explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1199: Silence

2013-04-15T23:21:39Z

206.181.86.98: Comment

What are the chances that: that empty room is an anechoic chamber? [[Special:Contributions/66.42.134.195|66.42.134.195]] 04:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:plain walls..plain floor...virtually zero[[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
::Besides, 4'33" was not meant for anechoic chambers, Cage specifically talks about all the "sound and music" going on while the piano player is "doing nothing". 4'33" is separated into 3 parts, in which the piano player is also supposed to open and close the piano. --[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 14:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I may have had a professor in college show us a recording of 4'33", I can honestly say it was the least usefull 4'33" minutes of my academic career.... The argument we had over if this was artistic shortly afterwards was much more entertaining however.[[Special:Contributions/69.146.97.120|69.146.97.120]] 04:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... if we know the room is 4'33", couldn't we use that to figure out how tall Megan is? Just a thought. [[Special:Contributions/86.181.5.232|86.181.5.232]] 12:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:4'33" I believe is the length of the song. Not feet and inches.

Do you guys think the title text might be a reference to Parks and Rec's [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3rEJrRDjE|"Jazz plus Jazz equals Jazz"]? --[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 14:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a controversy whether 4′33″ (4 mins 33 secs) was the intended duration. The original manuscript is lost, the first performance lasted 4′33″ (and there is a transcript of it with the exact duration of each movement shown), and later editions only show three movements “tacet”. Cage himself said (though much later), “the work may be performed by any instrumentalist or combination of instrumentalists and last any length of time”. --[[Special:Contributions/77.186.113.21|77.186.113.21]] 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:Uh, what? You can buy sheet music for 4'33" (!) and it's in Cage's own handwriting. Whether it's the "original manuscript" or not, the duration we have know was definitely okayed by Cage. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 15:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the alt text is being overanalyzed. Is it not more likely to be just a sarcastic comment that all music is coincidental ambient noise interfering with the silence? [[User:MegsyS|MegsyS]] ([[User talk:MegsyS|talk]]) 14:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
:I read it as more a semantic middle-ground between the (current) main explanation and yours. Instead of 'making all music have Cage's work "embedded" into it.', it means that 'all music(1) is Cage's work with someone else playing (other) music inside it, ambiently'. (1 - Any given four minutes and thirty-three seconds of music, that is. Whether that includes a subset of the longer 'embedded' piece, a superset of a a ''shorter'' embedded piece or a dislocated translation/truncation of shared 'sound space'. IYSWIM. YMMV.) [[Special:Contributions/31.109.25.88|31.109.25.88]] 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I wrote this long before Cage did, and no one ever gave me any credit. Just because he was already famous does not make this a useful composition. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 23:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1153: Proof

2013-03-15T03:44:37Z

206.181.86.98: Quantum Zeno

Integral calculus will solve the paradox only on the assumption that space is continuous. If space is discrete, solution lies in probability nature of quantum mechanics. The arrow paradox, meanwhile, is based on incorrect assumption: uniform motion is normal and selfsustainable and doesn't need to be explained (as proved by Newton). Also note that mentioning Leibniz without mentioning [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Newton Newton] might have some significance, as both are claiming to develop integral calculus. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually Newton discovered (devised the mathematical method of) fluxions which is similar, but not as elegant, as calculus. He got miffed (and the British science establishment on his behalf) that Calculus was a rip-off. Newton did not publicise his fluxions as he firstly thought that they were a 'fix' that having found a solution needed to be shown by Euclidean Geometry. Secondly it have him an analytical edge over his contemporaries that he did not want to give up. Interestingly it can be shown that Pythagoras used an integration technique to calculate his formulas for the circle and sphere families, but worked it out the hard way! --[[Special:Contributions/90.197.0.66|90.197.0.66]] 17:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

----------------------------------------

There is a simple observation that solves the 'paradox'. Yes, the number of steps become infinite, but the span of each successive step, and thus the time required to traverse it becomes infinitesimally small - REGARDLESS of whether Newton's first law holds (provided negative acceleration - if any, is finite, and provided the assumption of nature being continuous holds). Leibniz and Newton's independent discoveries of calculus (the concept of limits actually), and this branch of mathematics' ability to deal with infinites, resolves the paradox, because an infinite sum of infinitesimals (in some cases... Zeno's geometric progression being one of them) can be shown to converge to a finite number.

While it is true that calculus remains applicable only if space and time...actually, it's post annus mirabilis, so let me reframe that. While it is true that calculus remains applicable only if the domain is continuous, the paradox may be solved to a fair degree even if spacetime is discrete. Why? Because if spacetime was discrete (ref. Planck Length. It's fascinating! :D ), successive division of the remaining length to be traversed would bring you down to the fundamental quantum at some point. Now, unless you violate Newton's law and suddenly bring the moving object to a standstill, it will continue moving. But the only way it can do that is by moving atleast by one fundamental unit (which we'll assume is the Planck Length), which is the same as the distance that it has just translated! [Pedantically, one doesn't even have to wait until the step size reaches such scales. We have this contradiction even if the macroscopic distance is a prime multiple of the Planck Length - but that's a trivial consideration, because one may just as well expand Zeno's paradox to not just halves, but the whole set of fractions of inverted-natural numbers]. But you'll note I said discredited, instead of solved, because rejecting the notion of no-motion-possible would atleast require an acknowledgement of the validity of Newton's first law of motion. But if there's no motion possible, then Newton's laws would be meaningless too.

Maybe that's why the prosecution only called on Leibniz. If the lawyer (or Zeno) had gone on to (chronological aberrations notwithstanding) to discredit Newton, they might've been ostracised as a result of a vengeful Isaac's social engineering. But let's find a more charitable (to the Principia author) explanation. Newton was notoriously taciturn. He was a Member of Parliament for a good while, but his only recorded comments were to have the windows closed because there was a draught. (ROFLMAO) It's unlikely that he'd ever get talked into being a witness, or even a subject matter expert for a criminal trial.

Also, IMHO, the "approach the bench", "-but never reach it!" might be a reference to the fact that the lawyer thinks he will probably never become a judge, and will be ignored, as punishment for his impudence. Leibniz and Newton were the brightest of the luminaries, and their scientific propositions may have been considered as sanctimonious as judgments delivered by the highest court of law. But in contemporary or even historic scientific circles, I guess Zeno was never accorded any more respect, than that set aside for 'a simple αστός'. Add to that the almost truant nature of his proposition, and it's as likely that it'd rile up those in charge of barrister promotions, as a smart question riles up a tired teacher. :) [[Special:Contributions/115.242.227.17|115.242.227.17]] 19:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length Planck length]. Ref done.
:Note that Newton laws doesn't really work on Planck lengths. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle Heisenberg principle]. Actually proving that macroscopic object move on the time and distances close to Planck would probably require more computing power that we have. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 13:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

{{w|The Quantum Zeno effect}} seems to be a modern-physics reincarnation of the arrow paradox. (Doesn't it feel like every time you think that you have something fiqured out, some quantum phenomenon will suddenly pop up and make matters more complicated than they ever were?) – [[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
:The Quantum Zeno Effect has nothing to do with Zeno at all. The authors just thought it sounded more profession than "A Watched Particle Never Boils". The Quantum Zeno Effect is not a paradox at all, but rather just the mathematical implications of quantum entanglement.

Talk:1185: Ineffective Sorts

2013-03-15T03:09:34Z

206.181.86.98: sorts

I loved the "runs in O(n log n)" part. [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 00:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I lost it on //portability. It's a sad state where I've actually more or less come across 3 of these. [[Special:Contributions/203.126.136.142|203.126.136.142]] 00:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Audiovisual aid circa 1981, eh: '''http://youtube.com/watch?v=gv0JUEqaAXo#t=236s''' [[Special:Contributions/98.111.152.198|98.111.152.198]] 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

One of xkcd's best in a quite a while, imo. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 03:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Saying "bogosorts actually run in O(n*n!) time and may never finish" is a contradiction. Not the runtime is in O(n*n!), but the ''expected'' runtime. [[User:BKA|BKA]] ([[User talk:BKA|talk]]) 08:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
:Not necessarily. O(n*n!) is the expected runtime, but unlike other sorts, there is no max runtime which is what it is trying to say.[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Didn't the author of the halfhearted merge sort give up on the sort part of the merge sort? 'cause merging is done in the return[a,b] part as far is see it...[[Special:Contributions/193.175.223.10|193.175.223.10]] 18:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Well return[a,b] merges them in exactly the original order. So I think you are right. It recursively cuts the list into tiny bits and returns the uncut back to the previous call. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1184: Circumference Formula

2013-03-15T03:02:05Z

206.181.86.98: tau

:Tau x Radius, superscript 2
:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|‎74.215.40.250}}
::It's 2''πr''2, '''not''' ''τr''2. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You're missing the point. ''τ'' == 2''π'' and is considered better than using ''π'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

::I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:::RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Ok, that works [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Why not just e^(tau*i) = 1. Do you routinely do 2 + 2 - 4 = 0?[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Because:
:::::* Symmetry wrt the original Euler's Identity (e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0)
:::::* According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity#Mathematical_beauty, "in algebra and other areas of mathematics, equations are commonly written with zero on one side of the equals sign."
:::::--[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think Euler only did that because he disliked negative numbers. It really is less a deal than people make of it.[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 03:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:::[http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto The tau manifesto] fairly well convinced me that all occurances of π in mathematics utimately trace back from the formula C = 2''πr''. If so, π naturally ''enter'' calculations as 2π. Can anyone find a counterexample to this thesis? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::How could there be a counter-example? I think it is true. In complex analysis, it really should be 2π, and thus Gaussian integrals. And then number theory applications. Even [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2589152?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101976916347 this] neat result really stems from trig identities, so it really is a result for 2π. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:From what I understand, the thesis from the tau-proponents is that 2*pi is the fundamental natural constant, and that virtually ''every time'' that pi shows up without the factor 2, there originally was a factor two that was cancelled out. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).
<blockquote>
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.714 calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."
</blockquote>
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":
<blockquote>
For example every schoolboy knows what π stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of π into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a π got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while π was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

that is so wrong, i feel my mind corrupted now. -- [[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This explanation was hillarious -- where is the up-vote button ?? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

:+1 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, where's todays comic? How many times has Randal been late?[[Special:Contributions/70.199.225.225|70.199.225.225]] 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:Today's comic was posted just a few minutes ago. I'm anxiously awaiting its explanation as it picks on a programming language I'm not familiar with (possibly SQL). [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It uses pseudocode. The new one is about sorting algorithms in general, not any particular language. [[Special:Contributions/130.245.231.101|130.245.231.101]] 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but did no one see the "square the circle" gag...? --[[Special:Contributions/128.232.142.37|128.232.142.37]] 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) No one but you saw the square-the-circle gag, because it's not there. For it to be there, it would require this: (2πr)² [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1184: Circumference Formula

2013-03-15T02:59:32Z

206.181.86.98: tau

:Tau x Radius, superscript 2
:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|‎74.215.40.250}}
::It's 2''πr''2, '''not''' ''τr''2. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You're missing the point. ''τ'' == 2''π'' and is considered better than using ''π'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

::I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:::RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Ok, that works [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Why not just e^(tau*i) = 1. Do you routinely do 2 + 2 - 4 = 0?[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:::::Because:
:::::* Symmetry wrt the original Euler's Identity (e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0)
:::::* According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity#Mathematical_beauty, "in algebra and other areas of mathematics, equations are commonly written with zero on one side of the equals sign."
:::::--[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 00:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::::I think Euler only did that because he disliked negative numbers. It really is less a deal than people make of it.
:::[http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto The tau manifesto] fairly well convinced me that all occurances of π in mathematics utimately trace back from the formula C = 2''πr''. If so, π naturally ''enter'' calculations as 2π. Can anyone find a counterexample to this thesis? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
::::How could there be a counter-example? I think it is true. In complex analysis, it really should be 2&pi, and thus Gaussian integrals. And then number theory applications. Even [this http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2589152?uid=3739704&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101976916347] neat result really stems from trig identities, so it really is a result for 2&pi. [[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
:From what I understand, the thesis from the tau-proponents is that 2*pi is the fundamental natural constant, and that virtually ''every time'' that pi shows up without the factor 2, there originally was a factor two that was cancelled out. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).
<blockquote>
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.714 calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."
</blockquote>
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":
<blockquote>
For example every schoolboy knows what π stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of π into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a π got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while π was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

that is so wrong, i feel my mind corrupted now. -- [[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This explanation was hillarious -- where is the up-vote button ?? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

:+1 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, where's todays comic? How many times has Randal been late?[[Special:Contributions/70.199.225.225|70.199.225.225]] 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:Today's comic was posted just a few minutes ago. I'm anxiously awaiting its explanation as it picks on a programming language I'm not familiar with (possibly SQL). [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It uses pseudocode. The new one is about sorting algorithms in general, not any particular language. [[Special:Contributions/130.245.231.101|130.245.231.101]] 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but did no one see the "square the circle" gag...? --[[Special:Contributions/128.232.142.37|128.232.142.37]] 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) No one but you saw the square-the-circle gag, because it's not there. For it to be there, it would require this: (2πr)² [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 15:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1184: Circumference Formula

2013-03-13T20:31:04Z

206.181.86.98: tau

:Tau x Radius, superscript 2
:Leaves one wondering what the superscript 1 refers. {{unsigned|‎74.215.40.250}}
::It's 2''πr''2, '''not''' ''τr''2. —[[Special:Contributions/173.199.215.5|173.199.215.5]] 05:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
:::You're missing the point. ''τ'' == 2''π'' and is considered better than using ''π'' by some people {{unsigned|138.195.69.136}}
::::Only for very loose definitions of "better." [[Special:Contributions/71.201.53.130|71.201.53.130]] 14:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Whoa! Never heard about that before, but after 2 hrs or so, I think I'm getting convinced! Check this site out: http://tauday.com/ What do you think? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

::I think tau is pointless. Using tau what then happens to Euler's famous formula, the most beautiful equation of them all? Pi shows up in so many different ways and places in mathematics. Tau appears pretty much only in the formula for a circle's circumference. Why bother needlessly proliferating symbols? [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:RE: Euler's Identity: e^(tau*i) - 1 = 0 --[[User:Max Nanasy|Max Nanasy]] ([[User talk:Max Nanasy|talk]]) 18:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Ok, that works [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
::Why not just e^(tau*i) = 1. Do you routinely do 2 + 2 - 4 = 0?[[Special:Contributions/206.181.86.98|206.181.86.98]] 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
:From what I understand, the thesis from the tau-proponents is that 2*pi is the fundamental natural constant, and that virtually ''every time'' that pi shows up without the factor 2, there originally was a factor two that was cancelled out. –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not completely sure Earth Prime is from Sliders, but it's true it's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Prime only one named exactly that] ... -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also a [http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Prime_Earth Prime Earth] now. Just so DC can screw with us. [[User:Hogtree Octovish|Hogtree Octovish]] ([[User talk:Hogtree Octovish|talk]]) 10:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I still don't get it.[[Special:Contributions/49.176.102.213|49.176.102.213]] 12:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:If you don't get it, you don't need to get it [[User:J Milstein|J Milstein]] ([[User talk:J Milstein|talk]]) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was lame. --[[Special:Contributions/87.122.60.227|87.122.60.227]] 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This comic illustrates the strategy of "The Unconsummated Asterisk", from the essay "Mathmanship" by Nicholas Vanserg (available at [http://e-science.ru/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=7701]).
<blockquote>
The other side of the asterisk gambit is to use a superscript as a key to a real footnote. The knowledge‐seeker reads that S is – 36.714 calories and thinks "Gee what a whale of a lot of calories" until he reads to the bottom of the page, finds footnote 14 and says "oh."
</blockquote>
For bonus points, Randall could have used also "Pi-Throwing":
<blockquote>
For example every schoolboy knows what π stands for so you can hold him at bay by heaving some entirely different kind of π into the equation. The poor fellow will automatically multiply by 3.1416, then begin wondering how a π got into the act anyhow, and finally discover that all the while π was osmotic pressure. If you are careful not to warn him, this one is good for a delay of about an hour and a half.
</blockquote> [[User:Chymicus|Chymicus]] ([[User talk:Chymicus|talk]]) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current description of prime as denoting derivatives is true but irrelevant. Since the area and circumference refers to geometry (not really calculus), it's more likely that the title text is referring to the common use of primes in geometry. For example, there might be two or more parallel lines that are denoted by x, x′, x′′, etc. Wikipedia also notes another geometric use of {{w|prime}}: "if a point is represented by the Cartesian coordinates (x, y), then that point rotated, translated or reflected might be represented as (x′, y′)." [[User:S|S]] ([[User talk:S|talk]]) 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

that is so wrong, i feel my mind corrupted now. -- [[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This explanation was hillarious -- where is the up-vote button ?? [[User:Spongebog|Spongebog]] ([[User talk:Spongebog|talk]])

:+1 [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, where's todays comic? How many times has Randal been late?[[Special:Contributions/70.199.225.225|70.199.225.225]] 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:Today's comic was posted just a few minutes ago. I'm anxiously awaiting its explanation as it picks on a programming language I'm not familiar with (possibly SQL). [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 16:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It uses pseudocode. The new one is about sorting algorithms in general, not any particular language. [[Special:Contributions/130.245.231.101|130.245.231.101]] 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)