explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1277: Ayn Random

2013-10-14T06:15:44Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1277
| date = October 14, 2013
| title = Ayn Random
| image = ayn random.png
| titletext = In a cavern deep below the Earth, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ann Druyan, Paul Rudd, Alan Alda, and Duran Duran meet togther in the Secret Council of /(b[plurandy]+b ?){2}/i.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}

This comic is a pun dealing with Ayn Rand, who created a philosophical system known as "objectivism". The bias in the random number generator is likely a criticism of objectivists who fail to be fully objective.

The title text notes identifies a group of people whose names fall under (are within the namespace identified by) the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression regular expression] <code>/(b[plurandy]+b ?){2}/i</code>.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball sitting at a laptop, White Hat behind him.]
:Cueball: This Ayn Random number generator you wrote ''claims'' to be fair, but the output is biased toward certain numbers.
:White Hat: ''Well, maybe those numbers are just intrinsically better!''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Math]]

1277: Ayn Random

2013-10-14T06:13:52Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1277
| date = October 14, 2013
| title = Ayn Random
| image = ayn random.png
| titletext = In a cavern deep below the Earth, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ann Druyan, Paul Rudd, Alan Alda, and Duran Duran meet togther in the Secret Council of /(b[plurandy]+b ?){2}/i.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}

This comic is a pun dealing with Ayn Rand, who created a philosophical system known as "objectivism". The bias in the random number generator is likely a criticism of objectivists who fail to be fully objective.

The title text notes identifies a group of people whose names fall under (are within the namespace identified by) the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_expression regular expression] <code>/(b[plurandy]+b ?){2}/i</code>. The first four, at least, hold ideologically similar political stances, as well.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball sitting at a laptop, White Hat behind him.]
:Cueball: This Ayn Random number generator you wrote ''claims'' to be fair, but the output is biased toward certain numbers.
:White Hat: ''Well, maybe those numbers are just intrinsically better!''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Math]]

1277: Ayn Random

2013-10-14T06:12:08Z

Echo Seven:

{{comic
| number = 1277
| date = October 14, 2013
| title = Ayn Random
| image = ayn random.png
| titletext = In a cavern deep below the Earth, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Ann Druyan, Paul Rudd, Alan Alda, and Duran Duran meet togther in the Secret Council of /(b[plurandy]+b ?){2}/i.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete}}

This comic is a pun dealing with Ayn Rand, who created a philosophical system known as "objectivism". The bias in the random number generator is likely a criticism of objectivists who fail to be fully objective.

The title text notes identifies a group of people whose names fall under (are within the namespace identified by) the regular expression <code>/(b[plurandy]+b ?){2}/i</code>. The first four, at least, hold ideologically similar political stances, as well.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball sitting at a laptop, White Hat behind him.]
:Cueball: This Ayn Random number generator you wrote ''claims'' to be fair, but the output is biased toward certain numbers.
:White Hat: ''Well, maybe those numbers are just intrinsically better!''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Math]]

1204: Detail

2013-04-26T05:46:38Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1204
| date = April 26, 2013
| title = Detail
| image = detail.png
| titletext = 2031: Google defends the swiveling roof-mounted scanning electron microscopes on its Street View cars, saying they 'don't reveal anything that couldn't be seen by any pedestrian scanning your house with an electron microscope.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[wikipedia:Google Earth|Google Earth]] is a mapping software provided by Google that allows people to see the Earth from a birds-eye-view perspective. If you zoom in close enough, you can see individual streets - or in this case, a neighborhood.

[[wikipedia:Optical_resolution|Resolution]] is a term (roughly) representing the scale of the smallest identifiable feature in an image. In the context of terrestrial image mapping, this would correspond to the area occupied by a single pixel in a terrestrial satellite image. In this strip, Randall points out that the resolution of satellite images available to Google Earth has been decreasing(improving) at a logarithmic rate for the past decade. This is due to the improving quality of satellite imaging technology.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck length]] is a unit of length and in principle the shortest measurable length, thus making it effectively the "resolution" of our reality. The comic shows how the current growth trend in resolution of Google Earth will hit the Planck length around the year 2100, even though such result is currently considered impossible to achieve.

The title text refers to the fact that the trendline predicts an available resolution in the nanometer range by 2031, which would necessitate (using today's technology) the use of [[wikipedia:Scanning_tunneling_microscope|scanning tunneling microscopes]] to achieve.

==Transcript==
:My Neighborhood's Resolution in:
:[A chart showing the Resolution of Google Earth increasing on a logarithmic scale towards the Planck Length, with resolution on the y-axis and time in years on the x-axis.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics from 2013]]
[[Category:Comics from April]]

1204: Detail

2013-04-26T05:45:29Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1204
| date = April 26, 2013
| title = Detail
| image = detail.png
| titletext = 2031: Google defends the swiveling roof-mounted scanning electron microscopes on its Street View cars, saying they 'don't reveal anything that couldn't be seen by any pedestrian scanning your house with an electron microscope.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[wikipedia:Google Earth|Google Earth]] is a mapping software provided by Google that allows people to see the Earth from a birds-eye-view perspective. If you zoom in close enough, you can see individual streets - or in this case, a neighborhood.

[[wikipedia:Optical_resolution|Resolution]] is a term (roughly) representing the scale of the smallest identifiable feature in an image. In the context of terrestrial image mapping, this would correspond to the area occupied by a single pixel in a terrestrial satellite image. In this strip, Randall points out that the resolution of satellite images available to Google Earth has been decreasing(improving) at a logarithmic rate for the past decade. This is due to the improving quality of satellite imaging technology.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck length]] is a unit of length and in principle the shortest measurable length. The comic shows how the current growth trend in resolution of Google Earth will hit the Planck length around the year 2100, even though such result is currently considered impossible to achieve.

The title text refers to the fact that the trendline predicts an available resolution in the nanometer range by 2031, which would necessitate (using today's technology) the use of [[wikipedia:Scanning_tunneling_microscope|scanning tunneling microscopes]] to achieve.

==Transcript==
:My Neighborhood's Resolution in:
:[A chart showing the Resolution of Google Earth increasing on a logarithmic scale towards the Planck Length, with resolution on the y-axis and time in years on the x-axis.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics from 2013]]
[[Category:Comics from April]]

1204: Detail

2013-04-26T05:44:28Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1204
| date = April 26, 2013
| title = Detail
| image = detail.png
| titletext = 2031: Google defends the swiveling roof-mounted scanning electron microscopes on its Street View cars, saying they 'don't reveal anything that couldn't be seen by any pedestrian scanning your house with an electron microscope.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[wikipedia:Google Earth|Google Earth]] is a mapping software provided by Google that allows people to see the Earth from a birds-eye-view perspective. If you zoom in close enough, you can see individual streets - or in this case, a neighborhood.

[[wikipedia:Optical_resolution|Resolution]] is a term (roughly) representing the scale of the smallest identifiable feature in an image. In the context of terrestrial image mapping, this would correspond to the area occupied by a single pixel in a terrestrial satellite image. In this strip, Randall points out that the resolution of satellite images available to Google Earth has been decreasing(improving) at a logarithmic rate for the past decade. This is due to the improving quality of satellite imaging technology.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck length]] is a unit of length and in principle the shortest measurable length. The comic shows how the current growth trend in resolution of Google Earth will hit the Planck length around the year 2100, even though such result is currently considered impossible to achieve.

The title text refers to the fact that the trendline predicts an available resolution in the micrometer/nanometer range by 2031, which would necessitate (using today's technology) the use of scanning-tunneling microscopes to achieve.

==Transcript==
:My Neighborhood's Resolution in:
:[A chart showing the Resolution of Google Earth increasing on a logarithmic scale towards the Planck Length, with resolution on the y-axis and time in years on the x-axis.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics from 2013]]
[[Category:Comics from April]]

1204: Detail

2013-04-26T05:41:18Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1204
| date = April 26, 2013
| title = Detail
| image = detail.png
| titletext = 2031: Google defends the swiveling roof-mounted scanning electron microscopes on its Street View cars, saying they 'don't reveal anything that couldn't be seen by any pedestrian scanning your house with an electron microscope.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[wikipedia:Google Earth|Google Earth]] is a mapping software provided by Google that allows people to see the Earth from a birds-eye-view perspective. If you zoom in close enough, you can see individual streets - or in this case, a neighborhood.

[[wikipedia:Optical_resolution|Resolution]] is a term (roughly) representing the scale of the smallest identifiable feature in an image. In the context of terrestrial image mapping, this would correspond to the area occupied by a single pixel in a terrestrial satellite image. In this strip, Randall points out that the resolution of satellite images available to Google Earth has been decreasing(improving) at a logarithmic rate for the past decade. This is due to the improving quality of satellite imaging technology.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck length]] is a unit of length and in principle the shortest measurable length. The comic shows how the current growth trend in resolution of Google Earth will hit the Planck length around the year 2100, even though such result is currently considered impossible to achieve.

==Transcript==
:My Neighborhood's Resolution in:
:[A chart showing the Resolution of Google Earth increasing on a logarithmic scale towards the Planck Length, with resolution on the y-axis and time in years on the x-axis.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics from 2013]]
[[Category:Comics from April]]

1204: Detail

2013-04-26T05:40:54Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1204
| date = April 26, 2013
| title = Detail
| image = detail.png
| titletext = 2031: Google defends the swiveling roof-mounted scanning electron microscopes on its Street View cars, saying they 'don't reveal anything that couldn't be seen by any pedestrian scanning your house with an electron microscope.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[wikipedia:Google Earth|Google Earth]] is a mapping software provided by Google that allows people to see the Earth from a birds-eye-view perspective. If you zoom in close enough, you can see individual streets - or in this case, a neighborhood.

[[wikipedia:Optical_resolution|Resolution]] is a term (roughly) representing the scale of the smallest identifiable feature in an image. In the context of terrestrial image mapping, this would correspond to the area occupied by a single pixel in a terrestrial satellite image. In this strip, Randall points out that the resolution of satellite images available to Google Earth has been decreasing at a logarithmic rate for the past decade. This is due to the improving quality of satellite imaging technology.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck length]] is a unit of length and in principle the shortest measurable length. The comic shows how the current growth trend in resolution of Google Earth will hit the Planck length around the year 2100, even though such result is currently considered impossible to achieve.

==Transcript==
:My Neighborhood's Resolution in:
:[A chart showing the Resolution of Google Earth increasing on a logarithmic scale towards the Planck Length, with resolution on the y-axis and time in years on the x-axis.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics from 2013]]
[[Category:Comics from April]]

1204: Detail

2013-04-26T05:39:58Z

Echo Seven: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1204
| date = April 26, 2013
| title = Detail
| image = detail.png
| titletext = 2031: Google defends the swiveling roof-mounted scanning electron microscopes on its Street View cars, saying they 'don't reveal anything that couldn't be seen by any pedestrian scanning your house with an electron microscope.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[wikipedia:Google Earth|Google Earth]] is a mapping software provided by Google that allows people to see the Earth from a birds-eye-view perspective. If you zoom in close enough, you can see individual streets - or in this case, a neighborhood.

[[wikipedia:Optical_resolution|Resolution]] is a term (roughly) representing the scale of the smallest identifiable feature in an image. In the context of terrestrial image mapping, this would correspond to the area occupied by a single pixel in a terrestrial satellite image. In this strip, Randall points out that the resolution of satellite images available to Google Earth has been decreasing at a logarithmic rate for the past two decades. This is due to the improving quality of satellite imaging technology.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck length]] is a unit of length and in principle the shortest measurable length. The comic shows how the current growth trend in resolution of Google Earth will hit the Planck length around the year 2100, even though such result is currently considered impossible to achieve.

==Transcript==
:My Neighborhood's Resolution in:
:[A chart showing the Resolution of Google Earth increasing on a logarithmic scale towards the Planck Length, with resolution on the y-axis and time in years on the x-axis.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics from 2013]]
[[Category:Comics from April]]

1204: Detail

2013-04-26T05:39:32Z

Echo Seven:

{{comic
| number = 1204
| date = April 26, 2013
| title = Detail
| image = detail.png
| titletext = 2031: Google defends the swiveling roof-mounted scanning electron microscopes on its Street View cars, saying they 'don't reveal anything that couldn't be seen by any pedestrian scanning your house with an electron microscope.'
}}

==Explanation==
[[wikipedia:Google Earth|Google Earth]] is a mapping software provided by Google that allows people to see the Earth from a birds-eye-view perspective. If you zoom in close enough, you can see individual streets - or in this case, a neighborhood.

[[wikipedia:Optical_resolution|Resolution]] is a term (roughly) representing the scale of the smallest identifiable feature in an image. In the context of terrestrial image mapping, this would correspond to the area occupied by a single pixel in a terrestrial satellite image. In this strip, Randall points out that the resolution of satellite images available to Google Earth has been decreasing at a logarithmic rate for the past two decades. This is due to the improving quality of satellite imaging technology.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck Length]] is a unit believed to be the shortest measurable length, and thus effectively, the "resolution" of reality. In the chart, if the current trend in satellite technology is extrapolated over the next several decades, it yields the result that the image resolution of Google Earth will reach the Planck Length (and thus, "reality") sometime around 2100.

The [[wikipedia:Planck_length|Planck length]] is a unit of length and in principle the shortest measurable length. The comic shows how the current growth trend in resolution of Google Earth will hit the Planck length around the year 2100, even though such result is currently considered impossible to achieve.

==Transcript==
:My Neighborhood's Resolution in:
:[A chart showing the Resolution of Google Earth increasing on a logarithmic scale towards the Planck Length, with resolution on the y-axis and time in years on the x-axis.]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics]]
[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Comics from 2013]]
[[Category:Comics from April]]

Talk:1189: Voyager 1

2013-04-21T03:59:15Z

Echo Seven:

Uh, not all tally marks are Doctor Who references. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 05:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is Randall getting lazy? Most of the past comics have been simplistic, easy-to-draw charts. {{unsigned|98.172.117.132}}
: Having just come from the future, we can now surmise that he was prepping for the epic, month-long-and-running sandcastle comic that started in the strip after this one. [[User:Echo Seven|Echo Seven]] ([[User talk:Echo Seven|talk]]) 03:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, was he talking about the glove? I though it was referring to "running the gauntlet" for some reason. --[[Special:Contributions/123.243.217.72|123.243.217.72]] 07:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, that's "running the gantlet." Two words which are often confused for each other. Plus you could run a gantlet of people whacking you with their gauntlets. [[Special:Contributions/63.241.174.129|63.241.174.129]] 13:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

: "Running the gantlet" and "running the gauntlet" are both acceptable uses, since both gantlet and gauntlet can be used for the punishment (however, "dropping the gantlet" would be incorrect, since gantlet ''only'' refers to the punishment, while gauntlet can refer to both the punishment and the glove). [[Special:Contributions/72.178.88.37|72.178.88.37]] 01:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

He almost certainly meant 'gantlet'; I think Randall just got the two words confused (it happens frequently. At this point, dictionary.com lists both spellings as synonymous.) The medieval punishment makes much more sense in context (ie: lots of things that could potentially hit Voyageur.)[[Special:Contributions/24.70.188.179|24.70.188.179]] 13:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

: Well, I saw a straight wordplay belt→glove there. --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 14:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
: Gauntlet and gantlet are both fitting and humorous in the context. Homophones are great. [[Special:Contributions/98.240.130.17|98.240.130.17]] 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There were several stories two days ago saying it had left, then a correction from NASA saying it didn't.
http://science.time.com/2013/03/20/humanity-leaves-the-solar-system-35-years-later-voyager-offically-exits-the-heliosphere/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416867,00.asp
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20130320.html
[[User:Bugefun|Bugefun]] ([[User talk:Bugefun|talk]]) 07:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or is it unclear why are there sixteen leaving events described in the title text but twenty-two tally marks on the comic? [[Special:Contributions/188.221.199.135|188.221.199.135]] 07:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I just keep hoping that my children will be interested in space. Too late for me, NASA wouldn't want me, but surely my genes are still ok, I hope. To follow voyager down the rabbit hole of our expectations, what else can father ever ask? [[Special:Contributions/166.147.120.177|166.147.120.177]] 08:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No it is not just you why there are 22 tick marks, and only 16 countable exits.[[Special:Contributions/192.231.124.16|192.231.124.16]] 12:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Crystal Sphere may refer to a David Brin story used to explain the fermi paradox of why we have had no alien contact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Spheres [[User:Schmammel|Schmammel]] ([[User talk:Schmammel|talk]]) 14:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
:Crystal Sphere could also be a reference to the old Spelljammer D&D setting where systems/galaxies were contained in crystal spheres. [[Special:Contributions/146.146.7.2|146.146.7.2]]
::Which in turn is a reference to (well, really, direct borrowing from) the Ptolemaic astronomical concept, so it still comes back to the same thing. [[Special:Contributions/129.176.151.14|129.176.151.14]] 13:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"US Census Bureau Solar System statistical boundary – a fictive boundary defined by": I'm capable of reading 'fictive' as 'conventional' in this sentence; as in "the real census bureau really invented it, like they really invented census areas". I would not have been confused by 'fictional', or by 'a boundary fictively invented', but I'm not sure that the second one is good English. I may have studied too much sociology. [[Special:Contributions/121.73.5.66|121.73.5.66]] 07:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Magnetogap" is probably wordplay on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetopause {{unsigned|194.176.203.76}}

1201: Integration by Parts

2013-04-21T01:52:12Z

Echo Seven:

{{comic
| number = 1201
| date = April 19, 2013
| title = Integration by Parts
| image = integration by parts.png
| titletext = If you can manage to choose u and v such that u = v = x, then the answer is just (1/2)x^2, which is easy to remember. Oh, and add a '+C' or you'll get yelled at.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Integration by parts}} is an integration strategy that is used to evaluate difficult integrals by trying to find simpler integrals derived from the original. It is commonly a source of confusion or irritation for students when they first learn it, due to the fact that there is really no way to accurately predict the proper u/dv separation just by looking at an integral. Integration by parts requires patience, trial and error, and experience.

Randall shows a somewhat complicated math problem and, in an attempt to "help", simplifies it into a more compact integral. This is the first part of performing integration by parts, which involves the guessing. Having gotten it into integration by parts format, he then leaves without describing the actual solution. The general integral integral(u dv) is equal to uv - integral(v du), and this is the more tedious part of the math and where problems will arise if you picked the wrong u and dv at the beginning. The narrator makes a point of leaving here, so we can't ask for help or complain if the choice of u and dv was wrong.

In the title text, he points out that if the integral of x can be divided so that u = x and dv = dx (implying v = x), then it leads to the result (1/2)x^2 (implying the original integral was just ∫x dx, and not needing integration by parts in the first place). Mathematics teachers and extreme math geeks will also cringe at this answer, however, since an indefinite integral requires an integration constant. The correct answer is actually (1/2)x^2 + C, as Randall hints. The + C symbolizes that an integral can be shifted vertically any number (a constant) and still get the same answer. Definite integrals (which specify a specific range that they're valid on) do not have the added constant.

==Transcript==
:A Guide to
:Integration by Parts:

:Given a problem of the form:
::∫f(x)g(x)dx=?
:Choose variables u and v such that
::u=f(x)
::dv=g(x)dx
:Now the expression becomes:
::∫udv=?
:Which ''definitely'' looks easier.
:Anyway, I gotta run.
:But good luck!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Sarcasm]]

Talk:1201: Integration by Parts

2013-04-21T01:48:59Z

Echo Seven:

I think the joke is that's not the full explanation.
--[[Special:Contributions/128.113.151.84|128.113.151.84]] 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
: Exactly; he omits the final step part of the process: ∫udv= uv - ∫vdu. This is only helpful if you can easily obtain v from ∫dv and can integrate ∫vdu . The key trick is picking u and dv properly; it's rarely as easy as saying u = f(x) and v=g(x)dx. So the joke is that he's treating integration by parts as if it's a "magic rule" on the order of the product rule for differentiation, when it's not. [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I think this is it. It's funny because the described conversation happens universally every time someone who's not a full-blown math teacher tries to explain IBP to someone else. You just sort of hit this humiliating brick wall if you haven't comprehensively studied it. I'd also like to point out if u = v = x then dv = dx, f(x) = x, g(x) = 1 and your original integral was just ∫x dx to begin with (you wouldn't need IBP in the first place). [[User:Echo Seven|Echo Seven]] ([[User talk:Echo Seven|talk]]) 01:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the full explanation?But what exactly is the joke here?It takes a lot of practice to be able to do integration sums correctly.[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke is rather “which definitely looks easier” — that’s how mathematics is generally perceived by non-mathematicians: You rewrite something, state that it looks easier / more beautiful / more elegant — which the non-mathematician usually perceives differently — and even if it does, you’re not a tad nearer to the answer. --[[Special:Contributions/84.191.162.248|84.191.162.248]] 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic integration ALWAYS require experience and trial-and-error, which is flustrating given that the reverse process - derivation - can be described with simple alghorithm and done mechanically. I heart that derivation is easy as geting toothpaste out of tube and integration is reverse process ... meaning its as hard as puting the toothpaste back into tube. The reason is that there is simple rule for derivation of product, whereas integration of product is usually done by GUESSING the product which will derivate into given integral (which is what integration by parts actually is, only reformulated to sound little easier). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

: By using the term ''derivation'', you mean it as the same as the term ''differentiation'', correct? I've never used the term derivation before. I like it, it's shorter. If so, YES, integration of products is WAY harder. 'u' substitutions alone are a pain - having a 'v' substitution as well requires a lot of hard work and trial and error... {{unsigned|Dangerkeith3000}}

''Oh, and add a '+C' or you'll get yelled at.''
Best part. This is something I experienced many times in my first semester of mathematics for scientists.
The joke seems to me to be the presentation of the idea accurately; after the initial step, there's no real advice to give. Good luck is the best you can hope for. [[Special:Contributions/49.176.36.57|49.176.36.57]] 12:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cripes, to do something by parts means to do something without enthusiasm or leave something incomplete. The joke is that he didn't complete the explanation! [[Special:Contributions/124.189.64.231|124.189.64.231]]

The title text refers to a ridiculously specific case (integrating x), which would not normally be done using integration by parts. This suggests that the narrator is pretending to know more about integration by parts than he actually does, which would explain why he left in such a hurry. [[User:Concomitant|Concomitant]] ([[User talk:Concomitant|talk]]) 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1201: Integration by Parts

2013-04-21T01:48:03Z

Echo Seven:

I think the joke is that's not the full explanation.
--[[Special:Contributions/128.113.151.84|128.113.151.84]] 04:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
: Exactly; he omits the final step part of the process: ∫udv= uv - ∫vdu. This is only helpful if you can easily obtain v from ∫dv and can integrate ∫vdu . The key trick is picking u and dv properly; it's rarely as easy as saying u = f(x) and v=g(x)dx. So the joke is that he's treating integration by parts as if it's a "magic rule" on the order of the product rule for differentiation, when it's not. [[Special:Contributions/66.202.132.250|66.202.132.250]] 21:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I think this is it. It's funny because the described conversation happens universally every time someone who's not a full-blown math teacher tries to explain IBP to someone else. You just sort of hit this humiliating brick wall if you haven't comprehensively studied it. I'd also like to point out if u = v = x then dv = dx, f(x) = x, g(x) = 0 and your original integral was just ∫x dx to begin with (you wouldn't need IBP in the first place). [[User:Echo Seven|Echo Seven]] ([[User talk:Echo Seven|talk]]) 01:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Not the full explanation?But what exactly is the joke here?It takes a lot of practice to be able to do integration sums correctly.[[User:Guru-45|Guru-45]] ([[User talk:Guru-45|talk]]) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the joke is rather “which definitely looks easier” — that’s how mathematics is generally perceived by non-mathematicians: You rewrite something, state that it looks easier / more beautiful / more elegant — which the non-mathematician usually perceives differently — and even if it does, you’re not a tad nearer to the answer. --[[Special:Contributions/84.191.162.248|84.191.162.248]] 08:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic integration ALWAYS require experience and trial-and-error, which is flustrating given that the reverse process - derivation - can be described with simple alghorithm and done mechanically. I heart that derivation is easy as geting toothpaste out of tube and integration is reverse process ... meaning its as hard as puting the toothpaste back into tube. The reason is that there is simple rule for derivation of product, whereas integration of product is usually done by GUESSING the product which will derivate into given integral (which is what integration by parts actually is, only reformulated to sound little easier). -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

: By using the term ''derivation'', you mean it as the same as the term ''differentiation'', correct? I've never used the term derivation before. I like it, it's shorter. If so, YES, integration of products is WAY harder. 'u' substitutions alone are a pain - having a 'v' substitution as well requires a lot of hard work and trial and error... {{unsigned|Dangerkeith3000}}

''Oh, and add a '+C' or you'll get yelled at.''
Best part. This is something I experienced many times in my first semester of mathematics for scientists.
The joke seems to me to be the presentation of the idea accurately; after the initial step, there's no real advice to give. Good luck is the best you can hope for. [[Special:Contributions/49.176.36.57|49.176.36.57]] 12:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Cripes, to do something by parts means to do something without enthusiasm or leave something incomplete. The joke is that he didn't complete the explanation! [[Special:Contributions/124.189.64.231|124.189.64.231]]

The title text refers to a ridiculously specific case (integrating x), which would not normally be done using integration by parts. This suggests that the narrator is pretending to know more about integration by parts than he actually does, which would explain why he left in such a hurry. [[User:Concomitant|Concomitant]] ([[User talk:Concomitant|talk]]) 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)