explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2128: New Robot

2019-03-27T02:52:42Z

Glassvein:

Boston Dynamics does this. [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the title text is referring to the term "search and destroy", which would certainly be the second type. [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 18:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M46HvyAG2k i'ts a robot! [[User:I prefer qwerty|I prefer qwerty]] ([[User talk:I prefer qwerty|talk]]) 21:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else reminded of the Rovers from ''The Prisoner''? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.190|172.69.69.190]] 21:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like, from both the references(E.G. Hookshot) to various things and the captions, that this bot was built with the purpose of being cool rather than any sort of destructive nature. [[User:V|V]] ([[User talk:V|talk]]) 03:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought I recognized [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_JcKSHUtQ&t=2m9s that stage.] [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.95|172.68.132.95]] 04:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The (current) explanation completley misses the point of the one big advantage robots have for search and rescue missions. especially the search part: They often can access areas humans cannot for reasons such as temperature, space restrictions, safety, height/depth, radiation, etc. So especially for the search part it can be muc hbetter to send in a drone instead of a person. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 07:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm on mobile and it is too awkward to fix up the current explanation, but it is completely off the mark. The sphere is not a fragile balloon, this is why he didn't say balloon. Engineers come up with robots because they are fun and impressive challenges to make, and it's really cool to make something that has never been made before, especially if it solves a hard problem or it replicates popular fictional media, but others don't understand this and wonder what all the effort is expended for. Floating objects accumulate atmospheric charge relative to ground - this can be used as a weak power source and is the source of lightning. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.10|172.69.50.10]] 11:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In complete agreement with ^^ about the fragile balloon. I'd say something more along the lines of "Impractical for the 'rescue' bit", but a sphere isn't necessarily fragile.
[[User:Glassvein|Glassvein]] ([[User talk:Glassvein|talk]]) 02:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-03-06T01:52:09Z

Glassvein:

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)

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)

== 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.]

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-03-05T02:47:08Z

Glassvein: /* Risch algorithm */

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, integration 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.
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)

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)

== 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.]

Talk:2119: Video Orientation

2019-03-05T02:44:48Z

Glassvein:

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2co1zio.png[/IMG]
More readable:I think this could be done with text too.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.64|172.68.154.64]] 13:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory prior art in this commentary space: [https://vimeo.com/313458699 Glove and Boots: Vertical Video Syndrome] (apparently they decamped from Youtube to Vimeo last month, the original c. 2013 video was Bt9zSfinwFA). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The title text seems to be a reference to AL, the A.I in ''2001 : A Space Odyssey'' which cause a few problems to the crew and mainly communicate through a round lens. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.171|172.69.226.171]] 14:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Or 2002 movie The Ring [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.221|141.101.96.221]] 14:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::I presumed it was a reference to summoning circles. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 15:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::My first thought was a reference to Matt Parker of standupmaths and his spherical camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgyI8aPctaI [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::I think the same... Isn't it some Terry Pratchett quote? or may be from other fantasy? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:It was HAL, not AL in Space Odyssey. Move the letters forward one, and it's IBM. Deliberate Easter egg. {{unsigned ip|162.158.38.94}}

A circular screen is great for that retro-look, like a [https://picclick.com/1950s-ZENITH-PORTHOLE-Television-18-Circular-TV-Screen-113317154719.html 1950's Zenith Porthole TV]. I seem to remember seeing circular screens on some really old sci-fi shows as well. As well as one use of a [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/ThisIslandEarth triangular screen]. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought the circular format was a reference to SnapChat's camera glasses and people's mistrust of "surveillance glasses". I am probably wrong. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fails in the obvious- Horizontal is better because you can send the video in to the TV news for your 15 seconds of fame without looking like a douche who doesn't know how to rotate their phone. And why isn't there a setting for "always landscape" anyway?[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

:I have to agree... the fact that most non-mobile screens are oriented horizontally being left out was kind of a big miss. A vertical video looks like crap on a TV or Computer Monitor (Ironically unless it's an old 3:4 one, where the difference is a lot more minor.) -Graptor [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, when I first read the comic on my phone (portrait), I did not realise there was a third "CONS" column. [[User:ColinHogben|ColinHogben]] ([[User talk:ColinHogben|talk]]) 15:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:that never would have happened with a circular screen ~ ocæon 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not that good of an explanation, even if I wrote some of it. Actually, especially since I wrote some of it. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks 90.10 [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have never had problems holding my smartphone in landscape, or my camera in portrait. I just can't understand the use of portrait to film anything but one for two people's faces just because you hold the device that way to make a phone call (on the v rare occasion they do). Hey but I was born in the 50's [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the 50x150 view comment is right. I'd suggest removing it or backing it up with a source. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.16|162.158.146.16]] 23:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel like there's an awesome joke to be made about Battlefield Earth here...
[[User:Glassvein|Glassvein]] ([[User talk:Glassvein|talk]]) 02:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

== Anti-Semitic trolling ==
Edited to remove the anti-Semitic tag and content. {{unsigned|Elusis}}
:Dealing with the same thing. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::Maybe we should replace the Google CAPTCHA with an IQ test? That should get rid of the 5-year old troll.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.171|172.69.226.171]] 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::But then they’d say IQ was rigged by the communistic jewish theocracy. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::::This replies aren't helpful. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks for removing that content, but please do not remove the entire incomplete tag that soon. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
My advice for now: Just revert that content silently, that unregistered user always has to solve a captcha while a registered user easily can revert it. Without any discussion that IP will get tired sooner or later. Nonetheless many thanks to everybody keeping an eye on this destructive edits. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour and stop censoring my edits? If your position has any merit (it doesn't), you could defeat me in debate (you can't). {{unsigned ip|162.158.106.6}}
:There is no censorship here. And please do us a favor and sign your comments. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::Fuck you, shill. Soon the truth will be revealed, whether you want it to be or not. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.240|162.158.106.240]] 21:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

but guys, the stuff he's saying is '''bold and dynamic''' @_@[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.23|172.69.33.23]] 00:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

== table ==

may the pro con table be replicated and expanded upon? the realworld aplications of horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and circular screens would be comparable the same way. ocæon 01:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2119: Video Orientation

2019-03-05T02:43:38Z

Glassvein: /* table */

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2co1zio.png[/IMG]
More readable:I think this could be done with text too.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.64|172.68.154.64]] 13:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory prior art in this commentary space: [https://vimeo.com/313458699 Glove and Boots: Vertical Video Syndrome] (apparently they decamped from Youtube to Vimeo last month, the original c. 2013 video was Bt9zSfinwFA). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The title text seems to be a reference to AL, the A.I in ''2001 : A Space Odyssey'' which cause a few problems to the crew and mainly communicate through a round lens. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.171|172.69.226.171]] 14:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Or 2002 movie The Ring [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.221|141.101.96.221]] 14:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::I presumed it was a reference to summoning circles. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 15:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::My first thought was a reference to Matt Parker of standupmaths and his spherical camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgyI8aPctaI [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::I think the same... Isn't it some Terry Pratchett quote? or may be from other fantasy? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:It was HAL, not AL in Space Odyssey. Move the letters forward one, and it's IBM. Deliberate Easter egg. {{unsigned ip|162.158.38.94}}

A circular screen is great for that retro-look, like a [https://picclick.com/1950s-ZENITH-PORTHOLE-Television-18-Circular-TV-Screen-113317154719.html 1950's Zenith Porthole TV]. I seem to remember seeing circular screens on some really old sci-fi shows as well. As well as one use of a [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/ThisIslandEarth triangular screen]. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought the circular format was a reference to SnapChat's camera glasses and people's mistrust of "surveillance glasses". I am probably wrong. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fails in the obvious- Horizontal is better because you can send the video in to the TV news for your 15 seconds of fame without looking like a douche who doesn't know how to rotate their phone. And why isn't there a setting for "always landscape" anyway?[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

:I have to agree... the fact that most non-mobile screens are oriented horizontally being left out was kind of a big miss. A vertical video looks like crap on a TV or Computer Monitor (Ironically unless it's an old 3:4 one, where the difference is a lot more minor.) -Graptor [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, when I first read the comic on my phone (portrait), I did not realise there was a third "CONS" column. [[User:ColinHogben|ColinHogben]] ([[User talk:ColinHogben|talk]]) 15:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:that never would have happened with a circular screen ~ ocæon 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not that good of an explanation, even if I wrote some of it. Actually, especially since I wrote some of it. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks 90.10 [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have never had problems holding my smartphone in landscape, or my camera in portrait. I just can't understand the use of portrait to film anything but one for two people's faces just because you hold the device that way to make a phone call (on the v rare occasion they do). Hey but I was born in the 50's [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the 50x150 view comment is right. I'd suggest removing it or backing it up with a source. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.16|162.158.146.16]] 23:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

== Anti-Semitic trolling ==
Edited to remove the anti-Semitic tag and content. {{unsigned|Elusis}}
:Dealing with the same thing. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::Maybe we should replace the Google CAPTCHA with an IQ test? That should get rid of the 5-year old troll.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.171|172.69.226.171]] 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::But then they’d say IQ was rigged by the communistic jewish theocracy. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::::This replies aren't helpful. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks for removing that content, but please do not remove the entire incomplete tag that soon. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
My advice for now: Just revert that content silently, that unregistered user always has to solve a captcha while a registered user easily can revert it. Without any discussion that IP will get tired sooner or later. Nonetheless many thanks to everybody keeping an eye on this destructive edits. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour and stop censoring my edits? If your position has any merit (it doesn't), you could defeat me in debate (you can't). {{unsigned ip|162.158.106.6}}
:There is no censorship here. And please do us a favor and sign your comments. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::Fuck you, shill. Soon the truth will be revealed, whether you want it to be or not. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.240|162.158.106.240]] 21:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

but guys, the stuff he's saying is '''bold and dynamic''' @_@[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.23|172.69.33.23]] 00:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

== table ==

may the pro con table be replicated and expanded upon? the realworld aplications of horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and circular screens would be comparable the same way. ocæon 01:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2119: Video Orientation

2019-03-05T02:42:59Z

Glassvein:

[IMG]http://i64.tinypic.com/2co1zio.png[/IMG]
More readable:I think this could be done with text too.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.154.64|172.68.154.64]] 13:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory prior art in this commentary space: [https://vimeo.com/313458699 Glove and Boots: Vertical Video Syndrome] (apparently they decamped from Youtube to Vimeo last month, the original c. 2013 video was Bt9zSfinwFA). [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The title text seems to be a reference to AL, the A.I in ''2001 : A Space Odyssey'' which cause a few problems to the crew and mainly communicate through a round lens. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.171|172.69.226.171]] 14:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Or 2002 movie The Ring [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.221|141.101.96.221]] 14:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::I presumed it was a reference to summoning circles. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 15:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::My first thought was a reference to Matt Parker of standupmaths and his spherical camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgyI8aPctaI [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.67|162.158.62.67]] 18:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::I think the same... Isn't it some Terry Pratchett quote? or may be from other fantasy? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.94.2|162.158.94.2]] 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:It was HAL, not AL in Space Odyssey. Move the letters forward one, and it's IBM. Deliberate Easter egg. {{unsigned ip|162.158.38.94}}

A circular screen is great for that retro-look, like a [https://picclick.com/1950s-ZENITH-PORTHOLE-Television-18-Circular-TV-Screen-113317154719.html 1950's Zenith Porthole TV]. I seem to remember seeing circular screens on some really old sci-fi shows as well. As well as one use of a [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/ThisIslandEarth triangular screen]. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought the circular format was a reference to SnapChat's camera glasses and people's mistrust of "surveillance glasses". I am probably wrong. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fails in the obvious- Horizontal is better because you can send the video in to the TV news for your 15 seconds of fame without looking like a douche who doesn't know how to rotate their phone. And why isn't there a setting for "always landscape" anyway?[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

:I have to agree... the fact that most non-mobile screens are oriented horizontally being left out was kind of a big miss. A vertical video looks like crap on a TV or Computer Monitor (Ironically unless it's an old 3:4 one, where the difference is a lot more minor.) -Graptor [[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.220|172.69.62.220]] 15:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, when I first read the comic on my phone (portrait), I did not realise there was a third "CONS" column. [[User:ColinHogben|ColinHogben]] ([[User talk:ColinHogben|talk]]) 15:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:that never would have happened with a circular screen ~ ocæon 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Not that good of an explanation, even if I wrote some of it. Actually, especially since I wrote some of it. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks 90.10 [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have never had problems holding my smartphone in landscape, or my camera in portrait. I just can't understand the use of portrait to film anything but one for two people's faces just because you hold the device that way to make a phone call (on the v rare occasion they do). Hey but I was born in the 50's [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the 50x150 view comment is right. I'd suggest removing it or backing it up with a source. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.16|162.158.146.16]] 23:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

== Anti-Semitic trolling ==
Edited to remove the anti-Semitic tag and content. {{unsigned|Elusis}}
:Dealing with the same thing. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::Maybe we should replace the Google CAPTCHA with an IQ test? That should get rid of the 5-year old troll.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.226.171|172.69.226.171]] 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:::But then they’d say IQ was rigged by the communistic jewish theocracy. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::::This replies aren't helpful. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
:Thanks for removing that content, but please do not remove the entire incomplete tag that soon. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
My advice for now: Just revert that content silently, that unregistered user always has to solve a captcha while a registered user easily can revert it. Without any discussion that IP will get tired sooner or later. Nonetheless many thanks to everybody keeping an eye on this destructive edits. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour and stop censoring my edits? If your position has any merit (it doesn't), you could defeat me in debate (you can't). {{unsigned ip|162.158.106.6}}
:There is no censorship here. And please do us a favor and sign your comments. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
::Fuck you, shill. Soon the truth will be revealed, whether you want it to be or not. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.240|162.158.106.240]] 21:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

but guys, the stuff he's saying is '''bold and dynamic''' @_@[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.23|172.69.33.23]] 00:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

== table ==

may the pro con table be replicated and expanded upon? the realworld aplications of horizontal, vertical, diagonal, and circular screens would be comparable the same way. ocæon 01:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel like there's an awesome joke to be made about Battlefield Earth here...
[[User:Glassvein|Glassvein]] ([[User talk:Glassvein|talk]]) 02:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Glassvein

2019-03-05T02:40:58Z

Glassvein: /* Differentiation and Integration */

== Differentiation and Integration ==
Hi! Did you intentionally revert my changes to the description of the Risch algorithm at [[2117: Differentiation and Integration]], or was that just an edit conflict? - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|talk]]) 05:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That was indeed an edit conflict; I thought your Risch algorithm was great! Sorry about that.

Glassveins
[[User:Glassvein|Glassvein]] ([[User talk:Glassvein|talk]]) 02:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-02-28T03:14:23Z

Glassvein: comment

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-02-28T03:11:29Z

Glassvein:

{{comic
| number = 2117
| date = February 27, 2019
| title = Differentiation and Integration
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BESSEL FUNCTION? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic provides a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.

However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-know-where extents.

It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.

===Differentiation===
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))*g'(x)</math>.

'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''

For any <math> f(x)=x^a </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=a*x^{a-1} </math>.

'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)g(x)-f(x)g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.

'''{{w|Product rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)*g(x))=f'(x)*g(x)+f(x)*g'(x)</math>.

===Integration===
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''

The "chain rule" run backwards. Since <math> d(f(u)) = (df(u))du</math>, it follows that <math>f(u) = \int df(u) du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>f, u</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int df(u) du</math> your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''

Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.

'''{{w|Install Mathematica}}'''

{{w|Mathematica}} is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is install and use Mathematica to compute to do the integration for you.

'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''
The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the Lesbegue Integral. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.

'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''
Stokes' theorem relates a surface integral of a the curl of the vector field to a line integral of the vector field around the boundary of the surface. If you're in this deep, there's a good chance that you're just randomly applying any analytical technique you can think of at this point.

'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''
The Risch Algorithm is a complex procedure that reduces the process of symbolic integration to purely algebraic steps. It is implemented in Computer Algebra software, such as Mathematica. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.

'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''
Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation <math> x^2 \frac{dy^2}{dx^2}+x \frac{dy}{dx}+(x^2-n^2)*y=0</math>, where n is the order of Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''
Symbolic algebra is the basic process of finding an antiderivative, as opposed to numerically integrating a function. Randall plays off the joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because he can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

''' Burn the evidence '''
In a parody of detective novels, this may refer to the burning of your work to avoid the shame of being unable to solve the integration problem.
Alternatively, this could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so that the negative consequences of a persecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]
:DIFFERENTIATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Chain Rule
::Power Rule
::Quotient Rule
::Product Rule
::Etc.
:Done?
::Yes
::No
:Done!

[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]
:INTEGRATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Integration by Parts
::Substitution
:Done?
:Haha, Nope!

:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]
::Cauchy's Formula
::????
::???!?
::???
::???
::?
::Partial Fractions
::??
::?
::Install Mathematica
::?
::Riemann Integration
::Stokes' Theorem
::???
::?
::Risch Algorithm
::???
::[Sad face.]
::?????
::???
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??
::Phone calls to mathematicians
::Oh No
::Burn the Evidence


{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Analysis]]

2117: Differentiation and Integration

2019-02-28T03:10:33Z

Glassvein: /* Explanation */ Added Stoke' Theorem, Bessel Functions, and

{{comic
| number = 2117
| date = February 27, 2019
| title = Differentiation and Integration
| image = differentiation_and_integration.png
| titletext = "Symbolic integration" is when you theatrically go through the motions of finding integrals, but the actual result you get doesn't matter because it's purely symbolic.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a BESSEL FUNCTION? Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic provides a {{w|flowchart}} purporting to show the process of differentiation, and another for integration.

{{w|Derivative|Differentiation}} and {{w|Antiderivative|Integration}} are two major components of {{w|calculus}}. As many Calculus 2 students are painfully aware, integration is much more complicated than the differentiation it undoes.

However, Randall dramatically overstates this point here. After the first step of integration, Randall assumes that any integration can not be solved so simply, and then dives into a step named "????", suggesting that it is unknowable how to proceed. The rest of the flowchart is (we can assume deliberately) even harder to follow, and does not reach a conclusion. This is in contrast to the simple, straightforward flowchart for differentiation. The fact that the arrows in the bottom of the integration part leads to nowhere indicates that "Phone calls to mathematicians", "Oh no" and "Burn the evidence" are not final steps in the difficult journey. The flowchart could be extended by Randall to God-know-where extents.

It should be noted that Randall slightly undermines his point by providing four different methods, and an "etc", for attempting differentiation with no guidelines for selecting between them.

===Differentiation===
'''{{w|Chain rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(g(x)))=f'(g(x))*g'(x)</math>.

'''{{w|Power Rule}}'''

For any <math> f(x)=x^a </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=a*x^{a-1} </math>.

'''{{w|Quotient rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{f'(x)g(x)-f(x)g'(x)}{(g(x))^2}</math> if <math>g(x)\ne 0</math>.

'''{{w|Product rule}}'''

For any <math> \frac{d}{dx}f(x)=f'(x)</math> and <math> \frac{d}{dx}g(x)=g'(x) </math>, it follows that <math> \frac{d}{dx}(f(x)*g(x))=f'(x)*g(x)+f(x)*g'(x)</math>.

===Integration===
'''{{w|Integration by parts}}'''

The "product rule" run backwards. Since <math>(uv)' = uv' + u'v</math>, it follows that by integrating both sides you get <math> uv = \int u dv + \int v du</math>, which is more commonly written as <math>\int u dv = uv - \int v du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>u, v</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int u dv</math>, your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Integration by substitution|Substitution}}'''

The "chain rule" run backwards. Since <math> d(f(u)) = (df(u))du</math>, it follows that <math>f(u) = \int df(u) du</math>. By finding appropriate values for functions <math>f, u</math> such that your problem is in the form <math>\int df(u) du</math> your problem ''may'' be simplified.

'''{{w|Cauchy's integral formula|Cauchy's Formula}}'''

Cauchy's Integral formula is a result in complex analysis that relates the value of a contour integral in the complex plane to properties of the singularities in the interior of the contour. It is often used to compute integrals on the real line by extending the path of the integral from the real line into the complex plane to apply the formula, then proving that the integral from the parts of the contour not on the real line has value zero.

'''{{w|Partial_fraction_decomposition#Application_to_symbolic_integration|Partial Fractions}}'''

Partial fractions is a technique for breaking up a function that comprises one polynomial divided by another into a sum of functions comprising constants over the factors of the original denominator, which can easily be integrated into logarithms.

'''{{w|Install Mathematica}}'''

{{w|Mathematica}} is a modern technical computing system spanning most areas. One of its features is to compute mathematical functions. This step in the flowchart is install and use Mathematica to compute to do the integration for you.

'''{{w|Riemann integral|Riemann Integration}}'''
The Riemann integral is a definition of definite integration. Elementary textbooks on calculus sometimes present finding a definite integral as a process of approximating an area by strips of equal width and then taking the limit as the strips become narrower. Riemann integration removes the requirement that the strips have equal width, and so is a more flexible definition. However there are still many functions for which the Riemann integral doesn't converge, and consideration of these functions leads to the Lesbegue Integral. Riemann integration is not a method of calculus appropriate for finding the anti-derivative of an elementary function.

'''{{w|Stokes' Theorem}}'''
Stokes' theorem relates a surface integral of a the curl of the vector field to a line integral of the vector field around the boundary of the surface. If you're in this deep, there's a good chance that you're just randomly applying any analytical technique you can think of at this point.

'''{{w|Risch Algorithm}}'''
The Risch Algorithm is a complex procedure that reduces the process of symbolic integration to purely algebraic steps. It is implemented in Computer Algebra software, such as Mathematica. A human would have to be pretty desperate to attempt this (presumably) by hand.

'''{{w|Bessel function}}'''
Bessel functions are the solution to the differential equation </math> x^2 \frac{dy^2}{dx^2}+x \frac{dy}{dx}+(x^2-n^2)*y=0</math>, where n is the order of Bessel function. Though they do show up in some engineering, physics, and abstract mathematics, in lower levels of calculus they are often a sign that the integration was not set up properly before someone put them into a symbolic algebra solver.

'''{{w|Symbolic integration}}'''
Symbolic algebra is the basic process of finding an antiderivative, as opposed to numerically integrating a function. Randall plays off the joke that integration might as well be a symbol, like in a novel, because he can't get any meaningful results from his analysis.

''' Burn the evidence '''
In a parody of detective novels, this may refer to the burning of your work to avoid the shame of being unable to solve the integration problem.
Alternatively, this could be an ironic hint to the fact that in order to find the integral, it may even be necessary to break the law or upset higher powers, so that the negative consequences of a persecution can only be avoided by destroying the evidence.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Two flow charts are shown.]

:[The first flow chart has four steps in simple order, one with multiple recommendations.]
:DIFFERENTIATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Chain Rule
::Power Rule
::Quotient Rule
::Product Rule
::Etc.
:Done?
::Yes
::No
:Done!

[The second flow chart begins like the first, then descends into chaos.]
:INTEGRATION
:Start
:Try applying
::Integration by Parts
::Substitution
:Done?
:Haha, Nope!

:[Chaos, Roughly from left to right, top to bottom, direction arrows not included.]
::Cauchy's Formula
::????
::???!?
::???
::???
::?
::Partial Fractions
::??
::?
::Install Mathematica
::?
::Riemann Integration
::Stokes' Theorem
::???
::?
::Risch Algorithm
::???
::[Sad face.]
::?????
::???
::What the heck is a Bessel Function??
::Phone calls to mathematicians
::Oh No
::Burn the Evidence


{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Analysis]]

2038: Hazard Symbol

2018-08-29T03:37:41Z

Glassvein: /* Explanation */

<noinclude>:''"2038", this comic's number, redirects here. For the comic named "2038", see [[607: 2038]].''</noinclude>

{{comic
| number = 2038
| date = August 27, 2018
| title = Hazard Symbol
| image = hazard_symbol.png
| titletext = The warning diamond on the Materials Safety Data Sheet for this stuff just has the "😰" emoji in all four fields.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LASER EMITTING RADIOACTIVE SLIPPERY BIOHAZARD in about 10 minutes, ignoring writing rules. - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Hazard symbol}}s are often required to indicate certain threats to human health. These symbols are typically black symbols on yellow backgrounds, a contrast typically associated with danger even in nature, a phenomenon known as {{w|Aposematism|aposematism}}. However, these symbols also need to be easy to interpret. Therefore, they have simple, recognizable shapes that are internationally uniform and intended to be well-understood.

This comic inverts this latter expectation, by combining multiple hazard symbols into one, creating something that is unique, and very hard to understand. In practice, if such an object were to be labelled, the five hazard symbols would be separated, each in their own triangle.

The hazard symbols, as noted in the transcript, are {{w|biohazard symbol|biohazard}} ☣, {{w|radiation symbol|radiation}} ☢, slip and fall hazard symbol, laser hazard, and {{w|High_voltage#Safety|high voltage symbol}} ⚡︎.

Another ridiculous aspect of this comic is how these hazards interact with each other, and their attendant risks.
Radioactive waste is usually a show-stopper on its own, but bio hazards,lasers, and high-voltage situations usually scare people more than slippery floors [[https://xkcd.com/285/]] . Some of these would also cancel each other out: both high voltage and lasers have a tendency to harm microorganisms that might be bio-hazards. Most radioactive substances are solid, thus they are hard to slip on. While they do form compounds which could potentially be liquid and therefore slippery, many of these would kill the pathogens. For example, Uranium Hexafluoride [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride]] is a powerful oxidizer that would destroy most germs.

The title text refers to another unsafe subversion of expectations, in this case, against the [[wikipedia:NFPA 704|NFPA 704]] "fire diamond". These are the colourful diamond-shaped symbols often found on the back of tankers, but they are also necessary inclusions on materials safety datasheets. These symbols give numeric indication of the hazardous nature of the material, in three different respects (flammability, health, and reactivity), in addition to providing space for an extra warning on the bottom, typically in the form of one or more letters. Using an emoji instead of numbers and letters would defeat the purpose of the fire diamond, as it would only give a qualitative indication of the danger ("very dangerous"), and additionally, could be very easily mistaken for a 0 (meaning safe).

Note, Material Safety Data Sheets have been deprecated in favor of SDS (Safety Data Sheets) in order to come into compliance with the [https://www.msdsonline.com/resources/regulatory-information/ghs/ GHS (Globally Harmonized System)].

😰 is described by {{w|Emojipedia}} as "[https://emojipedia.org/face-with-open-mouth-and-cold-sweat/ Anxious Face With Sweat]".

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The comic shows symbols, drawn in black on top of a yellow background.]
:[One large symbol embeds four others and it's composed of the outline of three overlapping and outwards narrowing rings arranged by 120 degrees.]
:[The symbol at the center shows at the same orientation three blades with a small stepped circle in the middle.]
:[Inside the ring on top is a symbol of a backwards falling human with a small line depicting the ground.]
:[The ring on the right below the center contains a circle with radiant alternating smaller and longer lines around. One more longer line points toward the center of the image.]
:[Embedded into the left lower ring is a bolt with an arrow pointing left downwards.]

:[Caption below:]
:It's important to know the international warning symbol for radioactive high-voltage laser-emitting biohazards that coat the floor and make it slippery.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Emoji]]

2038: Hazard Symbol

2018-08-29T03:36:15Z

Glassvein: /* Explanation */ I added my view

<noinclude>:''"2038", this comic's number, redirects here. For the comic named "2038", see [[607: 2038]].''</noinclude>

{{comic
| number = 2038
| date = August 27, 2018
| title = Hazard Symbol
| image = hazard_symbol.png
| titletext = The warning diamond on the Materials Safety Data Sheet for this stuff just has the "😰" emoji in all four fields.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LASER EMITTING RADIOACTIVE SLIPPERY BIOHAZARD in about 10 minutes, ignoring writing rules. - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
{{w|Hazard symbol}}s are often required to indicate certain threats to human health. These symbols are typically black symbols on yellow backgrounds, a contrast typically associated with danger even in nature, a phenomenon known as {{w|Aposematism|aposematism}}. However, these symbols also need to be easy to interpret. Therefore, they have simple, recognizable shapes that are internationally uniform and intended to be well-understood.

This comic inverts this latter expectation, by combining multiple hazard symbols into one, creating something that is unique, and very hard to understand. In practice, if such an object were to be labelled, the five hazard symbols would be separated, each in their own triangle.

The hazard symbols, as noted in the transcript, are {{w|biohazard symbol|biohazard}} ☣, {{w|radiation symbol|radiation}} ☢, slip and fall hazard symbol, laser hazard, and {{w|High_voltage#Safety|high voltage symbol}} ⚡︎.

Another ridiculous aspect of this comic is how these hazards interact with each other, and their attendant risks.
Radioactive waste is usually a show-stopper on its own, but bio hazards,lasers, and high-voltage situations usually scare people more than slippery floors {{https://xkcd.com/285/}} . Some of these would also cancel each other out: both high voltage and lasers have a tendency to harm microorganisms that might be bio-hazards. Most radioactive substances are solid, thus they are hard to slip on. While they do form compounds which could potentially be liquid and therefore slippery, many of these would kill the pathogens. For example, Uranium Hexafluoride {{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride}} is a powerful oxidizer that would destroy most germs.

The title text refers to another unsafe subversion of expectations, in this case, against the [[wikipedia:NFPA 704|NFPA 704]] "fire diamond". These are the colourful diamond-shaped symbols often found on the back of tankers, but they are also necessary inclusions on materials safety datasheets. These symbols give numeric indication of the hazardous nature of the material, in three different respects (flammability, health, and reactivity), in addition to providing space for an extra warning on the bottom, typically in the form of one or more letters. Using an emoji instead of numbers and letters would defeat the purpose of the fire diamond, as it would only give a qualitative indication of the danger ("very dangerous"), and additionally, could be very easily mistaken for a 0 (meaning safe).

Note, Material Safety Data Sheets have been deprecated in favor of SDS (Safety Data Sheets) in order to come into compliance with the [https://www.msdsonline.com/resources/regulatory-information/ghs/ GHS (Globally Harmonized System)].

😰 is described by {{w|Emojipedia}} as "[https://emojipedia.org/face-with-open-mouth-and-cold-sweat/ Anxious Face With Sweat]".

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The comic shows symbols, drawn in black on top of a yellow background.]
:[One large symbol embeds four others and it's composed of the outline of three overlapping and outwards narrowing rings arranged by 120 degrees.]
:[The symbol at the center shows at the same orientation three blades with a small stepped circle in the middle.]
:[Inside the ring on top is a symbol of a backwards falling human with a small line depicting the ground.]
:[The ring on the right below the center contains a circle with radiant alternating smaller and longer lines around. One more longer line points toward the center of the image.]
:[Embedded into the left lower ring is a bolt with an arrow pointing left downwards.]

:[Caption below:]
:It's important to know the international warning symbol for radioactive high-voltage laser-emitting biohazards that coat the floor and make it slippery.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Emoji]]