explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2966: Exam Numbers

2024-08-01T08:35:38Z

Jthulhu:

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

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

Could somebody reformat all the math here in whatever LaTeX plugin this wiki uses? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.102|162.158.222.102]] 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Probably not, because the MathML here is broken. But, also, nothing I see requires anything particularly complicated, it can all stay in fairly straightforward (standardly formatted) text. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.224|141.101.98.224]] 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I had to look up "TREE(3)." Seriousness aside, I think the largest number would be the astrological sign 1 that has its end_points_ as galaxy clusters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.184|172.68.245.184]] 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Which astrological sign? Search engines aren't helping. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 20:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::The nonexistent one I just made up that looks like a "1." 😃 [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.6|172.71.222.6]] 21:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Infinity is _not_ a number. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Isn’t the joke in the pre-algebra that it would require algebra in order ro calculate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I agree that it would be worth adding wording along the lines that “the joke here is that you need algebra to solve the equation”. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Number ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:2966: Exam Numbers

2024-08-01T08:34:29Z

Jthulhu:

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

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

Could somebody reformat all the math here in whatever LaTeX plugin this wiki uses? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.102|162.158.222.102]] 18:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Probably not, because the MathML here is broken. But, also, nothing I see requires anything particularly complicated, it can all stay in fairly straightforward (standardly formatted) text. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.224|141.101.98.224]] 18:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I had to look up "TREE(3)." Seriousness aside, I think the largest number would be the astrological sign 1 that has its end_points_ as galaxy clusters. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.184|172.68.245.184]] 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Which astrological sign? Search engines aren't helping. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 20:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
::The nonexistent one I just made up that looks like a "1." 😃 [[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.6|172.71.222.6]] 21:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Infinity is _not_ a number. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Isn’t the joke in the pre-algebra that it would require algebra in order ro calculate? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.70.135|172.68.70.135]] 20:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
:Yes. I agree that it would be worth adding wording along the lines that “the joke here is that you need algebra to solve the equation”. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Number ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:2781: The Six Platonic Solids

2023-05-27T15:41:12Z

Jthulhu: Answered to question in comment.

Does he know about Homestar Runner? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.137|172.70.131.137]] 06:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is this comic such fucking garbage? Why Jorb? Only thing I can find is [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jorb Jorb on wikitionary] just meaning spelling of bad pronunciation of Job. And yes the episode of Homestar Runner [https://homestarrunner.com/toons/a-jorb-well-done A Jorb Well Done] comes up. Also this episode that is the top meaning of jorb on [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jorb Urban dictionary]. Would really like there to a better idea than that Plato did a great Jorb making a sixth solid to rule the mathematicians. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What if there're much more of them, like a [https://xkcd.com/2657 Ď̩̰odec̭ähedron], but our minds can't properly comprehend their shape?
: There are a bunch of other regular polyhedra besides the Platonic solids. Most notable are the triangular, square, and hexagonal tilings (which are planar and infinite) and the four Kepler-Poinsot polyedra (which are nonconvex). And there are dozens more if you don't require faces to be planar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.234|172.70.178.234]] 09:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
::See https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ for an overview of every regular polyhedron in Euclidean 3-space. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.40|162.158.146.40]] 09:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
: Some of the proofs of the theorem that there are exactly five platonic solids do not require our minds to "comprehend their shape", because they only rely on their algebrical properties. In fact, the Group theory proof works in any dimension (≥3), despite our minds being very bad at picturing what stuff looks like in higher dimensions. In fact, it's a bit of the opposite: lower dimensions (2 and 3) are "special cases", because all other dimensions have exactly 6 such platonic solids. [[User:Jthulhu|Jthulhu]] ([[User talk:Jthulhu|talk]]) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a reference to how the Utah Teapot is nicknamed “the sixth Platonic solid” due to its presence beside real Platonic solids in demonstrations of 33D rendering. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.118.133|172.68.118.133]] 08:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
:...yeah, but you need to render that 33D shape on a proper 32D monitor, ideally, because even on a 31D monitor the two different forced perspectives/projections you need to collapse the extra dimensions down tend to look confusing. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.229|172.70.162.229]] 10:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC) *insert winky-face as necessary*

Should we think about Jorb, perhaps, as "J orb," which might lead us to think about (''i'',''j'') coordinates, i.e. notational systems where ''j'' is the square root of minus 1? (blah blah engineering vs. mathematics, what does ''i'' mean, &c., &c., &c.) Maybe not! [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 10:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

1833: Code Quality 3

2023-03-18T11:49:21Z

Jthulhu: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1833
| date = May 5, 2017
| title = Code Quality 3
| image = code_quality_3.png
| titletext = It's like a half-solved cryptogram where the solution is a piece of FORTH code written by someone who doesn't know FORTH.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is the third in the [[:Category:Code Quality|Code Quality]] series:
* [[1513: Code Quality]]
* [[1695: Code Quality 2]]
* [[1833: Code Quality 3]]
* [[1926: Bad Code]]
* [[2138: Wanna See the Code?]]

In the first panel, Ponytail references {{w|query string|query strings}}, which store information, such as search queries or page numbers, relevant to the URL. Query strings are not meant to be especially human-readable (eg. "&sxsrf=APq-WBvn82l8oTeNNzZeCkI7B9nM5nxoVg%3A1647235405067"), so a song based on one would likely not be a good one.{{fact}}

A tactical flashlight is a light that can be mounted on a gun for use in low-light scenarios. They tend to be very durable and very bright. Different models have different features and capabilities, so they are given cool-sounding model numbers. [http://www.json.org/ JSON] (JavaScript Object Notation) is a subset of JavaScript used, by many programming languages, as a convenient{{fact}} way of recording structured data. It's not clear what else would be in the table (tables typically have more than one column) and JSON technically has arrays and objects (dictionaries) but not tables, but a JSON array of objects of these model numbers would look something like:

[
{ "model": "TACT X700"},
{ "model": "Atomic Beam USA 5000" },
{ "model": "E2D LED Defender" },
{ "model": "J5 Tactical V1-Pro" }
]

{{w|Alan Turing}} was a British theoretical computer scientist, often considered the father of the field. His [https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf 1936 paper] outlined Turing machines, a theoretical model for computing, as well as computability and the halting problem. Theoretical computer science is very different from practical coding; understanding the contents of the paper would not at all help a coder to understand today's algorithms, design patterns, and best practices. This is not helped by a page of JavaScript example code. {{w|JavaScript}} is a popular programming language which makes web pages responsive to user inputs, and while JavaScript arguably solves the problem in a practical manner (as opposed to Turing's very theoretical work), it does get a lot of criticism - for instance it is {{w|Strong and weak typing|nearly untyped}}, which allows the programmer to do very interesting things, like {{w|JSFuck}}. Then, example code is used to explain a concept in programming or demonstrate how a program works, but it does not actually run on any computer. "Guessing everything in between" would involve attempting to write code using skills that could range anywhere from the most basic programming to Turing's extremely advanced ideas.

In the final panel, Ponytail references {{w|leet|leet-speak}}, in which symbols are replaced with similar-looking symbols, and a {{w|manifesto}}, a statement of a person or group's beliefs and intentions. A manifesto from a survivalist cult leader might be nonsensical, even before being translated to leet-speak. Memory allocation is a low-level computer programming concept; most modern languages have features that take care of memory allocation for the programmer, possibly implying that Cueball does not know how to use these features.

At this point Cueball, quickly becoming impatient with Ponytail's sass in what is supposed to be a formal code review, retorts that if she can't start giving him the constructive criticism that he's looking for, he can always find someone else to replace her. Ponytail smugly responds that nobody else would be able to stomach his code for more than one sitting, and that she's the only one he's got.

{{w|Forth_(programming_language)#Programmer.27s_perspective|Forth}} is an old programming language that tends to be difficult to read. It is stack-based, meaning that values to be operated on are moved on a {{w|Stack (abstract data type)|stack}} before the operation to be performed is given. Using stacks can be considered different from programming languages that resemble natural human language (e.g. {{w|COBOL}}). While stack-based computing makes some problems very simple (for example, it is relatively simple to design a Forth compiler, or reversing the order of an array) and uses less computing resources, such programming languages are not easy to learn. Since Forth allows the programmer to rewrite the language, or define their own language, and it does not enforce restrictions like data types, it may be especially easy for novices to write cryptic code.

A {{w|cryptogram}} is a cipher puzzle, generally one easy enough to be solved manually. The title text implies that the code is so bad that it looks like unreadable Forth code that is missing random characters.

==Transcript==
:[Ponytail sitting in front of a computer screen typing. Cueball speaks only off-panel, but since this is a direct continuation of comic 1513 and 1695: Code Quality and Code Quality 2 where Cueball is shown, there can be no doubt it is him.]
:Ponytail: Your code looks like song lyrics written using only the stuff that comes after the question mark in a URL.
:Cueball (off-panel): Sorry.
:[Zoom in on Ponytail's upper body.]
:Ponytail: It's like a JSON table of model numbers for flashlights with "tactical" in their names.
:[Zoom back out again. Ponytail has lifted her hands off the table and is slightly leaning back against the chair.]
:Ponytail: Like you read Turing's 1936 paper on computing and a page of JavaScript example code and guessed at everything in between.
:[Zoom in again on Ponytail's face.]
:Ponytail: It's like a leet-speak translation of a manifesto by a survivalist cult leader who's for some reason obsessed with memory allocation.
:Cueball (off-panel): I can get someone else to review my code.
:Ponytail: Not more than once, I bet.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Code Quality]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|Code Quality 03]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Cueball Computer Problems]]