explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3216: Bazookasaurus

2026-03-26T01:32:52Z

Nerd1729:

{{comic
| number = 3216
| date = March 6, 2026
| title = Bazookasaurus
| image = bazookasaurus_2x.png
| imagesize = 315x274px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = In contrast to the deep booming sound associated with the cannon in pop culture depictions, recent studies show it actually made more of a 'toot toot!' noise.
}}

==Explanation==
As with [[3185: Sauropods]], this comic relates to the reinterpretation of fossil remains on the basis of new evidence, resulting in radical new understandings of the creatures involved.

Various dinosaurs developed impressive-looking {{w|Thagomizer|spikes}}, plates, and the like, and the historical assumption has tended to be that these were used as offensive or defensive measures in conflicts with other dinosaurs. However, in some cases, later evidence has cast doubt on this, suggesting that the structures would have been too fragile or immobile to serve the purpose. Instead, it has been proposed that they may have been developed as a means of display, perhaps through a process of {{w|Fisherian runaway|runaway selection}}. These new discoveries may be viewed as disappointing, revealing that "awesome" dinosaurs did not actually possess the combat prowess they were assumed to have.

This comic parodies this trend by showing a Bazookasaurus, a fictitious{{Citation needed}} dinosaur, which apparently developed a structure that bears a remarkable resemblance to a {{w|bazooka}} mounted on its back. (The "bazooka" depicted is a somewhat stylized representation that is rather more intricate than its real-life namesake, including the addition of various additional bone growths.) Supposedly, paleontologists initially believed that this was an actual functioning bazooka that was used by the animal, despite some rather obvious problems that would be presented to it in terms of acquiring, loading, and firing ammunition. Further study has apparently shown that the structure would not have been robust enough to stand up to the forces involved in firing a bazooka, so could not have served any combat purpose. As with the real life cases, this has led to a revision of understanding, and it is now thought that the "bazooka", despite its appearance, served as {{w|Advertising in biology|ornamentation}}.

{{w|Vascularisation}} is the way in which veins form through tissue. Study of this can give clues to the type of tissue that would have surrounded the structures. In some cases it may indicate that they would have been highly susceptible to damage, rupture, leakage or hemorrhage, and therefore unsuitable for use as a weapon or a defense. A bazooka wouldn't typically have veins in it,{{Citation needed}} so a vascularization study would show that there isn't enough blood flow.

The title text is referencing the fact that the calls of dinosaurs have been reappraised in recent years. Traditionally, and particularly in popular culture, they have been represented as having a deep roar or growl. This is probably through analogy with the majority of large fearsome animals that exist today, which have a tendency to make such noises. However, studies of the vocal apparatus available to them has suggested that they were more likely to make higher, more fluting sounds, similar to today's birds. The weapon bazooka was named for a loose resemblance to a {{w|Bazooka_(instrument)|musical instrument of the same name}}, which produced a tooting-type sound.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball stand in front of a dinosaur fossil exhibit, with Megan gesturing at the fossil on display. The fossil is of a ceratopsian with what looks like a giant ray gun on top of its back.]
:Megan: Although Bazookasaurus's distinctive structure was long assumed to be a weapon, vascularization studies show that it was very fragile and could only have been used for display.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

3214: Electric Vehicles

2026-03-05T08:14:28Z

Nerd1729: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3214
| date = March 2, 2026
| title = Electric Vehicles
| image = electric_vehicles_2x.png
| imagesize = 209x389px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Now that I've finally gotten an electric vehicle, I'm never going back to an acoustic one.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by an EV WITH A NON-RECHARGEABLE BOT-TERY. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

Many potential customers of {{w|electric vehicle}}s have "{{w|range anxiety}}", and are concerned about the ability of the vehicle batteries to allow the same freedom of travel as with those using the {{w|internal combustion engine}}. No one wants to be stuck on the side of the road, having run out of power, and finding a {{w|filling station}} for fuel ({{w|gasoline|gasoline/petrol}} or {{w|diesel fuel}}) to refill a motor vehicle is more likely than finding an electric vehicle recharging station. Manufacturers have been trying to ease these fears by developing longer-lasting batteries, along with more recharging stations being set up.

This comic exaggerates this concern to an absurd degree: [[Cueball]], up until some undefined point in the past when he was corrected, had apparently believed that electric cars were powered by single-use, non-rechargeable batteries, and this comic shows the kind of conversation he would have had while under that wrong impression. Practical electric vehicles, since {{w|History of the electric vehicle#First full-scale electric cars|their very early days}}, have pretty much always had {{w|rechargeable battery}} technology of some kind or other. He should indeed feel incredibly silly about this, given that rechargeable batteries are very common in many other devices.

Commercially available rechargeable solid-state batteries have not always been common, however. The proliferation of Alkaline, NiMH, and Lithium-ion batteries happened during the late 1990s and early 2000s (during Randall's lifetime), although the {{w|lead–acid battery}} first appeared in the mid 19th-century and later became the staple (rechargable) electrical storage medium in both fully-electrical and IC-powered vehicles of all kinds. Rechargeable cells are still the minority of sales for household-use size batteries (AA, AAA), perhaps in part because they get [[https://www.rdbatteries.com/blog/post/how-many-times-can-you-recharge-rechargeable-batteries.html?srsltid=AfmBOopDQfsdCmfha-x95r8snSTCV8SIHi6S02PcMReOZyJlWa0ENY6w re-used many times]] rather than needing to be entirely replaced by a further purchase after they are first drained. Battery operated devices and toys for most of the 20th-century (e.g. tamagotchis) did not generally have recharging capabilities and required replacing the battery entirely, rather than (as with many modern devices, e.g. phones) having built-in batteries enabling the user to recharge them by plugging a suitable power-carrying cable into a port. For other devices that {{w|Batteries Not Included|may or may not}} have originally come with single-use cells prepackaged, households may have eventually decided to buy reliable rechargable equivalents to be charged as needed. It's not reasonable to completely throw away the batteries that power electric vehicles, every time they are discharged, or even throw away (or abandon) whole vehicles due to difficulties in replacing them. But, in assuming that an EV's battery is not rechargeable, [[Cueball]] is concerned that this is what he would be forced to do..

All types of vehicle can only be driven so far, or even idled for so long, without refilling their energy storage, be that liquid fuel or electrochemical potential. Because of this, any vehicle (other than perhaps a {{w|solar car}}, or similar) will require occasional top-ups at roadside facilities or even through a direct feed ({{w|overhead line}}s can provide electricity to {{w|Rubber-tyred tram|suitable road or rail vehicles}}, and a {{w|third rail}} is an additional option for the latter type, along some or all of their prepared routes). As of 2021, a modern electric car commonly had [https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/evolution-of-average-range-of-electric-vehicles-by-powertrain-2010-2021 a range above 300 km/200 miles,] and this is continuing to expand. Combustion engine cars usually reach [https://energynow.ca/2022/10/visualizing-the-range-of-electric-cars-vs-gas-powered-cars/ at least twice this range] on a full fuel tank.

Many countries now have vast networks of public charging infrastructure, to echo the almost ubiquitous presence of refuelling stations across the road network. The spacing of these in all but the most sparsely populated areas usually permits any electric vehicle (even one with an unusually low range of <100km) to recharge before it runs out of energy, and fast charging capabilities of 400kW and greater makes the current waiting time to recharge more and more like the quick topping-up process people are used to in liquid refuelling. As an alternative, {{w|battery swapping}} is also a possibility in some places, for suitably designed EVs, and has been [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNZy603as5w commercialized]. In these cases, replacing the battery does not substitute charging it, but it reduces the “refill” time from a possible thirty minutes stop-over to just a few minutes (the time needed to pull out the discharged battery pack from the vehicle and put in a fully charged one). The prior batteries are then charged by the facility, and later used to directly replace some other vehicle’s battery when it requires it. Most electric vehicles will provide a recharge warning (equivalent to a low fuel warning) well in advance of the battery being depleted, to prevent vehicle stranding.

The title text imagines that electric cars are distinct from others in a similar way as electric instruments are from other instruments. In particular, {{w|electric guitar}}s are contrasted with {{w|acoustic guitar|non-electric (aka acoustic) ones}}. In the case of instruments, though, the 'electric' and 'acoustic' don't refer to how they're powered (the latter isn't even 'powered' at all), but how they transmit and amplify the sound produced by the player. There's no such thing as an acoustic vehicle, though sound ''can'' be used to [https://hackaday.com/2025/02/21/acoustic-engine-harnesses-the-power-of-sound/ generate propulsion] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je7eLZS6GG0 on a small scale][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCnxsoXtlmY in a variety of ways]. It has become a common practice to refer to ''bicycles'' without a motor by the misnomer 'acoustic bicycle', but this does not seem to be much the case with cars. (Bicycles are sometimes also referred to as 'analog bicycles' — this is even more of a misnomer, being borrowed from the distinction between mechanical and digital devices, where the latter are sometimes misnamed as 'electric'.) When particular bicycles were developed to supersede the "ordinary" type (later) known as {{w|penny-farthing}}s, the ''new'' bicycles with wheels of the same size were called "{{w|safety bicycle}}s", to promote the idea of their being less tricky to ride, a term that later fell out of use as the new design became more standard (and, in its own way, 'ordinary').

Electric vehicles are {{w|Electric vehicle warning sounds|commonly designed}} to emit sound, sometimes like an electronic instrument, to give an audible warning of their presence for the purpose of safety, particularly when traveling at lower speeds. Several jurisdictions around the world {{w|Electric vehicle warning sounds#Regulations|require}} them to emit a minimum sound level. In some cases, electric vehicle sounds are designed by [https://abcnews.com/Business/famed-composer-hans-zimmers-score-giving-sound-electric/story?id=69242502 renowned composers]. Though it is not their intended use,{{Citation needed}} motorised vehicles can be used as music instruments. Composer Ryoji Ikeda has composed a [https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/article/37885/1/building-a-synth-orchestra-out-of-one-hundred-cars symphony for 100 thermal ("acoustic") cars].

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is standing to the left side of the panel with his arms out, and [[Megan]] and [[White Hat]] are standing to his right, facing him.]

:Cueball: I would never get an electric vehicle.
:Cueball: Sure, they sound great, but what do you do if the battery runs out of charge?

:[Caption below the image:]
:I felt pretty silly when someone finally explained to me that EVs are rechargeable.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-28T10:08:36Z

Nerd1729:

{{comic
| number = 3210
| date = February 20, 2026
| title = Eliminating the Impossible
| image = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was FOUND IN THE LAST PLACE YOU LOOKED. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever phrase] originating from the fictional detective {{w|Sherlock Holmes}} (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan Doyle}}) that "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." This describes the {{w|abductive reasoning}} Holmes uses to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, Holmes' statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], because nobody is omniscient,[{{w|omniscience|no citation needed}}] so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be {{w|quantum tunnelling}} of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle to [[Cueball]] as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is just a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball criticizes this, arguing that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem, like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities, while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first instinct may be to search the house in which they presently are. Having seemingly exhausted this search, their assumption may be that it must be in their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, and assumed it is in the car, but that assumption has always proved to be wrong. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher never brought the item home in the first place, but mistakenly thought that they did.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved. Stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''{{w|The Sign of the Four}}'', he "deduces" that {{w|Dr._Watson|Watson}} had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had sent a letter that he had written some time previously, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. As has been pointed out elsewhere in Holmesian works, however, Holmes knows Watson very well, and when it comes to a matter as narrow in scope as "Watson's behaviour", Holmes is better-equipped than most to eliminate impossibilities, even if these should strictly be considered ''improbabilities''.

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be a more improbable outcome".

In ''{{w|The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul}},'' Douglas Adams commented on this Holmesian maxim:<blockquote>'The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, "Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that." '

'Well, it happened to me today, in fact,' replied Kate.

'Ah, yes,' said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump, 'your girl in the wheelchair [who was constantly mumbling stock prices from the day before]—a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore ''must'' be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality.'</blockquote>

This time Cueball might have a point, since, if one really investigates Sherlock Holmes' cases, they often contain obvious logical leaps, like most of "{{w|The Hound of the Baskervilles}}" or the solution of "{{w|The Adventure of the Speckled Band}}". In the latter he claims that the only solution is that someone trained a snake to be controlled by music to bite and kill someone without being attacked, claiming to have eliminated all other solutions in a real-world scenario which is too complex to allow for that, without even having taken a closer look at the bigger picture. {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Miraculously}}, he is right in both situations.

Knowing [[Randall]]'s work, the title text may be a jab at people who are overly quick to conclude that established results in physics are wrong, as he has done previously in [[955: Neutrinos]] and [[1621: Fixion]] (concerning a since-disproven finding that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light) and in [[2113: Physics Suppression]] and [[3155: Physics Paths]] (more generally).

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]
:White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
:White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

:[Close-up of Cueball's head.]
:Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
:Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
:Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

:[Zoom back out to show both. Cueball holds his arms out.]
:White Hat: You're being pedantic.
:White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
:Cueball: But it's a '''''bad rule.'''''

:[Cueball holds up one finger.]
:Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it '''''must''''' be there."
:White Hat: ...and then it's never in the car.
:Cueball: '''''It's never in the car!'''''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

Talk:3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-22T02:59:04Z

Nerd1729:

I’ve found that when looking for an item, I’ll search harder and more thoroughly in the places where the item is supposed to be, which is just frustrating and usually unsuccessful.
Then I realized that if the item isn’t where it’s supposed to be, then it’s somewhere ''it isn’t supposed to be'' - so I start looking in those places.
[[Special:Contributions/170.64.111.76|170.64.111.76]] 20:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It also assumes exclusion of the middle.
[[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:I think you're kind of right, but it's a weird situation. Disjunction elimination does not require LEM. I can imagine that we have established some list of ''n'' "possibilities" ''p''0, ''p''1, ..., ''p''''n''. What does it mean that these are the only possibilities? Naturally, it means ''p''0 ∨ ''p''1 ∨ · · · ∨ ''p''''n''. Now, if we eliminate all but the ''k''th possibility, that means we have ¬''p''0, ¬''p''1, ..., ¬''p''''k''-1, ¬''p''''k''+1, ..., ¬''p''''n''. By repeated use of disjunction elimination, this proves ''p''''k'' intuitionistically, so the ''k''th possibility ("whatever remains") is provable ("must be the truth"). The problem with this approach is proving the original disjunction. How did we show to begin with that one of those ''n'' possibilities must hold? To do that intuitionistically requires actually proving one of those statements to begin with. And since only one of them is true, we must have already proved ''p''''k'', rendering this argument pointless. Still, it technically is valid. [[User:EebstertheGreat|EebstertheGreat]] ([[User talk:EebstertheGreat|talk]]) 14:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::I originally interpreted it as taking the collection of all (relevant?) propositions, excising the false ones, and deducing that anything that was not excised must be true. Effectively meaning that that if ¬p does not hold then p must hold, which is EM. I think your interpretation is incorrect because the comic does not require the collection of "whatever remains" to be nonempty, so we don't necessarily have the disjunction. [[User:MithicSpirit|MithicSpirit]] ([[User talk:MithicSpirit|talk]]) 20:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

These guys sure are some professors of logic (I'm not sure if they own any doghouses, is what I mean). [[User:Fephisto|Fephisto]] ([[User talk:Fephisto|talk]]) 21:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

As and when the Explanation gets written (I imagine that someone's right in the middle of that now), it must be noted that Sherlock Holmes's self-proclaimed "Deductive reasoning" is really {{w|Abductive reasoning}}. (I actually blame Sir Arthur, rather than Sherlock (or 'narrator' Watson), for that error... But then he also believed in fairies, so obviously he's less than perfectly rational.) [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
:Well, nobody did do anything with it, in the last hour or so, so I scrawled something pretty basic for others to ruthlessly dismember and 'remember' in their own prefered fashion. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 22:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think its pretty nice how this comics number is a countdown from 3. [[User:Xkdvd|Xkdvd]] ([[User talk:Xkdvd|talk]]) 22:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, meant to say earlier... just today (well, the day just before the midnight just gone), I spent a few moments trying to help someone find a single glove. They'd looked various places, and I ''went out to look in the car'' (twice, actually, because first I just checked the 'normal' places, footwells, door-pockets... then realised I hadn't actually checked the glove-compartment itself (which I don't think I've ever used to store gloves, of course, but I'd have looked silly if I hadn't gone back and checked it once it had occured to me) so out I went again) in order to ''not'' find the glove. Cue, later, the revelation that it had been in a bag (in the house) all along. And this was all mere hours ''before'' Randall published this comic. So, as we all used to say on the now defunct Fora, "<abbr title="Get Out Of My Head, Randall">GOOMHR</abbr>!" [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 00:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

It's also possible to miss an item in a space you've searched. For instance, as a 12- or 13-year-old I once concluded that something (I forget what it was) must not be in my room, because I'd partitioned the rectangular box defined by the walls, floor and ceiling and searched each of the partitions. It turned out to be outside that box but still inside my room, because it was on the windowsill. [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 00:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I actually did find it in the car though.--[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75|2604:3D09:84:4000:6FFB:F472:7679:FF75]] 02:34, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Reminds me of this from Math Hysteria by Ian Stewart: 'As I have often stated, when you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable ... remains improbable,' said Holmes, deflated. 'There's probably something altogether different going on, and you've missed it. But don't quote me on that,' he warned. [[User:Arcorann|Arcorann]] ([[User talk:Arcorann|talk]]) 09:23, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:I was going to get that actual book, before Christmas (after I'd decided what other book I was getting for someone else, when visiting a good bookshop with a nice selection of not-necessarily-new publications), as there's still just about space for it on my 'Pratchett-adjacent' bookshelves next to his (and specifically Jack Cohen's) other stuff. Which I'm a bit sorry now that I never got signed by them (both, where relevent) while I still could, the few times we had all crossed paths. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 14:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

If it's not in the car, it's in the cdr. --[[Special:Contributions/2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC|2A02:3100:25A0:9400:6CEB:97FF:FE5B:8BDC]] 11:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Yeth. {{unsigned ip|174.130.97.11|14:10, 21 February 2026}}

To be fair, it is SHERLOCK HOLMES making the comment. He literally means when you have actually eliminated all other possibilities. And he was pedantic enough to be thorough about it. [[User:Dúthomhas|Dúthomhas]] ([[User talk:Dúthomhas|talk]]) 21:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
: Not at all; upon re-reading The Sign of the Four (his first use of the phrase) he most certainly has not eliminated all other possibilities in both his uses of the phrase. Hilariously, he then comments "I never guess" [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 22:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
:: I am unsure how you make that claim. Holmes is quite pedantic in explaining the peculiarities of how he arrived at both deductions, and he is a stickler for details and minutiae of his environment — the guy studies tobacco remains to the point that he can tell you who’s buying it when he finds it someplace uncouth. Unless you suggest that Holmes should suppose Watson — a man bound by habit and practicalities — should act out of character and wander through the _peculiar reddish_ earth just to mess with Holmes, or in the second instance that we have knowledge of some _other_ method of entering that room that Doyle did not? ’Cause I don’t think that _abnormal_ behavior or circumstances qualifies as the normal possibilities being eliminated before considering the _improbable_. I will agree that Holmes was pretty full of himself, tho.
::: Holmes deduces that Watson had sent a telegraph because he had not seen Watson write a letter that morning and Watson had an adequate collection of stamps and postcards. What about the possibility then that Watson had written a letter the previous day, only to send in the morning? 02:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-22T02:57:31Z

Nerd1729:

{{comic
| number = 3210
| date = February 20, 2026
| title = Eliminating the Impossible
| image = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the one thing that actually was in the car. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the phrase originating from the fictional Sherlock Holmes (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan-Doyle}}) that "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,]" which describes Holmes's {{w|abductive reasoning}} used to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, this statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], as nobody is omniscient so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be quantum tunneling of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle, to [[Cueball]], as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball argues that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first option is to search the house in which they presently are, while their second option is to search their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, assumes it is in the car, and then fails to locate it in the car as well. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The car has not been fully searched, because the item slid between two seats or was deeper in a glove compartment than the searcher thought possible.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved; therefore, stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''The Sign of the Four'', he "deduces" that Watson had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had sent a letter that he had written sometime previously, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. Humorously, he claims in the same chapter that "I never guess".

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be a more improbable outcome".

In ''The Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul,'' Douglas Adams commented on this Holmesian maxim:<blockquote>'The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, "Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that." '

'Well, it happened to me today, in fact,' replied Kate.

'Ah, yes,' said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump, 'your girl in the wheelchair [who was constantly mumbling stock prices from the day before]—a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore ''must'' be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality.'</blockquote>

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]
:White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
:White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

:[Close-up of Cueball's head.]
:Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
:Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
:Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

:[Zoom back out to show both. Cueball holds his arms out.]
:White Hat: You're being pedantic.
:White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
:Cueball: But it's a ''bad rule.''

:[Cueball holds up one finger.]
:Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it ''must'' be there."
:White Hat: ...and then it's never in the car.
:Cueball: ''It's never in the car!''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-21T22:32:08Z

Nerd1729:

{{comic
| number = 3210
| date = February 20, 2026
| title = Eliminating the Impossible
| image = eliminating_the_impossible_2x.png
| imagesize = 675x349px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'If you've eliminated a few possibilities and you can't think of any others, your weird theory is proven right' isn't quite as rhetorically compelling.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by the one thing that actually was in the car. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

The discussion in this comic plays upon the phrase originating from the fictional Sherlock Holmes (and therefore also his author, {{w|Arthur Conan-Doyle}}) that "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1196-when-you-have-eliminated-all-which-is-impossible-then-whatever When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,]" which describes Holmes's {{w|abductive reasoning}} used to solve the crimes and mysteries set before him. The point of the original statement is that {{tvtropes|RealityIsUnrealistic|something being ''unlikely'' does not make it ''untrue''}}, and ignoring reality because it is "unlikely" is both absurd and counterproductive to the process of solving a problem. However, this statement is a [https://motleybytes.com/w/HolmesianFallacy fallacy], as nobody is omniscient so it is impossible to rule out all alternatives.

In the real world, it is ''never'' true that eliminating the impossible leaves only a single possible outcome. There are always vast numbers of events that are technically possible, but so vastly improbable that they would be unlikely to ever be observed, even if every subatomic particle in the universe were a universe itself, and were to be observed from Big Bang to heat death. An example would be quantum tunneling of a macroscopic object over a long distance... such as a set of keys from inside a house out to a car. In practice, such events are usually dismissed from consideration.

[[White Hat]] is expounding this principle, to [[Cueball]], as a logical step for some undisclosed purpose. Cueball argues that human error - namely, making a mistake in the 'elimination' process - is also possible, and claims that the logic is faulty on this premise. When White Hat points out that the logic is a guideline for problem-solving, Cueball argues that the possibility of human error when operating on this logic makes the approach unsound. If there is one true version of events, then finding it by this process requires classifying all other possibilities as impossible. While that might be possible for a constrained problem like a detective story or multi-option question, many daily situations require eliminating vast numbers of possibilities while lacking sufficient information to be truly sure that the possibilities have been exhausted.

In the final panel, Cueball demonstrates a practical example of human error causing this issue. When a person is looking for their possessions, their first option is to search the house in which they presently are, while their second option is to search their mode of transportation (especially in the case of possessions that are regularly brought to and from other locations). White Hat agrees that he himself has been in the situation where he has searched the entire house, not found what he is looking for, assumes it is in the car, and then fails to locate it in the car as well. There are other possibilities, but the tendency to jump to conclusions (possibly by misuse of the quote) can lead to those being ignored. Additional possibilities:
* The house has not been fully searched, with the item left in some obscured corner, a clothing pocket that is in the laundry, or even a vent or pipe that one could not practically access.
* The car has not been fully searched, because the item slid between two seats or was deeper in a glove compartment than the searcher thought possible.
* It is common for people to fail to see a thing even though it is present, sometimes even clearly in view, because of momentary cognitive glitching, {{w|The Purloined Letter|poor assumptions}}, or more fundamental cognitive failures such as {{w|visual agnosia}}. Another Holmes quotation is relevant: "[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/205730-you-see-but-you-do-not-observe You see, but you do not observe.]"
* The searcher forgets that they took the item to some other location, or wishfully ignores that possibility because it is far away and/or inconvenient to search.
* The searcher has never taken the item anywhere other than the house or car, but is unaware that someone or something else moved it.
* The item may have been destroyed or altered in a way that makes it unrecognizable when found.

The title text goes further in deconstructing how the quote might result in a logically incorrect {{w|argument from ignorance}}. In fiction, there is a {{tvtropes|TheoryOfNarrativeCausality|Law of Narrative Causality}}, by which events are successfully resolved in the way that the plot requires them to be resolved; therefore, stating this approach as a logical rule would normally be {{tvtropes|LampshadeHanging|narratively unsatisfying}}. When Sherlock Holmes first uses the phrase in ''The Sign of the Four'', he "deduces" that Watson had sent a telegram at the post office instead of doing anything else by observing that he had not written a letter and that he already had a good stock of postcards and stamps. Holmes neglects the possibility that Watson had written a letter the previous day to send, or any other possibility, yet he happens to be right because it would be unsatisfying were he to be wrong. Humorously, he claims in the same chapter that "I never guess".

Sherlock may have more accurately, yet less memorably, phrased the maxim as "When you have eliminated what is likely, the truth must be in a more improbable outcome".

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[White Hat and Cueball are standing together and talking. White Hat has one hand slightly raised.]
:White Hat: As Sherlock Holmes said,
:White Hat: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

:[Close-up of Cueball's head.]
:Cueball: What about the possibility that you forgot to eliminate a possibility?
:Cueball: Or that you eliminated one incorrectly?
:Cueball: Both of those remain, too.

:[Zoom back out to show both. Cueball holds his arms out.]
:White Hat: You're being pedantic.
:White Hat: It's just a general rule for deduction.
:Cueball: But it's a ''bad rule.''

:[Cueball holds up one finger.]
:Cueball: How often have you thought, "I can't find this thing, and I've searched the whole house. The only place I haven't looked is the car, so it ''must'' be there."
:White Hat: ...and then it's never in the car.
:Cueball: ''It's never in the car!''

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>
[[Category:Pedantic]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

Talk:3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-21T22:01:43Z

Nerd1729:

3210: Eliminating the Impossible

2026-02-21T09:50:42Z

Nerd1729:

Talk:3031: Time Capsule Instructions

2024-12-30T23:16:50Z

Nerd1729:

Neither date has a calender suffix, which allows the finder to assume it to be a BC date, which would render the issue… moot.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.192|172.71.102.192]] 22:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The answer is simple! Open the box after 2025 (Vikram Samvat calendar) and before 2024 (gregorian) [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

1: Open first box in a GMT+X tz, where is already 2025; 2: Travel to tz GMT+X-Y, where is still 2024, remove second box from inside first box and open it; 3: Wait for the year to turn 2025, close the first box and open it again; 4: Now both first and second boxes were open in the same tz and you can open the third one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.49.76|162.158.49.76]] 22:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC) auroralimin
:you have overthought this so much but it works surprisingly [[User:Nerd1729|Nerd1729]] ([[User talk:Nerd1729|talk]]) 23:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3031: Time Capsule Instructions

2024-12-30T22:50:00Z

Nerd1729:

Talk:3031: Time Capsule Instructions

2024-12-30T22:49:35Z

Nerd1729: