rehabilitation with corruptness (when corruption can equally involve framing and improperly prosecuting innocent people, whilst letting the truly irredeemable go free). [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 16:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

2958: Hatchery

2024-07-15T08:25:30Z

172.69.43.166: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2958
| date = July 12, 2024
| title = Hatchery
| image = hatchery_2x.png
| imagesize = 239x336px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Anadromous fish are more vulnerable in rivers, since the lack of salt means you can quickly crack passwords using rainbow trout tables.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT EXECUTING REMOTE COD - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Remote code execution}} is a type of {{w|software exploit}} that takes advantage of a bug to allow a remote user of a computer application to make it run code that it was not intended to execute. For example, a webserver with such a bug might allow a user of a web page to make it run a program that deletes system files or displays private information.

The joke arising from this comic is that if you remove the "e" from "code", you get "remote cod execution". This refers to killing ("executing") {{w|cod|codfish}} remotely, using an exploit in a network application that allows one to view and manipulate the {{w|hatchery}}.

The title text contains a pun on {{w|rainbow tables}}, referring to {{w|rainbow trout}}, one type of which ({{w|steelhead}}) is {{w|anadromous fish|anadromous}} (migrating up rivers to spawn -- {{w|salmon}} are another well known example). Rainbow tables are used when trying to crack hashed passwords; these are files with a carefully pre-computed selection of passwords and their corresponding hash values, which can be used to more efficiently recover passwords that are retrieved hashed. To prevent rainbow tables from being usable in this way, most modern password systems use "{{w|salt (cryptography)|salt}}" — an extra random string that gets appended to the password before hashing so the same password will potentially have many different hashes, and it becomes infeasible to recover it even with the acceleration offered by rainbow tables. An additional pun is that rivers contain fresh water, so there's no salt (the chemical kind) and the fish are therefore more vulnerable.

The comic dialogue itself starts the whole chain of puns off by using the phrase "shooting fish in a barrel", which is figuratively used to mean that the task is extremely easy, but here becomes clear that he is literally {{w|Capital punishment|executing}} fish, without needing to be there in person. Also, Black Hat has [[374: Journal|previously]] talked about shooting "lonely, angsty fish in a barrel."

It might also be a pun referencing {{w|Call of Duty}}, as the game's acronym is "COD" and Black Hat is seen shooting something on a computer with a "Blam!". In this sense, "remote COD execution" would refer to running Call of Duty on the fish hatchery's computer equipment remotely.

{{w|Fish (Unix shell)|fish}} is also the name of a {{w|UNIX shell}}. Shells are popular targets for computer hackers as they are capable of being used to run arbitrary commands if sufficient access is gained through them.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat is sitting at a computer desk, with Cueball standing behind him.]
:Black Hat: Shooting fish in a barrel.
:Computer: Blam!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:A new fish hatchery exploit allows remote cod execution.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Computer security]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Puns]]

2947: Pascal's Wager Triangle

2024-06-19T15:21:54Z

172.69.43.166: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2947
| date = June 17, 2024
| title = Pascal's Wager Triangle
| image = pascals_wager_triangle_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x802px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In contrast to Pascal's Wager Triangle, Pascal's Triangle Wager argues that maybe God wants you to draw a triangle of numbers where each one is the sum of the two numbers above it, so you probably should, just in case.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BOT WHO BELIEVED THE N BOTS ABOVE HIM - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The comic is a conflation of {{w|Pascal's Wager}} and {{w|Pascal's Triangle}}. It's structured as a layout that emulates Pascal's triangle, an infinite triangle of numbers where the top number is 1 and each value below is the sum of the adjacent number(s) above it. The second row has two 1s (each the sum of the single 1 above), and the third row has a 1 (the sum of a single 1 in the second row), a 2 (the sum of both 1s above it), and another 1, and so on. It plays important roles in binomial expansion, probability theory, and other areas of math. While {{w|Blaise Pascal}} did not invent the triangle, it is named after him (an example of {{w|Stigler's law of eponymy}}).

:
1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
.
.
.
:

Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument proposed by the same Pascal. Essentially it says that if God exists, both the rewards for believing in God and the punishment for nonbelief are infinite; if not, the cost of belief and benefit for nonbelief are negligible. Therefore, if there is a finite possibility that God exists, however small, one should believe in God.

The comic merges the two: each Cueball is wagering his proof of a god or gods to the Cueballs below him, thereby creating Cueballs that believe in the sum of the number of gods of the Cueballs above them. In the second row, the two Cueballs each believe in one god, as intended by the original Cueball. However, in the third row, the Cueball in the middle interprets the two proofs offered to him as proving the existence of two gods. Theoretically, this expansion would continue for all integers as the triangle grows, giving rise to a belief in escalating numbers of gods going down and towards the middle of the triangle. This is clearly not the intent of the first Cueball, who simply wagered the proof of his one god, but he has no control over the situation below him.

It is unclear why the Cueballs behave in this fashion, instead of treating all the proofs as proving the existence of the same god. Perhaps each one rewords their arguments for god(s) sufficiently to make them sound different than other gods. This is not without precedent; for instance, scholars of comparative mythology believe{{acn}} that the religion of Proto-Indo-European peoples splintered into many disparate religions of Europe and West Asia.

This comic may be referencing a common counterargument to Pascal's Wager — that it works equally well for ''any'' hypothetical god which offers paradise for one action and damnation otherwise. This can even include hypothetical gods with contradictory criteria for entrance into paradise. In this case, the Cueballs apparently chose to believe in ''n'' deities to cover their bases.

The title text suggests that everyone should draw a proper Pascal's Triangle, since there is a possibility that God wants you to do so, and if they do then the benefits of pleasing God or the costs of displeasing God could be high, whereas if they have no such desire then there is minimal cost to drawing one anyway. The failing of this logic is that God may have a positive preference for you ''not'' to draw a Pascal's Triangle (though at least according to the Catholic Church this is unlikely, as Pascal himself is on the way to {{w|beatification}}.)

Pascal's Wager was previously mentioned in the title text of [[525: I Know You're Listening]].

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

:[Cueballs, each holding some document, are shown in a triangular arrangement, with arrows pointing from upper to lower Cueballs:]
C1
C2 C3
C4 C5 C6
C7 C8 C9 C10
C11 C12 C13 C14 C15
:[The pattern may continue downwards, off-comic, as the lowest rank are only half in-frame. Some of the following speech bubbles that are edge-adjacent are not entirely in view as they extend sidways off-pane, but are still given here in full.]
:C1: Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C2 & C3: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C4 & C6: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C5: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''two''' gods!
:C7: I'm convinced! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my god!
:C8 & C9: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''three''' gods!
:C12 & C14: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''four''' gods!
:C13: Ok, I believe you both! Hey, you two below me! Here's a proof that you should believe in my '''six''' gods!
:[The speech bubbles of C10, C11 and C15 are not seen at all, but would all be a "my (singular) god" quote.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Pascal's Wager Triangle

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Talk:936: Password Strength

2024-06-11T21:11:01Z

172.69.43.166:

''Fix the software first.'' If you double the time it takes to enter each repeated password attempt you make brute force attacks pointless. Imagine you allowed a hurried user who screws up their own password entry w/ frozen fingers. If their system starts out with a 1 second delay, then doubles to two, then to four, etc. the time it takes to wait is 2^n. Six screw ups cost you a minute, twenty errors and you are waiting 291 hours before your next log-in attempt.... kmc 2015-05-10 {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.124}}

: That's not how brute force attacks work. They steal the hashes of the passwords and then brute force them locally. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.107|198.41.235.107]] 23:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
:: Both are brute force. It is specified in the comic that we assume an attack against a weak remote web service though. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.231|162.158.150.231]] 13:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You still have to vary the words with a bit of capitalization, punctuation and numbers a bit, or hackers can just run a dictionary attack against your string of four words. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
: Several discussions around the internet around this -- the consensus [ http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/936 looks like] that once this scheme is published it is fairly simple to run a dictionary attack on the password. My advise to most people is to use a password manager like lastpass or onepass that can generate pure random password. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.253.6|162.158.253.6]] 23:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No you don't. Hackers cannot run a dictionary attack against a string of four randomly picked words.
Look at the number of bits displayed in the image: 11 bits for each word.
That means he's assuming a dictionary of 2048 words, from which each word is picked randomly.
The assumption is that the cracker knows your password scheme.
[[Special:Contributions/86.81.151.19|86.81.151.19]] 20:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Willem

:I just wrote a program to bruteforce this password creation method. https://github.com/KrasnayaSecurity/xkcd936/blob/master/listGen936.py Once I get it I'll try coming up with more bruteforcing algorithms such as substituting symbols, numbers, camel case, and the like. Point is, don't rely on this or any one method. I wouldn't be surprised if the crackers are already working on something like this. [[User:Lieutenant S.|Lieutenant S.]] ([[User talk:Lieutenant S.|talk]]) 07:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
:It took 1.25 hours to bruteforce "correcthorsebatterystaple" using the 2,000 most common words with one CPU. [[User:Lieutenant S.|Lieutenant S.]] ([[User talk:Lieutenant S.|talk]]) 07:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
:: 1) ... as compared to 69 milliseconds for the other method. 2) Since you are able to test 3,9 billion passwords as second (very impressive!) I am guessing that your setup is not performing its attack over a ”weak remote service”, which is breaking the rules of the #936 game. 3) five words and a 20k-wordlist would get you 9400 years (still breaking the weak remote service rule).--[[User:Gnirre|Gnirre]] ([[User talk:Gnirre|talk]]) 09:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:: 2) Two thoughts: You use itertools.permutations, which only covers non-repeating words, but mainly you don't actually hash the password. If you have a plain-text password, there no need to crack the password because you could just look at it. Example of an actual crack for this type of password: https://github.com/koshippy/xkcd_password/blob/master/password_crack.py My computer gets 10,000,000 guesses in ~16 seconds (non-hashed takes ~2 seconds), meaning it would take almost a year to try every combination. (2048^4 total password space). Even optimizing by using c++/java or JtR, you wouldn't see huge improvement since most of the time is from the SHA hashing. Point being: a typical user can't crack this type of password in a short amount of time, even if they know your wordlist. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.212|199.27.128.212]] 12:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Koshippy

Sometimes this is not possible. (I'm looking at you, local banks with 8-12 character passwords and PayPal) If I can, I use a full sentence. A compound sentence for the important stuff. This adds the capitalization, punctuation and possibly the use of numbers while it's even easier to remember then Randall's scheme. I think it might help against the keyloggers too, if your browser/application autofills the username filed, because you password doesn't stand out from the feed with being gibberish. [[Special:Contributions/195.56.58.169|195.56.58.169]] 09:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The basic concept can be adapted to limited-length passwords easily enough: memorize a phrase and use the first letter of each word. It'll require about a dozen words (you're only getting 4.7 bits per letter at best, actually less because first letters of words are not truly random, though they are weakly if at all correlated with their neighbors -- based on the frequencies of first letters of words in English, and assuming no correlation between each first letter and the next, I calculate about 4 bits per character of Shannon entropy). SteveMB 18:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Followup: The results of extracting the first letters of words in sample texts (the {{w|Project_Gutenberg|Project Gutenberg}} texts of ''The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'', ''The War of the Worlds'', and ''Little Fuzzy'') and applying a {{w|Entropy_(information_theory)|Shannon entropy calculation}} were 4.07 bits per letter (i.e. first letter in word) and 8.08 bits per digraph (i.e. first letters in two consecutive words). These results suggest that first-letter-of-phrase passwords have approximately 4 bits per letter of entropy. --[[User:SteveMB|SteveMB]] ([[User talk:SteveMB|talk]]) 14:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: The above test was case-insensitive (all letters converted to lowercase before feeding them to the [[http://millikeys.sourceforge.net/freqanalysis.html frequency counter]]). Thus, true-random use of uppercase and lowercase would have 5 bits per letter of entropy, and any variation in case (e.g. preserving the case of the original first letter) would fall between 4 and 5 bits per letter. --[[User:SteveMB|SteveMB]] ([[User talk:SteveMB|talk]]) 14:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just have RANDOM.ORG print me ten pages of 8-character passwords and tape it to the wall, then highlight some of them and use others (say two down and to the right or similar) for my passwords, maybe a given line a line a little jumbled for more security. [[Special:Contributions/70.24.167.3|70.24.167.3]] 13:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
:Remind me to visit your office and secretly replace your wall-lists by a list of very similar looking strings ;) --[[User:Chtz|Chtz]] ([[User talk:Chtz|talk]]) 13:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Simple.com (online banking site) had the following on it’s registration page:

“Passphrase? Yes. Passphrases are easier to remember and more secure than traditional passwords. For example, try a group of words with spaces in between, or a sentence you know you'll remember. "correct horse battery staple" is a better passphrase than r0b0tz26.”

Online security for a banking site has been informed by an online comic. Astounding.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.78|173.245.54.78]] 21:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Web service Dropbox has an Easter egg related to this comic on their sign-up page. That page has a password strength indicator (powered by JavaScript) which changes as you type your password. This indicator also shows hints when hovering the mouse cursor over it. Entering "Tr0ub4dor&3" or "Tr0ub4dour&3" as the password causes the password strength indicator to fall to zero, with the hint saying, "Guess again." Entering "correcthorsebatterystaple" as the password also causes the strength indicator to fall to zero, but the hint says, "Whoa there, don't take advice from a webcomic too literally ;)." [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.95|108.162.218.95]] 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The explanation said that the comic uses a dictionary[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=936:_Password_Strength&oldid=59309]. In fact it's a word list, which seems similar but it's not. All the words in the word list must be easy to memorize. This means it's better not to have words such as ''than'' or ''if''. Also, it's better not to have homophones (''wood'' and ''would'', for example). The sentence ''dictionary attack'' doesn't apply here. A dictionary attack requires the attacker to use all the words in the dictionary (e.g. 100,000 words). Here we must generate the 17,592,186,044,416 combinations of 4 common words. Those combinations can't be found in any dictionary. At 25 bytes per "word" that dictionary would need 400 {{w|tebi|binary terabytes}} to be stored. [[User:Xhfz|Xhfz]] ([[User talk:Xhfz|talk]]) 21:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This comic was mentioned in a TED talk by Lorrie Faith Cranor on in March 2014. After performing a lot of studies and analysis, she concludes that "pass phrase" passwords are no easier to remember than complex passwords and that the increased length of the password increases the number of errors when typing it. There is a lot of other useful information from her studies that can be gleaned from the talk. [http://www.ted.com/talks/lorrie_faith_cranor_what_s_wrong_with_your_pa_w0rd Link]. What she doesn't mention is the frequency of changing passwords - in most organizations it's ~90 days. I don't know where that standard originated, but (as a sys admin) I suspect it's about as ineffective as most of our other password trickery - that is that it does nothing. Today's password thieves don't bash stolen password hash tables, they bundle keyloggers with game trainers and browser plugins.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.75|173.245.50.75]] 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:: Lorrie Faith Cranor gets the random part of #936 word generation correct, which is great. Regarding memorizability, this study (https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2012/proceedings/a7_Shay.pdf) does not address #936. The study uses no generator for gibberish of length 11. Most comparable are perhaps two classes of five or six randomly assigned characters. None of the study's generators has 44 bits of entropy – its dictionary for the method closest to #936 – noun-instr – contains only 181 nouns. The article contains no discussion of the significance of these differences to #936. In her TED Lorrie Faith Cranor says ”sorry all you xkcd fans” which could be interpreted as judgement of #936, but there is no basis in the above article for that. It does however seem plausible that the report could be reworked to address #936. --[[User:Gnirre|Gnirre]] ([[User talk:Gnirre|talk]]) 10:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

:Password-changing frequency isn't about making passwords more ''secure'', but instead it's about ''mitigating the damage'' of a successfully cracked password. If a hacker gets your password (through any means) and your password changes every 90 days, the password the hacker has obtained is only useful for a few months at most. That might be enough, but it might not. If the hacker is brute forcing the passwords to get them, that cuts into the time the password is useful. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.168|173.245.54.168]] 22:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
::However, brute-forcing gets much ''easier'' that way.
::Say the average employee is around for 10 years, which is reasonable for some companies , absurdly high for others, and a bit low for a family business. That's 40 password changes.
::Now if you have to remember another password every now and then, you sacrifice complexity, lest you forget it. A factor of 40 is like one character less. But how much shorter will the password be? It's more likely that it's gonna be 3 or 4 characters less. Congrats, you just a factor of 1000's for a perceived "mitigation", which doesn't even work. Pro attackers can vacuum your server in a DAY once they have the PW. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.53|141.101.104.53]] 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because you are required to have a password that has letters and numbers in it doesn't mean you can't make it memorable. When caps are required, use CamelCase. When punctuation is required, make it an ampersand (&) or include a contraction. When numbers are required, pick something that has significance to you (your birthday, the resolution of your television, ect.). Keep in mind that, if your phrase is an actual sentence, the password entropy is 1.1 bits per character (http://what-if.xkcd.com/34), so length is key if you want your password to be secure. (Though no known algorithm can actually exploit the 1.1 bits of entropy to gain time, so it might be more like 11 bits of entropy per word. Even then, my passwords have nonexistent and uncommon words in them, (like doge or trope), which also adds some entropy.) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.213|108.162.246.213]] 22:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
:Flip side of the story, the "capital plus small plus other char" policy doesn't make your password any safer.
:The German company T-online had an experimental gateway with the password, "internet". Now that sucked. No problem, tho, because that gateway wasn't accessible from outside. When they went live, they "improved" the password to "Internet1". There are still lots of these passwords around: first letter is a Cap, and the only non-alphabetic char is a 1 at the end. This doesn't add any entropy. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.53|141.101.104.53]] 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
::[http://ask.metafilter.com/193052/Oh-Randall-you-do-confound-me-so#2779020 This] shows that about one third of all digits in a sample of passwords was "1" . [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.53|141.101.104.53]] 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
You can also troll the brute-force engine by using words from other languages, fictional books and video games.--[[User:Horsebattery|Horsebattery]] ([[User talk:Horsebattery|talk]]) 03:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
:That's a good idea; it adds to the entropy bits per word. If you really want to throw them off, mix different languages. Just don't use very well-known words; I'm sure the hackers have ''cojones'' and ''Blitzkrieg'' in their dictionaries. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.53|141.101.104.53]] 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, passwords that are 'hard to remember' are themselves a security vulnerability. A password reset scheme (or even a lockout scheme) is a vulnerability. The more it needs to be used, the harder it becomes to police that vulnerability. Relatedly, hard-to-remember passwords leave users uncertain whether their password has been changed by someone else or they've just forgotten it. [[User:Ijkcomputer|Ijkcomputer]] ([[User talk:Ijkcomputer|talk]]) 15:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, this comic gave me the idea for a password generator that can (optionally) use dictionary words. Have a look if you're interested: https://wordypasswords.com Use your common sense though about what is and isn't secure! Hope someone finds it useful. [[User:Mackatronic|Mackatronic]] ([[User talk:Mackatronic|talk]]) 08:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not read all of the replies and in truth most of the detail is boring to me but it has occurred to me that with this sort of problem and since the Snowden affair, serious security devices will have to make the keyboard redundant.

At the moment all I can imagine is a series of pictures like hieroglyphs but even using a rolling code of ever changing font glyphs would do. When the security required by money minders reaches the stage of development possible with keyboards that can supply that sort of security, we will have some idea which banks have some idea about security.

Tip:
Not Barings. They have an history of intransigence and stupidity. (Still revered in banks though as able to cure colon cancer with poor investment strategies.)

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 13:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The D0g..................... (24 characters long) is NOT stronger than PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9 (23 characters long). The reason why, is that the later password is random. There is no pattern. The former, "padding" technique can be very easily cracked. You just need to assume that each character be repeated 1~30 times. Then the first password would become : 1(D)1(0)1(g)21(.), which, is then of complexity 30^4 + 96^4, versus 96^23 for the random password. And that is assuming that any character can be repeated 1~30 times, so DDDDDDDDD0000000ggggggg...... also would be cracked extremely quickly. If you limit yourself to only last character padding, your password now becomes 30*96^4 possibilities. {{unsigned ip|108.162.222.235}}

And that's why it is stupid to explain this kind of joke : it depends on many (MANY) parameters such as brute-force method and encryption/hash algorithm. Giving this kind of (wrong) explanations about "pass cracking" (as if it was always the same way to process ...) is ridiculous. And they talk about entropy .......... Holy shit, go back to school and stop screwing cryptography up. zM_

I just use a password with a ␡ character or two, and ␇ for banks. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.21|108.162.242.21]] 08:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'am astonished that even someone like Schneier don't get 936 right immediately after reading it. So, I think I know what was going on in Munroes mind conceptually. Maybe there are some grans of salt, but I don't have a problem with these. But I do have one (or two) quantitative problem(s) with 936:
* I was not able to find out, how Munroe get the value of about 16 bits of entropy for the "uncommon" nine letter lower case "non-gibberish base word". This would mean: On average, a letter of such a word will have about 1.8 bits of entropy. May be, but how do we know? "Citation needed!" ;-)
* (Secondly: The "punctuation" should have 5, not 4 bits of entropy. There are 32 (2^5) ASCII punctuation characters (POSIX class [:punct:]). But I assume this is a lapse.)
Can someone enlighten me? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.236|162.158.91.236]] 17:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
:I have missed the sentence "Randall assumes only the 16 most common characters are used in practice (4 bits)". Hm. There is a huge list with real world passwords out there, leaking from RockYou in 2009. After some processing to remove passwords containing characters that are not printable ASCII characters (ñ, £, ๅ, NBSP, EOT, ...), the list contains about 14329849 unique passwords from about 32585010 accounts (there are some garbage "passwords" like HTML code fragments). The following are the number of accounts using a password containing a particular printable character (one or more tokens of a particular type):
<nowiki>
226673 .
186883 _
179264 !
125846 -
104224 @
95237 *
92802 (space)
60002 #
36522 /
31172 $
28550 &
27686 ,
23905 +
18704 =
18268 )
17927 ?
16401 (
16074 '
14407 ;
11819 <
11118 %
10723 ]
8975 \
7718 [
7209 :
5815 ~
5673 ^
4995 `
2847 "
2741 >
1050 {
939 }
502 |

(NB: 1222815 accounts were using a password containing at least one of these.)
</nowiki>
:Sorry, I have no "citation". But you can play with the leaked RockYou password list yourself. Here is a way to reach that playground:
<nowiki>
$ # Download the compressed list (57 MiB; I have no idea what "skullsecurity"
$ # is, it was simply the first find and I assume it's the said list):
$ wget http://downloads.skullsecurity.org/passwords/rockyou-withcount.txt.bz2

$ # Decompress the list (243 MiB), or, to speak more exact, it's a table:
$ bzip2 -dk rockyou-withcount.txt.bz2

$ # The content of the table is: "How many accounts (first row) were using that
$ # password (second row)?" Let's take a peek:
$ head -n5 rockyou-withcount.txt
290729 123456
79076 12345
76789 123456789
59462 password
49952 iloveyou

$ # The following command processes the table to remove lines with passwords
$ # containing characters that are not printable ASCII characters (14541
$ # lines/passwords, 18038 accounts), and lines insisting that there were some
$ # accounts with no password (1 line, 340 accounts). Moreover, the command
$ # removes every space character not belonging to a password, makes the rows
$ # tab-delimited and writes the result in a file called "ry" (161 MiB; many
$ # bloating spaces removed).
$ LC_ALL=C sed -n 's/^ *$[1-9][0-9]*$ $[[:print:]]\{1,\}$$/\1\t\2/p' rockyou-withcount.txt >ry

$ # The following are shell functions to build commands. They will be explained
$ # below using examples (I can not express myself well in this language).
$ counta() { LC_ALL=C awk 'BEGIN { FS = "\t"; p = 0; a = 0 } { if ($2 ~ /'"$(printf %s "$1" | sed 'sI/I\\/Ig')"'/) { p++; a += $1 } } END { print a " (" p ")" }' "$2" ;}
$ countap() { LC_ALL=C awk 'BEGIN { FS = "\t"; p = 0; a = 0 } { if ($2 ~ /'"$(printf %s "$1" | sed 'sI/I\\/Ig')"'/) { p++; a += $1; print $0 } } END { print a " (" p ")" }' "$2" ;}

$ # We have reached the playground. Here are some examples for how to use the
$ # toys:

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password containing the string love:
$ counta 'love' ry
671599 (188855)

$ # The first operand of the above command is a extended regular expression
$ # (ERE). The second operand is a file, namely the previously generated file
$ # called "ry", that is the (processed) table. The first number of the output
$ # means: "That many accounts were using a password matching the ERE." The
$ # second number inside parentheses means: "That many unique passwords matching
$ # the ERE." If the first number is greater than the second number, some
$ # accounts sharing the same password (we will see this clearly in one of the
$ # examples below).

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password containing at least one
$ # character:
$ counta '.' ry
32585010 (14329849)

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password containing exactly one
$ # character:
$ counta '^.$' ry
144 (45)

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password containing exactly one numeric
$ # character:
$ counta '^[0-9]$' ry
55 (10)

$ # Let's have a look at the distribution:
$ countap '^[0-9]$' ry
29 1
6 7
6 3
3 9
3 2
2 6
2 5
2 0
1 8
1 4
55 (10)

$ # Obove we see the second command at work. You see what it does and what it
$ # does different. And here we see clearly the meaning of the first number and
$ # the second number inside parentheses.

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password containing at least one
$ # numeric character:
$ counta '[0-9]' ry
17609065 (9761364)

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password ending with a numeric
$ # character:
$ counta '[0-9]$' ry
15728238 (8313698)

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password beginning with a numeric
$ # character:
$ counta '^[0-9]' ry
6409397 (3283946)

$ # Count how many accounts were using a password containing only numeric
$ # characters:
$ counta '^[0-9]+$' ry
5192990 (2346744)

$ # And, last but not least, count how many accounts were using a password
$ # containing that "uncommon non-gibberish base word" in 936, with an upper
$ # or an lower case first letter, with or without some of the "common
$ # substitutions":
$ counta '[tT]r[o0]ub[a4]d[o0]r' ry
3 (3)

$ # Yes, there are some. 14 million unique passwords are a lot. Let's see what
$ # exactly was used:
$ countap '[tT]r[o0]ub[a4]d[o0]r' ry
1 troubador1
1 troubador
1 darktroubador
3 (3)
</nowiki>
:[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.236|162.158.91.236]] 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting read about the generated password streangth: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/01/friday_squid_bl_508.html#c6714590 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.190|162.158.91.190]] 08:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

: That person sounds confused. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.235.107|198.41.235.107]] 23:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

;You've Already Memorized It

Originally I logged in to report a local xkcd related phenomenon, and ask if anyone else had experienced it. The destiny, seemingly inescapable, that at once became my own upon seeing that last panel; the effect of the self-fullfilling combination of the very specific look of inquiry -- one I recognize immediately and associate with the words ''"interesting, Captain"'' -- and the insidiously performative ''"You've already memorized it."'' At first I doubted this was actually the case, but soon I could no longer, since not only did the phrase readily come to the mind and out the mouth, it also came up often. The ''"correct"'' soon replaced the word ''"right"'' in everyday conversation, then ''"right you are"'' and ''"yes"'' and so forth, then its opposite (with a ''"no"'' in front), then replacing the direction, the verb involving pen and paper (the most recent development was merely a quick under the breath aside of an acronym of the remaining words). All followed by the rest of the absurdly perfect password. '''Now here's the kicker: I logged on to tell you all this for some reason, only to find, I had memorized ''"correct horse staple battery"'' instead of ''"correct horse battery staple."'''''[[User:A female faust|A female faust]] ([[User talk:A female faust|talk]]) 03:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

:If you go to https://howsecureismypassword.net/ and type in the suggested password in the comic, it says that the password would be cracked instantly, and adds a section titled "xkcd".
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.195|162.158.62.195]] 14:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Would you believe it, the guy who made the bad password rules switched his philosophy to this comic's: "Long, easy-to-remember phrases now get the nod over crazy characters" "In a widely circulated piece, cartoonist [[Randall Munroe]] calculated it would take 550 years to crack the password “correct horse battery staple,” all written as one word. The password Tr0ub4dor&3—a typical example of a password using Mr. Burr’s old rules—could be cracked in three days" [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 11:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The 44 bits of entropy breaks down rapidly when you realize in real life, most people will choose a passphrase that contains words like "pass", "phrase", "remember", "long", "company" and quite likely "stupid". It's the passphrase equivalent of "password123". If the words are selected randomly and then assigned to a person, that would fix that problem (but create others, like mistrust of a computer that assigns passwords for you to log into that same computer with). [[User:Nerfer|Nerfer]] ([[User talk:Nerfer|talk]]) 21:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There is one aspect which has been left out the whole time. I do not question things like wordlist length, entropy, or substitutions. However, doing shoulder surfing will either reveal a full password or in parts. A full password should not be topic of discussion. In the case of partial success, it is in the proposed method far easier to guess the rest of the password than in the traditional one. [[User:CommingFromTheSide|CommingFromTheSide]] ([[User talk:CommingFromTheSide|talk]]) 15:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As for "author's 28 bits mistake". I believe that Randall does mean the common lexicon with mangling substitutions. That means that counterexample "J4I/tyJ&Acy" does have 72bits, but nonetheless is irrelevant to character/personage strategy of choosing a memorable yet strong password. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.215.113|172.68.215.113]] 13:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah... this reminds me of one of my old password.

> It had quote.

> It had comments.

> There were "10e9 characters". (Don't worry, as much as it length backfired, if you types fast, you could type by hand in less than 5 minutes)

> It had typo.

> It had hints of itself in itself.

--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.70|172.68.154.70]] 08:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, now Microsoft has disabled plaintext words in passwords. I can see where they were trying to go with this but it completely backfired for everyone who doesn't use the password "password". -[[User:Alpha2|Alpha2]] ([[User talk:Alpha2|talk]]) 15:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This scheme (four words) was used for the default wifi and admin passwords on a T Mobile wireless home internet gateway received on 2022-Jun-23 --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.175.146|172.70.175.146]] 14:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The best password/passphrase should be something that has meaning to you and only you; for example, I used to use the password NurseSlutButt, which came from working at an office where the manager had one of his walls covered with the employees' personal memorabilia and one of those was a 1959 newspaper clipping about the new matron of a local orphanage, so that phrase developed from idly staring at the clipping and thinking about her and how she looked in the accompanying photo. I never told anyone about that password until now. Also, introduce deliberate mis-spellings: that makes it harder to crack, even if the attacker guesses the word. That was probably the intent behind the "numbers & symbols" rule in the first place, back before Unicode existed and computer users were limited to what was on their keyboard. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.215.11|172.71.215.11]] 23:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

guy guys i have an idea: "correcT horsE batterY staplE exkcdponent 2," {{unsigned ip|172.68.118.25|16:00, 11 June 2024}}

Talk:2942: Fluid Speech

2024-06-06T14:19:23Z

172.69.43.166:

I've noticed that this doesn't seem to be the case in all languages. For example, when native Polish speakers talk rapidly (even when speaking English), they enunciate every sound accurately in quick succession while flattening out the tone and rhythm of their speech. I wonder if this is because Polish is an inflected language where the grammar of the sentence is determined by endings of words rather than word order. Does anyone know if there have been any studies on this? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not linguists but based on how many those are, definitely. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:Russian also has vowel reduction like English and it's a Slavic language like Polish, so I don't think so. Although someone who knows more than me might be able to chip in on whether the effect is stronger in English. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.198|162.158.114.198]] 03:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just added a very barebones version of an explanation based on what I could understand from the comic. I can tell that the four diagrams depict that of the human mouth but since I am not a linguist, I lack the knowledge of various terms and thus, can't fully explain the comic. I understand what the comic is trying to convey, I just can't explain it. Looking forward to seeing how this progresses. [[User:OmniDoom|OmniDoom]] ([[User talk:OmniDoom|talk]]) 00:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think #4 is a real IPA symbol, but as I am not a linguist, I have no idea. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.36|162.158.91.36]] 01:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:/ə̃/ is a {{w|Nasal_vowel|nasalized}} {{w|schwa}} --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.92|172.71.160.92]] 08:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The hovertext joke is that every English speaker fully pronounces the first "t" in "Hot Potato". It's at the end of "hot". Nobody says "ha potato". [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:Unless you mean "the glottal stop should be considered an allophone of <t> at the end of syllables" then yes they do. It's /hoʔ/, not /hotʰ/. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.198|162.158.114.198]] 03:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:(Edit conflicted with 162, above, so this is my own reply...) I thought it was that it isn't "ho T'p otato", with the "teh-peh" awkwardness. For me, the natural way to say it is to glottalstop the first T for more "ho'potato" (the other Ts, there I find awkward ''not'' to get the "t>s<" out of, the ">s<"-tail being what makes a full-T not a lazy one). But clearly a different accent involved, as "ha" doesn't work at all for me unless I try to use some sort of (probably awful) Goodfellas-type accent. And my native accent is notoriously good at glottlestopped Ts (that most people misinpersonate badly, by attaching them to the wrong adjacent syllable).
:As for "going to", experimentally holding my finger over the length of my tongue, it seems it barely has to move at all in "going" (the whole tongue wants to rise on the "i", but I can suppress that and do the tone-change from further back, if not straight from the vocal chords). Though continuing through to the "to", with my finger in there, it's no better than "going ku" as I prevent the tongue-tip doing the necessary small movement to fulfil any form of T. I can do better through basic gastromancy, but behind my unmoving jaw and lips (''without'' the finger almost down my throat, of course), I can feel the tongue tip doing it's small but vital "crossing the T" work. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 03:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:For me, it's more like "ho'buh-deh-duh" - so none ot the t's get pronounced properly. And I'd drop the n in 'going to' before I dropped the t.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 08:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:Wunber dayder, doober dayder, freeber dayder for. (But then, oddly, uh baguv tayterz.)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.58|172.70.162.58]] 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless someone's willing to start an "explain explain xkcd", I think this explanation still needs a lot of work to be intelligible to non-linguists (myself included). That aside, I do appreciate whoever took the time to type all that up. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.210|162.158.166.210]] 03:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:The current explain reads, to me at least, more like a 102 lecture than an explanation of the comic. I of course have no idea what is in a 101 first week lecture so shrug. (Aside, wth? This keyboard doesn't have a tilda. Copy and paste ftw) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.223.38|172.71.223.38]] 05:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Meta-response about the {{w|tilde}}: at the top of this editing window is a bar of formatting buttons (which I mostly just try to avoid accidentally clicking when I touchscreen-scroll). The second from the right gives <code><nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki></code>, having a depiction of a signature. (The "--" is not necessary, nor does anything with actual formatting/markup, but comes from quite old text communications standards.) Personally, in this current situation of using an onscreen keyboard, my configurstion hides the tilde behind the "?123" then "=\<" change-keyboard buttons.
:::(Ironically, all three of "=", "\" and "<" are already available as long-presses of the primary keyboard layout. But the much more useful "/" is hidden behind the "?123" press, ''except'' when it explicitly detects that I'm in a browser address field. Some UI designers have strange ideas that definitely mis-mesh with my usage!)
:::That's where I usually go, to sign-off. But on physical keyboards, depending upon internationalisation options, it might be either off the top-left (left of "1" key) 'triple-key, perhaps needing Shift or AltGr fingering (from experience of US (mis)configuring), or the key in the "hook" of the <Enter> key (all my physical UK keyboards, even the most squished-up laptop ones, have that as #~). If you're neither in US nor UK (and your device knows this), then where it gets shuffled out of the way of any ß, ē or ø type stuff, I wouldn't know for sure, but using the AltGr (right-Alt) ''might'' reveal characters you never ever knew you had... ;)
:::Copypasting out of the "<nowiki>Please sign your posts with ~~~~</nowiki>" Infobox or any residual from the {{template|unsigned}} templates is, of course, also a valid option. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.184|172.69.43.184]] 10:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
: I think it's fine if you can read/interpret the {{w|International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA}}. If you don't it's utterly incomprehensible. I think we need some examples here as to how the sounds written here are pronounced. Like "sound <x> as in <word>" [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 06:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:: Yeah, except [[2819]] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 08:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

>Alien impersonating a human

Sounds like a normal Runglish to me, just like the one you can hear in this clip: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXNKUo5MrbM]

I hate that he pointed this out, because I'm going to start pronouncing things the way they're supposed to sound and everyone will think I'm weirder. [[User:Psychoticpotato|Psychoticpotato]] ([[User talk:Psychoticpotato|talk]]) 12:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
: How are you pronouncing 'Psychoticpotato'?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.6|172.69.195.6]] 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I added a bit more detail to the first diagram, but I agree it's not really plain English right now. btw, maybe it's pedantic of me, but diphthongs such as /oʊ/ are one vowel, and the whole word /ɡoʊ.ɪŋ/ only has two vowels

As for "hot potato", the post-vocalic T *is* pronounced, it's pronounced as a glottal stop. T is simply pronounced differently in different positions, it's how the letter works. Randall's probably referring to the alveolar plosive /t/, which most people think of as "the T sound" and would make you sound like an alien. SMBC made the point better: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-05-08
[[User:FrustratedPhonetics|FrustratedPhonetics]] ([[User talk:FrustratedPhonetics|talk]]) 13:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:Unless, like me, you just elide straight into the following consonant. Hock ross buns, hock ross buns, wunner penee tooer penee, hock ross buns.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.166|172.69.43.166]] 14:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)