explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3230: Overton

2026-04-09T16:00:26Z

Zmatt:

4 January 1960 – 30 June 2003 {{unsigned ip|77.87.241.9|18:34, 8 April 2026}}

Someday this cartoon will be politically inappropriate. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 19:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
: ^ Absolutely. [[Special:Contributions/66.154.219.123|66.154.219.123]] 21:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

randall posting a politics-related comic? which could be construed as discontent with the current political landscape? inb4 somebody <s>bashes</s> complains at kynde again - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 22:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the window keeps updating to the right. [[Special:Contributions/50.47.108.55|50.47.108.55]] 02:22, 9 April 2026 (UTC) Ale10ander

: Only if you consider dates to go from left to right instead of any other direction. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:C7C:7344:4C00:BC19:A5A4:14E8:E888|2A02:C7C:7344:4C00:BC19:A5A4:14E8:E888]] 08:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What's the next death date? 2027? (Just guessin) [[User:Cream Starlight|Cream S.L.]] ([[User talk:Cream Starlight|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Cream_Starlight|contribs]]) 03:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Does he keep dying because he's gone over a ton? (1 ton = 2000 lbs) {{unsigned ip|2607:fb91:bd8a:8e2f:858d:1e1b:f461:5f6e|04:35, 9 April 2026 (UTC)}}

:Too heavy even the time is altered, i see [[User:Cream Starlight|Cream S.L.]] ([[User talk:Cream Starlight|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Cream_Starlight|contribs]]) 05:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Reincarnation - Can someone suggest a suitable Buddhist or Hindu text as citation for them multiple lifes? [[Special:Contributions/87.129.222.20|87.129.222.20]] 06:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

:The windows are overlapping, so no this is not a reference to reincarnation. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 16:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though Wikipedia currently describes Overton as a "political scientist," that is likely to shift soon. (That is to say, unless someone makes a compelling case on the Talk page, I'm going to change his description to "political activist," which I think is more accurate to someone who never had a political science degree, never had academic employment, and worked as an electrical engineer before working at an activist think tank.) [[Special:Contributions/38.69.197.145|38.69.197.145]] 12:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
: Does that mean that the Overton Window Overton Window has moved? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 13:16, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

;Significance of the Dates

Many of the dates in listed correspond to major geopolitical events concerning US military and diplomatic policy. They may also correspond to milestone events in US domestic politics. This is an attempt to compile some of the key events that the comic may be referencing.

*1965:
**The beginning of Operation Rolling Thunder, the US ground invasion of Vietnam.
**President LBJ signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965
*- 2011:
**US special forces kill Osama Bin Laden
**NATO forces without the US intervene in the Libyan Civil War leading to the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi.
**More widely, protests spread accross the Middle East and North Africa, dubbed the Arab Spring
**The last of the US combat forces stationed in Iraq are withdrawn.
**The Occuppy Wall Street movement begins.
*1973:
**The United States signs the Paris Peace Accords, withdrawing from the Vietnam conflict and claiming the war was over
**The United States Congress overrides a presidential veto to pass the War Powers Resolution, limiting the ability of future presidents to wage war without Congressional approval
**The Watergate Scandal breaks.
**Roe v Wade.
*- 2018:
**President Donald Trump unilaterally withdraws the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka the Iran Nuclear Deal.
**Congress reverses many of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's reporting and compliance requirements for all but the largest US banks.
*1982:
**Israel violates a 1981 U.S. Brokered ceasefire agreement and invades Lebanon. In response the United States spearheads the establishment of a peacekeeping force to protect Beirut, the Multinational Force in Lebanon.
{{unsigned|In-Sanity|22:16, 8 April 2026}}
:Unfortunately, I suspect that you could easily find such events for absolutely ''every'' year across that range... Unless you narrow down the choices to just something current (i.e. specifically the ones related to current Middle East events, I suppose), which are going to be less frequent but perhaps specifically in Randall's mind.
:(Oh, and I slightly re-reformatted your amended contribution, presuming that you meant it to look a bit more like it is now.)
:I was wondering if there was a mathematical pattern to the numbers, myself. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 23:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:I was thinking the sets of dates indicated periods when discussion of John Paul Overton was politically acceptable, in other words when Overton was in the Overton Window [[Special:Contributions/2600:12BE:8B7:64:A837:DB0D:6C42:C810|2600:12BE:8B7:64:A837:DB0D:6C42:C810]] 15:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:3172: Fifteen Years

2025-11-27T10:59:08Z

Zmatt:

Part of a series:
* https://xkcd.com/1141/
* https://xkcd.com/1928/
* https://xkcd.com/2386/
--[[User:Pgn674|Pgn674]] ([[User talk:Pgn674|talk]]) 21:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:[[:Category:X Years]]. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 22:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
"Growing old is a fabulous alternative to death." [[Special:Contributions/85.255.235.101|85.255.235.101]] 21:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

OH MY GOD THIS IS SO SWEET EEEEEEEEEE. So happy for you Randall! <3 '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 21:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
: this made me, too, tear up - [[User:Vaedez|Vaedez]] ([[User talk:Vaedez|talk]]) 00:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
:: Me too - love it. I do feel old but I'm old now, so it's better cause the alternative... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
:Honestly! Hands-down one of the best series of comics Randall's made. I can't believe I got to see this! [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 19:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Growing old ... '''together'''. [[Special:Contributions/64.201.132.210|64.201.132.210]] 21:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph about the title text could use a reference to the series of comics of the form "Students graduating this year have never...". I'm not sure how to find them. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
: I added a link to what I think is the right category. It might be a little too broad though. [[Special:Contributions/2601:281:C802:9170:0:0:0:4150|2601:281:C802:9170:0:0:0:4150]] 01:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Just. The. Cutest. This is an ideal relationship.--[[User:Maxcodes|Maxcodes]] ([[User talk:Maxcodes|talk]]) 22:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I love being reminded I’m (pretty dang sure I’m) going to die alone, yaaaaaay [[Special:Contributions/2600:4040:12A0:E200:D1D1:1F63:C1A:31F2|2600:4040:12A0:E200:D1D1:1F63:C1A:31F2]] 23:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
: Please don't sell yourself short! Being without a romantic relationship doesn't have to mean being alone <3. You have time to develop deep friendships if you find out how! [[Special:Contributions/45.42.74.249|45.42.74.249]] 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

yay they have survived [[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

As John Lennon once said, “Grow old along with me.” [[User:KelOfTheStars!|KelOfTheStars!]] ([[User talk:KelOfTheStars!|talk]]) 00:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
: Actually, that was Robert Browning in his poem Rabbi Ben Ezra. --[[Special:Contributions/2A00:23CC:D248:8901:9DA0:24CB:6AE7:BB09|2A00:23CC:D248:8901:9DA0:24CB:6AE7:BB09]] 09:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This weekend, as well as today, I've been quite sick. This was a much-needed boost. <3 love ya, Randall. --'''''[[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]][[User Talk:DollarStoreBa'al|Converse]] 02:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This might be my favorite xkcd comic of all time. [[Special:Contributions/68.2.204.250|68.2.204.250]] 03:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
: Yessss! [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 19:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Based on the pattern, the next in the series will be "Eighteen Years" [[Special:Contributions/209.52.88.184|209.52.88.184]] 03:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
:Nah, a +5,+3,+5,+3 seems too basic. Maybe 22 would work, since this is maximum k for which the grid graph P_2 X P_k is a subgraph of the n X n knight graph. Definitely didn't just copy from the oeis. ANYWAYS, by the time they get to 46 we'll have solved it by then... --[[Special:Contributions/2.50.0.22|2.50.0.22]] 03:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
::I feel like there's an implicit 0 at the start of the sequence (representing the initial diagnosis), which makes [https://oeis.org/A246128 A246128] the only match and therefore the next one will be 23 years. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 10:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Very happy for Randall here, this is very sweet. [[User:Clayel|Clayel]] ([[User talk:Clayel|talk]]) 03:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is my vision getting so blurry? [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This is such a BEAUTIFUL comic! So happy for the two of them [[User:VascoTabasco|VascoTabasco]] ([[User talk:VascoTabasco|talk]]) 11:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Vasco

I come here for a wry smile, not to be made to weep. {{unsigned ip|31.94.28.99|14:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)}}
: Then smile wryly (wryly? really?!?!) about the symptoms we all are getting ;-) [[Special:Contributions/195.49.224.20|195.49.224.20]] 18:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
:: Don't you mean 'wreally?'? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

After rereading the series, I wonder what happend with the date they made for the 2024 eclipse. [[Special:Contributions/195.49.224.20|195.49.224.20]] 18:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

My sister found out she had breast cancer in August so this hit me harder than previous 'installments' have. This is also a type that is resistant to pretty much anything but chemo which she is undergoing now. These give me hope, though, knowing someone else made it through their treatments. {{unsigned ip|108.85.230.207|18:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)}}

This is just the sweetest. Also, the longest. Several seconds to scroll all the way down at this point. [[User:RadiantRainwing|RadiantRainwing]] ([[User talk:RadiantRainwing|talk]]) 19:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I always hoped there’d be a follow-up of them watching the 2024 eclipse like they hoped to in “Seven Years”— this doesn’t indicate if they saw it or not, but I hope they did. <3 {{unsigned ip|69.116.215.42|20:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)}}

What a beautiful love story! Here's to the next 15 years for you and your wife. {{unsigned ip|12.129.176.226|10:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)}}

I hope for them to have a wonderful time together, Randall, I really love xkcd. Got cancer myself in 2010 and know what it feels like to still become old in love. {{unsigned ip|127.0.0.1|10:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)}}

This is so very very sweet, I wish them all the best! {{unsigned ip|141.53.67.241|13:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)}}

Wow. Sweet, scary and real. I'm in the middle of my Year Two and so much of the comic is familiar. I wish Megan and Cue the best of luck. {{unsigned ip|2600:1702:7a0:8230:1144:7f10:8b8d:3f6f|15:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)}}

Wow. Just wow! Such a deep and sweet post. [[User:Phoe6|Phoe6]] ([[User talk:Phoe6|talk]]) 18:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

3151: Window Screen

2025-10-14T09:18:48Z

Zmatt: Undo revision 388581 by 2.98.65.8 (talk) It's explicitly stated to be non-planar, bottomright of second panel shows (presumably exaggerated) surface of negative curvature

{{comic
| number = 3151
| date = October 6, 2025
| title = Window Screen
| image = window_screen.png
| titletext = The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine or Home Improvement or DIY
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] believes he should receive a {{w|Nobel Prize}} for creating a custom screen for a particularly troublesome window, due to what he considers to be the immense amount of work and consideration that went into it and the high quality of the result. He is writing to the {{w|Nobel Foundation}} to nominate himself. The Foundation administers the five Nobel Prizes that Cueball lists, which were established by {{w|Alfred Nobel}} and first awarded in 1901, as well as a sixth, in {{w|Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences|economics}}, which was established by the {{w|Sveriges Riksbank|central bank of Sweden}} and first awarded in 1969. The Foundation does not currently accept self-nominations, or nominations from anyone not [https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/#h-qualified-nominators appropriately qualified].

A {{w|window screen}} is most often used to block insects, other small animals, and debris from passing through an open window, while allowing it to provide both ventilation and light. One can also make a light, half-printed mesh that attaches to the outside of the glass to display an outward-facing image, without overly spoiling the view from the inside, or a more dense one to neutrally shade the incoming light, still without significantly obscuring it. Most windows are flat and rectangular, and pre-made meshes for these can be measured and cut with basic tools. Some windows have complex shapes. It can be very difficult to design a screen that neatly matches a complex glass surface.

An {{w|Angle#Types_of_angles|oblique angle}} is any angle that is not a multiple of 90° (not a right or straight angle). While right angles allow for intuitive mapping of sides to an X-Y coordinate plane, acute or obtuse angles indicate that at least one side will have endpoints that differ in both coordinates. This requires extra calculations.

Curved edges require extra care to measure and cut. Circular or semi-circular windows follow a constant curve that can be traced with limited effort, but the window in the comic is irregular.

{{w|Coplanarity|Noncoplanarity}} is a state where all elements of a system cannot be represented on the same plane. This implies that the window is not flat, suggesting that the glass is curved, and/or that the wall that surrounds the screen is not flat. The shape in the comic could possibly occur if the room featured in the first and third panels was at least partly conical, with the window narrowing to match the wall sloping inward to a central point above (this would also fit the earlier mention of multiple curved edges). The glass could also be shaped into an outward bubble. Either way, the mesh must be carefully shaped.

Perfectly fitting a custom screen to such a window may be a significant technical accomplishment that the builder may wish to share with acquaintances. However, it is generally not considered near the level of one of the world's most prestigious awards,{{Citation needed}} which often recognize years of effort, rather than something that Cueball did between the "this weekend" and the present (at most one week).

Since no Nobel Prize currently exists that would cover recognition of Cueball's achievement, the title text suggests extending the existing prize in "physiology or medicine" to also potentially cover "home improvement or DIY". {{w|Do it yourself}} (DIY) refers to work done by a non-specialist that alternatively could be done by a paid professional, and is often used for household repair or construction such as Cueball's screen project. [[Randall]] likely chose this original prize category because it is already anomalous in containing 'or' in its title, while the other prizes have only a single-word description of endeavor. The necessity to distinguish {{w|home improvement}} from DIY by specifying both options seems somewhat more redundant than that between {{w|physiology}} (understanding how organisms normally operate) and {{w|medicine}} (understanding how to treat unhealthy ones). Though judging by second panel, this could be considered a mathematical achievement, and famously [https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node21.html there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics].

The comic's release coincided with the [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2025/press-release/ announcement] of the {{w|2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine}}.

==Transcript==

:[The text for the first panel appears above the panel itself.]
:This weekend,
:I had to make an oversized screen for a porch window.
:[Cueball is looking out through a window with a straight bottom, slanting sides and a curved upper edge.]

:[In each of the remaining panels, the text appears within the panel but above the illustration.]
:[Cueball is shown pondering various problems involving geometry, engineering, and angles. There is occasionally text around them, which is illegible.]

:It involved countless tiny problems, each somehow way harder than it should be.
:Oblique angles. Curved edges. Noncoplanarity.

:[Cueball with hair, looking at the same window covered by a bordered mesh.]

:... I solved them all.
:I measured precisely. I did trigonometry. I made custom parts.
:And it fit '''''perfectly.'''''
:No gaps, no ripples.

:[Cueball is revealed to be sitting at a computer, typing a message. He still has hair.]
:I know that your foundation normally limits its purview to physics, medicine, peace, chemistry and literature.
:However, if you review the attached photo showing how well the screen fits into the...
==Trivia==
At the time this comic was released, there was a technical error making it too large to fit into the page on normal desktop/laptop screens. Since [[1084: Server Problem#Trivia|1084: Server Problem]], two versions of each comic are usually available: normal (1x) and high-resolution (2x). This makes the comic look sharp even on high-DPI screens, such as phones, tablets, and some more expensive computer displays. In this case, however, the 2x version was accidentally uploaded as ''both'' versions, making the 1x comic twice as large as it should be. It is possible that Randall did this intentionally as an added punchline.

Users with this issue can zoom in with their browsers (Ctrl+mouse scroll up) to see the comic better. If the screen is large enough, you might consider always reading xkcd on 200% zoom to see the higher resolution comics. This issue was fixed at some point between 14:57 and 15:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC).

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

3151: Window Screen

2025-10-10T17:27:00Z

Zmatt: It does not look developable at all, it looks like it has negative gaussian curvature

{{comic
| number = 3151
| date = October 6, 2025
| title = Window Screen
| image = window_screen.png
| titletext = The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine or Home Improvement or DIY
}}

==Explanation==

[[Cueball]] believes he should receive a {{w|Nobel Prize}} for creating a custom screen for a particularly troublesome window, due to what he considers to be the immense amount of work and consideration that went into it and the high quality of the result. He is writing to the {{w|Nobel Foundation}} to nominate himself. The Foundation administers the five Nobel Prizes that Cueball lists, which were established by {{w|Alfred Nobel}} and first awarded in 1901, as well as a sixth, in {{w|Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences|economics}}, which was established by the {{w|Sveriges Riksbank|central bank of Sweden}} and first awarded in 1969. The Foundation does not currently accept self-nominations, or nominations from anyone not [https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/#h-qualified-nominators appropriately qualified].

A {{w|window screen}} is most often used to block insects, other small animals, and debris from passing through an open window, while allowing it to provide both ventilation and light. One can also make a light, half-printed mesh that attaches to the outside of the glass to display an outward-facing image, without overly spoiling the view from the inside, or a more dense one to neutrally shade the incoming light, still without significantly obscuring it. Most windows are flat and rectangular, and pre-made meshes for these can be measured and cut with basic tools. Some windows have complex shapes. It can be very difficult to design a screen that neatly matches a complex glass surface.

An {{w|Angle#Types_of_angles|oblique angle}} is any angle that is not a multiple of 90° (not a right or straight angle). While right angles allow for intuitive mapping of sides to an X-Y coordinate plane, acute or obtuse angles indicate that at least one side will have endpoints that differ in both coordinates. This requires extra calculations.

Curved edges require extra care to measure and cut. Circular or semi-circular windows follow a constant curve that can be traced with limited effort, but the window in the comic is irregular.

{{w|Coplanarity|Noncoplanarity}} is a state where all elements of a system cannot be represented on the same plane. This implies that the window is not flat, suggesting that the glass is curved, and/or that the wall that surrounds the screen is not flat. The shape in the comic could possibly occur if the room featured in the first and third panels was at least partly conical, with the window narrowing to match the wall sloping inward to a central point above (this would also fit the earlier mention of multiple curved edges). The glass could also be shaped into an outward bubble. Either way, the mesh must be carefully shaped.

Perfectly fitting a custom screen to such a window may be a significant technical accomplishment that the builder may wish to share with acquaintances. However, it is generally not considered near the level of one of the world's most prestigious awards,{{Citation needed}} which often recognize years of effort, rather than something that Cueball did between the "this weekend" and the present (at most one week).

Since no Nobel Prize currently exists that would cover recognition of Cueball's achievement, the title text suggests extending the existing prize in "physiology or medicine" to also potentially cover "home improvement or DIY". {{w|Do it yourself}} (DIY) refers to work done by a non-specialist that alternatively could be done by a paid professional, and is often used for household repair or construction such as Cueball's screen project. [[Randall]] likely chose this original prize category because it is already anomalous in containing 'or' in its title, while the other prizes have only a single-word description of endeavor. The necessity to distinguish {{w|home improvement}} from DIY by specifying both options seems somewhat more redundant than that between {{w|physiology}} (understanding how organisms normally operate) and {{w|medicine}} (understanding how to treat unhealthy ones).

The comic's release coincided with the [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2025/press-release/ announcement] of the {{w|2025 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine}}.

==Transcript==

:[The text for the first panel appears above the panel itself.]
:This weekend,
:I had to make an oversized screen for a porch window.
:[Cueball is looking out through a window with a straight bottom, slanting sides and a curved upper edge.]

:[In each of the remaining panels, the text appears within the panel but above the illustration.]
:[Cueball is shown pondering various problems involving geometry, engineering, and angles. There is occasionally text around them, which is illegible.]

:It involved countless tiny problems, each somehow way harder than it should be.
:Oblique angles. Curved edges. Noncoplanarity.

:[Cueball with hair, looking at the same window covered by a bordered mesh.]

:... I solved them all.
:I measured precisely. I did trigonometry. I made custom parts.
:And it fit '''''perfectly.'''''
:No gaps, no ripples.

:[Cueball is revealed to be sitting at a computer, typing a message. He still has hair.]
:I know that your foundation normally limits its purview to physics, medicine, peace, chemistry and literature.
:However, if you review the attached photo showing how well the screen fits into the...
==Trivia==
At the time this comic was released, there was a technical error making it too large to fit into the page on normal desktop/laptop screens. Since [[1084: Server Problem#Trivia|1084: Server Problem]], two versions of each comic are usually available: normal (1x) and high-resolution (2x). This makes the comic look sharp even on high-DPI screens, such as phones, tablets, and some more expensive computer displays. In this case, however, the 2x version was accidentally uploaded as ''both'' versions, making the 1x comic twice as large as it should be. It is possible that Randall did this intentionally as an added punchline.

Users with this issue can zoom in with their browsers (Ctrl+mouse scroll up) to see the comic better. If the screen is large enough, you might consider always reading xkcd on 200% zoom to see the higher resolution comics. This issue was fixed at some point between 14:57 and 15:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC).

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:3125: Snake-in-the-Box Problem

2025-08-07T10:32:13Z

Zmatt:

The math problem in question is https://oeis.org/A099155 [[User:Mei|Mei]] ([[User talk:Mei|talk]]) 21:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

why is d>8 unsolved? stevethenoob 21:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Computational power, I guess, although I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that for N=9 snake=196. [[Special:Contributions/94.73.52.245|94.73.52.245]] 23:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:It's not that hard to imagine: if you were to try a brute force search it would take time that's exponential in the path length, which itself is exponential in d. There are evidently methods to do it slightly better, but not enough to make solving d=9 feasible yet. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 10:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
:To give an impression of the rate at which these get solved: d=6 was solved in 1988, d=7 in 1996, d=8 in 2014. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 10:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that computer science has one as well with the China room problem. [[User:Ctinsman|Ctinsman]] ([[User talk:Ctinsman|talk]]) 22:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

: Humans aren't cute animals (mostly), so I propose a variant of the problem called the Chinese Red Panda Room [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Just a few days ago I was investigating a very similar idea (looking at a path that transitioned between adjacent ''faces'' of a polyhedron, which was effectively going from vertex to connected vertex upon that chosen polyhedron's ''dual''), but for the opposite reason, i.e. looking for the paths that actually maximised proximity (along the path) between neighbouring faces (upon the polyhedra), so that it actually minimised the search back/forth along the path-chain to establish what value the adjacent polyhedron faces (beyond the ones automatically at ±1 positions on the chain) inherited.
 As to solving this one (basically disallowing visiting of any nodes adjacent to prior visits ''other'' than the single one that the +1 position of the chain has to first go to), I've got a basic idea of how I'd N-dimensionally space-search the possible routes (after all, visiting any given node at {0,1} value for dimensions [a, b, c, ...] rules out now visiting all of [!a, b, c, ...], [a, !b, c, ...], [a, b, !c, ...], etc, ''except'' whichever one of these was chosen for the next step of onward travel), for valid foldings across the appropriate N-polytype cuboidal analogue. Though I suspect that the exponental (or greater!) growth in the potential search-trees you'd use would be the sticking point. No point in setting off an exhaustive algorithm if it seemed likely to take three years to check just 1% of possibilities, and no doubt more dedicated analysis than my own brute-forcing method has already hit other problems in trying a more nuanced extrapolation between each level of added dimensionality, which is where the unsolved nature of this starts to bite.
 But also think it'd be far more interesting to investigate the possibilities in the N>3-Dimensional extensions of non-cubic platonic solids, like the {{w|600-cell}} and beyond, and establish what allowable lengths of traversal ''they'' would allow, under similar stipulations.
 Great! I love getting things like this to think about. If I can spare the time needed... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.59|82.132.245.59]] 22:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: I think you've been nerd-sniped. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
::So far, I've personally got as far as:
::*For any given number of dimensions, N, there are always N adjacent points (point, zero dimensions, zero neighbours; line, one dimension, one neighbour; square, two dimension, two neighbours, etc).
::*In total, there are 2N points (0d=1, 1d=2, 2d=4, etc)
::*A maximum possible length, L, has a ''lower'' lower limit of starting at any particular vortex and only taking directions that are perpendicular to all prior directions (for a cube, only go by x, y and z directions once), and this would be eaual to N.
::*But that's overly-lazy, as you're ruling out (as you gain enough dimensions) revisiting a dimensional plane, even though you're allowed to revisit a point on that plane that's shifted by at least ''two'' other dimensions of offset. e.g. the top right of a cube's facing face when you started at the bottom left of it (went 'deep' to the rear face, took two steps from the rear-lower-left to rear-upper-right then back).
::*For the first step, you have N choices from your starting position. You take one and cannot later visit any of the ones you did not choose to go to. For the second step onwards, you have N-1 basic choices (every direction but backwards to the prior step) and should choose one and rule out ever visiting the rest.
::*This gives a new (at least for N>2) lower limit to L whereby the sum of starting, taken and not-taken nodes that you count can be added to by new steps until you would end up with have a total greater than 2N. (Line: start on one (of two), choice of one (taken), two points 'marked', only two points possible; Square: start on one (of four), two choices, take one, reserve one, three points 'marked', still the fourth point available for L=2, but then five points would be marked (the untaken-from-start being the only non-backwards choice) so can't go further.
::*But this is also wasteful as (in increasingly higher dimensions) there's nothing to stop an unvisited neighbour of a past step from being a(n enforced) unvisited neighbour from a later step, as you 'choose' to go only to a valid further point. So clever "near-neighbour" backtracking can reduce the number of ''freshly'' eaten-up points and thus maintain more future points for more steps.
::**Noting that past-step no-go-neighbours that can possibly 'fold into' the current-step's not-going-neighbours list only become such after ''at least'' two intervening steps (for 'square-based' hypercubic domains, whereas triangle-based hypernets (e.g. tetra-, octa- and icosohedrons, in 3-space) happen after just one step, and pentagon-based ones (dodecahedrons in 3-space) can't take advantage of this in less than three. (This seems to share some of the mathematics with the 'classical' rabbit-population problem, whereby new offspring only become viable breeding population after a step or two since their generation.)
::*Optimally, in fact, you should aim to double-back in such a way as leave yourself with ''all but one'' onward neighbour unavailable (thus only eating up potential points at a rate of one per step, at that point).
::*Heading vaguely back 'towards' past snake-lengths, in higher-dimensional hypernets, seems like the best(/longest) space-filling strategy. It's a bit like coil-built pottery, but with more undulations (and dimensions) to it. But with care to make sure you don't burrow yourself into a dead-end with ''no'' viable onward choices while still having maybe half of the potential visitable/neighbourable points untouched, or avoiding filling 'voids' to guaranteeing accessing a majority of the potential future visits, but unwisely not exploiting all the phase-space of vertices optimally.
::**I can mentally visualise doing this successfully in 3-, 4- and 5-cube situations, elegantly enough (it's like , but N>=6 versions get increasingly hard to do in my head with certainty. After I've slept on it, I might have to break out the pencil and paper.
::So, yeah, I've set a lower-limit to L, for various Ns, and can construct a ''possible'' upper-limit to L, but I haven't even checked these L(N)s vs. the values stated in the comic. Or what progress (and more advanced logical reasoning) has already been made in the field. I suspect I'm just reinventing the (hyper-)wheel, of course, rather than have the key to the problem that everyone else had failed to spot, but that's not the point. If I get even half way close to what the 'professionals' in this field have managed, I'll be smug and self-satisfied enough for myself. And, anyway, I've explained myself enough tolet any ''other'' similarly-minded nerd the ability to get at least as far as I've got with this problem. Which is as good an outcome, as far as I'm concerned, as getting this done entirely on my own. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.41|82.132.244.41]] 00:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::: I'm still having trouble getting hold of long enough snakes. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Psychology is way ahead of y'all, they've been putting actual mice in weird boxes for ''decades''. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Psychology might have been putting animals in boxes for decades, but zoology has been doing it for centuries! [[Special:Contributions/97.118.209.207|97.118.209.207]] 00:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::Gastronomy has been doing it for as long as people have been storing food. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
:: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/284912743/--[[Special:Contributions/2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C|2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C]] 04:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Reading (just) the [comments] of the underlying research suggests that 98 is the longest found snake. Perhaps that means a longer one has not been explicitly eliminated (making 8 also not solved to some extent) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765|2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765]] 22:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:a(8)=98 was proven by: Östergård, P.R.J., Pettersson, V.H. Exhaustive Search for Snake-in-the-Box Codes. Graphs and Combinatorics 31, 1019–1028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00373-014-1423-3
:[[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 09:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I suppose Randall doesn't consider [[beetles]] cute, or else [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Wittgenstein's_beetle philosophy of language] would be included. [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: that's a great example [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In simultaneous interpreting, humans are the cute animal in the box. {{unsigned|DrInterpreter|07:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)}}

== Schrödinger's cat ==

I don't believe an explanation of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is necessary to understand this comic. However, people keep editing the page to include an incorrect description of the experiment, by saying the cat is either dead or alive and you don't know which until you open the box. That's wrong and misses the point of quantum superposition. The cat is not dead or alive, it's literally both, due to its fate being linked to radioactive decay, a process that is subject to quantum superposition. Since it does seem inevitable that someone will keep editing this to add an explanation, I've added one myself. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 10:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3125: Snake-in-the-Box Problem

2025-08-07T10:03:00Z

Zmatt:

The math problem in question is https://oeis.org/A099155 [[User:Mei|Mei]] ([[User talk:Mei|talk]]) 21:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

why is d>8 unsolved? stevethenoob 21:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Computational power, I guess, although I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that for N=9 snake=196. [[Special:Contributions/94.73.52.245|94.73.52.245]] 23:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:It's not that hard to imagine: if you were to try a brute force search it would take time that's exponential in the path length, which itself is exponential in d. There are evidently methods to do it slightly better, but not enough to make solving d=9 feasible yet. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 10:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that computer science has one as well with the China room problem. [[User:Ctinsman|Ctinsman]] ([[User talk:Ctinsman|talk]]) 22:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

: Humans aren't cute animals (mostly), so I propose a variant of the problem called the Chinese Red Panda Room [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Just a few days ago I was investigating a very similar idea (looking at a path that transitioned between adjacent ''faces'' of a polyhedron, which was effectively going from vertex to connected vertex upon that chosen polyhedron's ''dual''), but for the opposite reason, i.e. looking for the paths that actually maximised proximity (along the path) between neighbouring faces (upon the polyhedra), so that it actually minimised the search back/forth along the path-chain to establish what value the adjacent polyhedron faces (beyond the ones automatically at ±1 positions on the chain) inherited.
 As to solving this one (basically disallowing visiting of any nodes adjacent to prior visits ''other'' than the single one that the +1 position of the chain has to first go to), I've got a basic idea of how I'd N-dimensionally space-search the possible routes (after all, visiting any given node at {0,1} value for dimensions [a, b, c, ...] rules out now visiting all of [!a, b, c, ...], [a, !b, c, ...], [a, b, !c, ...], etc, ''except'' whichever one of these was chosen for the next step of onward travel), for valid foldings across the appropriate N-polytype cuboidal analogue. Though I suspect that the exponental (or greater!) growth in the potential search-trees you'd use would be the sticking point. No point in setting off an exhaustive algorithm if it seemed likely to take three years to check just 1% of possibilities, and no doubt more dedicated analysis than my own brute-forcing method has already hit other problems in trying a more nuanced extrapolation between each level of added dimensionality, which is where the unsolved nature of this starts to bite.
 But also think it'd be far more interesting to investigate the possibilities in the N>3-Dimensional extensions of non-cubic platonic solids, like the {{w|600-cell}} and beyond, and establish what allowable lengths of traversal ''they'' would allow, under similar stipulations.
 Great! I love getting things like this to think about. If I can spare the time needed... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.59|82.132.245.59]] 22:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: I think you've been nerd-sniped. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
::So far, I've personally got as far as:
::*For any given number of dimensions, N, there are always N adjacent points (point, zero dimensions, zero neighbours; line, one dimension, one neighbour; square, two dimension, two neighbours, etc).
::*In total, there are 2N points (0d=1, 1d=2, 2d=4, etc)
::*A maximum possible length, L, has a ''lower'' lower limit of starting at any particular vortex and only taking directions that are perpendicular to all prior directions (for a cube, only go by x, y and z directions once), and this would be eaual to N.
::*But that's overly-lazy, as you're ruling out (as you gain enough dimensions) revisiting a dimensional plane, even though you're allowed to revisit a point on that plane that's shifted by at least ''two'' other dimensions of offset. e.g. the top right of a cube's facing face when you started at the bottom left of it (went 'deep' to the rear face, took two steps from the rear-lower-left to rear-upper-right then back).
::*For the first step, you have N choices from your starting position. You take one and cannot later visit any of the ones you did not choose to go to. For the second step onwards, you have N-1 basic choices (every direction but backwards to the prior step) and should choose one and rule out ever visiting the rest.
::*This gives a new (at least for N>2) lower limit to L whereby the sum of starting, taken and not-taken nodes that you count can be added to by new steps until you would end up with have a total greater than 2N. (Line: start on one (of two), choice of one (taken), two points 'marked', only two points possible; Square: start on one (of four), two choices, take one, reserve one, three points 'marked', still the fourth point available for L=2, but then five points would be marked (the untaken-from-start being the only non-backwards choice) so can't go further.
::*But this is also wasteful as (in increasingly higher dimensions) there's nothing to stop an unvisited neighbour of a past step from being a(n enforced) unvisited neighbour from a later step, as you 'choose' to go only to a valid further point. So clever "near-neighbour" backtracking can reduce the number of ''freshly'' eaten-up points and thus maintain more future points for more steps.
::**Noting that past-step no-go-neighbours that can possibly 'fold into' the current-step's not-going-neighbours list only become such after ''at least'' two intervening steps (for 'square-based' hypercubic domains, whereas triangle-based hypernets (e.g. tetra-, octa- and icosohedrons, in 3-space) happen after just one step, and pentagon-based ones (dodecahedrons in 3-space) can't take advantage of this in less than three. (This seems to share some of the mathematics with the 'classical' rabbit-population problem, whereby new offspring only become viable breeding population after a step or two since their generation.)
::*Optimally, in fact, you should aim to double-back in such a way as leave yourself with ''all but one'' onward neighbour unavailable (thus only eating up potential points at a rate of one per step, at that point).
::*Heading vaguely back 'towards' past snake-lengths, in higher-dimensional hypernets, seems like the best(/longest) space-filling strategy. It's a bit like coil-built pottery, but with more undulations (and dimensions) to it. But with care to make sure you don't burrow yourself into a dead-end with ''no'' viable onward choices while still having maybe half of the potential visitable/neighbourable points untouched, or avoiding filling 'voids' to guaranteeing accessing a majority of the potential future visits, but unwisely not exploiting all the phase-space of vertices optimally.
::**I can mentally visualise doing this successfully in 3-, 4- and 5-cube situations, elegantly enough (it's like , but N>=6 versions get increasingly hard to do in my head with certainty. After I've slept on it, I might have to break out the pencil and paper.
::So, yeah, I've set a lower-limit to L, for various Ns, and can construct a ''possible'' upper-limit to L, but I haven't even checked these L(N)s vs. the values stated in the comic. Or what progress (and more advanced logical reasoning) has already been made in the field. I suspect I'm just reinventing the (hyper-)wheel, of course, rather than have the key to the problem that everyone else had failed to spot, but that's not the point. If I get even half way close to what the 'professionals' in this field have managed, I'll be smug and self-satisfied enough for myself. And, anyway, I've explained myself enough tolet any ''other'' similarly-minded nerd the ability to get at least as far as I've got with this problem. Which is as good an outcome, as far as I'm concerned, as getting this done entirely on my own. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.41|82.132.244.41]] 00:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::: I'm still having trouble getting hold of long enough snakes. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Psychology is way ahead of y'all, they've been putting actual mice in weird boxes for ''decades''. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Psychology might have been putting animals in boxes for decades, but zoology has been doing it for centuries! [[Special:Contributions/97.118.209.207|97.118.209.207]] 00:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::Gastronomy has been doing it for as long as people have been storing food. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
:: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/284912743/--[[Special:Contributions/2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C|2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C]] 04:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Reading (just) the [comments] of the underlying research suggests that 98 is the longest found snake. Perhaps that means a longer one has not been explicitly eliminated (making 8 also not solved to some extent) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765|2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765]] 22:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:a(8)=98 was proven by: Östergård, P.R.J., Pettersson, V.H. Exhaustive Search for Snake-in-the-Box Codes. Graphs and Combinatorics 31, 1019–1028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00373-014-1423-3
:[[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 09:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I suppose Randall doesn't consider [[beetles]] cute, or else [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Wittgenstein's_beetle philosophy of language] would be included. [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: that's a great example [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In simultaneous interpreting, humans are the cute animal in the box. {{unsigned|DrInterpreter|07:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)}}

Talk:3125: Snake-in-the-Box Problem

2025-08-07T09:46:39Z

Zmatt: whoops forgot signature

The math problem in question is https://oeis.org/A099155 [[User:Mei|Mei]] ([[User talk:Mei|talk]]) 21:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

why is d>8 unsolved? stevethenoob 21:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Computational power, I guess, although I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that for N=9 snake=196. [[Special:Contributions/94.73.52.245|94.73.52.245]] 23:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that computer science has one as well with the China room problem. [[User:Ctinsman|Ctinsman]] ([[User talk:Ctinsman|talk]]) 22:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

: Humans aren't cute animals (mostly), so I propose a variant of the problem called the Chinese Red Panda Room [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Just a few days ago I was investigating a very similar idea (looking at a path that transitioned between adjacent ''faces'' of a polyhedron, which was effectively going from vertex to connected vertex upon that chosen polyhedron's ''dual''), but for the opposite reason, i.e. looking for the paths that actually maximised proximity (along the path) between neighbouring faces (upon the polyhedra), so that it actually minimised the search back/forth along the path-chain to establish what value the adjacent polyhedron faces (beyond the ones automatically at ±1 positions on the chain) inherited.
 As to solving this one (basically disallowing visiting of any nodes adjacent to prior visits ''other'' than the single one that the +1 position of the chain has to first go to), I've got a basic idea of how I'd N-dimensionally space-search the possible routes (after all, visiting any given node at {0,1} value for dimensions [a, b, c, ...] rules out now visiting all of [!a, b, c, ...], [a, !b, c, ...], [a, b, !c, ...], etc, ''except'' whichever one of these was chosen for the next step of onward travel), for valid foldings across the appropriate N-polytype cuboidal analogue. Though I suspect that the exponental (or greater!) growth in the potential search-trees you'd use would be the sticking point. No point in setting off an exhaustive algorithm if it seemed likely to take three years to check just 1% of possibilities, and no doubt more dedicated analysis than my own brute-forcing method has already hit other problems in trying a more nuanced extrapolation between each level of added dimensionality, which is where the unsolved nature of this starts to bite.
 But also think it'd be far more interesting to investigate the possibilities in the N>3-Dimensional extensions of non-cubic platonic solids, like the {{w|600-cell}} and beyond, and establish what allowable lengths of traversal ''they'' would allow, under similar stipulations.
 Great! I love getting things like this to think about. If I can spare the time needed... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.59|82.132.245.59]] 22:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: I think you've been nerd-sniped. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
::So far, I've personally got as far as:
::*For any given number of dimensions, N, there are always N adjacent points (point, zero dimensions, zero neighbours; line, one dimension, one neighbour; square, two dimension, two neighbours, etc).
::*In total, there are 2N points (0d=1, 1d=2, 2d=4, etc)
::*A maximum possible length, L, has a ''lower'' lower limit of starting at any particular vortex and only taking directions that are perpendicular to all prior directions (for a cube, only go by x, y and z directions once), and this would be eaual to N.
::*But that's overly-lazy, as you're ruling out (as you gain enough dimensions) revisiting a dimensional plane, even though you're allowed to revisit a point on that plane that's shifted by at least ''two'' other dimensions of offset. e.g. the top right of a cube's facing face when you started at the bottom left of it (went 'deep' to the rear face, took two steps from the rear-lower-left to rear-upper-right then back).
::*For the first step, you have N choices from your starting position. You take one and cannot later visit any of the ones you did not choose to go to. For the second step onwards, you have N-1 basic choices (every direction but backwards to the prior step) and should choose one and rule out ever visiting the rest.
::*This gives a new (at least for N>2) lower limit to L whereby the sum of starting, taken and not-taken nodes that you count can be added to by new steps until you would end up with have a total greater than 2N. (Line: start on one (of two), choice of one (taken), two points 'marked', only two points possible; Square: start on one (of four), two choices, take one, reserve one, three points 'marked', still the fourth point available for L=2, but then five points would be marked (the untaken-from-start being the only non-backwards choice) so can't go further.
::*But this is also wasteful as (in increasingly higher dimensions) there's nothing to stop an unvisited neighbour of a past step from being a(n enforced) unvisited neighbour from a later step, as you 'choose' to go only to a valid further point. So clever "near-neighbour" backtracking can reduce the number of ''freshly'' eaten-up points and thus maintain more future points for more steps.
::**Noting that past-step no-go-neighbours that can possibly 'fold into' the current-step's not-going-neighbours list only become such after ''at least'' two intervening steps (for 'square-based' hypercubic domains, whereas triangle-based hypernets (e.g. tetra-, octa- and icosohedrons, in 3-space) happen after just one step, and pentagon-based ones (dodecahedrons in 3-space) can't take advantage of this in less than three. (This seems to share some of the mathematics with the 'classical' rabbit-population problem, whereby new offspring only become viable breeding population after a step or two since their generation.)
::*Optimally, in fact, you should aim to double-back in such a way as leave yourself with ''all but one'' onward neighbour unavailable (thus only eating up potential points at a rate of one per step, at that point).
::*Heading vaguely back 'towards' past snake-lengths, in higher-dimensional hypernets, seems like the best(/longest) space-filling strategy. It's a bit like coil-built pottery, but with more undulations (and dimensions) to it. But with care to make sure you don't burrow yourself into a dead-end with ''no'' viable onward choices while still having maybe half of the potential visitable/neighbourable points untouched, or avoiding filling 'voids' to guaranteeing accessing a majority of the potential future visits, but unwisely not exploiting all the phase-space of vertices optimally.
::**I can mentally visualise doing this successfully in 3-, 4- and 5-cube situations, elegantly enough (it's like , but N>=6 versions get increasingly hard to do in my head with certainty. After I've slept on it, I might have to break out the pencil and paper.
::So, yeah, I've set a lower-limit to L, for various Ns, and can construct a ''possible'' upper-limit to L, but I haven't even checked these L(N)s vs. the values stated in the comic. Or what progress (and more advanced logical reasoning) has already been made in the field. I suspect I'm just reinventing the (hyper-)wheel, of course, rather than have the key to the problem that everyone else had failed to spot, but that's not the point. If I get even half way close to what the 'professionals' in this field have managed, I'll be smug and self-satisfied enough for myself. And, anyway, I've explained myself enough tolet any ''other'' similarly-minded nerd the ability to get at least as far as I've got with this problem. Which is as good an outcome, as far as I'm concerned, as getting this done entirely on my own. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.41|82.132.244.41]] 00:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::: I'm still having trouble getting hold of long enough snakes. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Psychology is way ahead of y'all, they've been putting actual mice in weird boxes for ''decades''. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Psychology might have been putting animals in boxes for decades, but zoology has been doing it for centuries! [[Special:Contributions/97.118.209.207|97.118.209.207]] 00:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::Gastronomy has been doing it for as long as people have been storing food. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
:: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/284912743/--[[Special:Contributions/2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C|2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C]] 04:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Reading (just) the [comments] of the underlying research suggests that 98 is the longest found snake. Perhaps that means a longer one has not been explicitly eliminated (making 8 also not solved to some extent) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765|2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765]] 22:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:a(8)=98 was proven by: Östergård, P.R.J., Pettersson, V.H. Exhaustive Search for Snake-in-the-Box Codes. Graphs and Combinatorics 31, 1019–1028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00373-014-1423-3
:[[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 09:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I suppose Randall doesn't consider [[beetles]] cute, or else [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Wittgenstein's_beetle philosophy of language] would be included. [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: that's a great example [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In simultaneous interpreting, humans are the cute animal in the box. {{unsigned|DrInterpreter|07:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)}}

Talk:3125: Snake-in-the-Box Problem

2025-08-07T09:45:52Z

Zmatt:

The math problem in question is https://oeis.org/A099155 [[User:Mei|Mei]] ([[User talk:Mei|talk]]) 21:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

why is d>8 unsolved? stevethenoob 21:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Computational power, I guess, although I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that for N=9 snake=196. [[Special:Contributions/94.73.52.245|94.73.52.245]] 23:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that computer science has one as well with the China room problem. [[User:Ctinsman|Ctinsman]] ([[User talk:Ctinsman|talk]]) 22:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

: Humans aren't cute animals (mostly), so I propose a variant of the problem called the Chinese Red Panda Room [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Just a few days ago I was investigating a very similar idea (looking at a path that transitioned between adjacent ''faces'' of a polyhedron, which was effectively going from vertex to connected vertex upon that chosen polyhedron's ''dual''), but for the opposite reason, i.e. looking for the paths that actually maximised proximity (along the path) between neighbouring faces (upon the polyhedra), so that it actually minimised the search back/forth along the path-chain to establish what value the adjacent polyhedron faces (beyond the ones automatically at ±1 positions on the chain) inherited.
 As to solving this one (basically disallowing visiting of any nodes adjacent to prior visits ''other'' than the single one that the +1 position of the chain has to first go to), I've got a basic idea of how I'd N-dimensionally space-search the possible routes (after all, visiting any given node at {0,1} value for dimensions [a, b, c, ...] rules out now visiting all of [!a, b, c, ...], [a, !b, c, ...], [a, b, !c, ...], etc, ''except'' whichever one of these was chosen for the next step of onward travel), for valid foldings across the appropriate N-polytype cuboidal analogue. Though I suspect that the exponental (or greater!) growth in the potential search-trees you'd use would be the sticking point. No point in setting off an exhaustive algorithm if it seemed likely to take three years to check just 1% of possibilities, and no doubt more dedicated analysis than my own brute-forcing method has already hit other problems in trying a more nuanced extrapolation between each level of added dimensionality, which is where the unsolved nature of this starts to bite.
 But also think it'd be far more interesting to investigate the possibilities in the N>3-Dimensional extensions of non-cubic platonic solids, like the {{w|600-cell}} and beyond, and establish what allowable lengths of traversal ''they'' would allow, under similar stipulations.
 Great! I love getting things like this to think about. If I can spare the time needed... [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.59|82.132.245.59]] 22:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: I think you've been nerd-sniped. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
::So far, I've personally got as far as:
::*For any given number of dimensions, N, there are always N adjacent points (point, zero dimensions, zero neighbours; line, one dimension, one neighbour; square, two dimension, two neighbours, etc).
::*In total, there are 2N points (0d=1, 1d=2, 2d=4, etc)
::*A maximum possible length, L, has a ''lower'' lower limit of starting at any particular vortex and only taking directions that are perpendicular to all prior directions (for a cube, only go by x, y and z directions once), and this would be eaual to N.
::*But that's overly-lazy, as you're ruling out (as you gain enough dimensions) revisiting a dimensional plane, even though you're allowed to revisit a point on that plane that's shifted by at least ''two'' other dimensions of offset. e.g. the top right of a cube's facing face when you started at the bottom left of it (went 'deep' to the rear face, took two steps from the rear-lower-left to rear-upper-right then back).
::*For the first step, you have N choices from your starting position. You take one and cannot later visit any of the ones you did not choose to go to. For the second step onwards, you have N-1 basic choices (every direction but backwards to the prior step) and should choose one and rule out ever visiting the rest.
::*This gives a new (at least for N>2) lower limit to L whereby the sum of starting, taken and not-taken nodes that you count can be added to by new steps until you would end up with have a total greater than 2N. (Line: start on one (of two), choice of one (taken), two points 'marked', only two points possible; Square: start on one (of four), two choices, take one, reserve one, three points 'marked', still the fourth point available for L=2, but then five points would be marked (the untaken-from-start being the only non-backwards choice) so can't go further.
::*But this is also wasteful as (in increasingly higher dimensions) there's nothing to stop an unvisited neighbour of a past step from being a(n enforced) unvisited neighbour from a later step, as you 'choose' to go only to a valid further point. So clever "near-neighbour" backtracking can reduce the number of ''freshly'' eaten-up points and thus maintain more future points for more steps.
::**Noting that past-step no-go-neighbours that can possibly 'fold into' the current-step's not-going-neighbours list only become such after ''at least'' two intervening steps (for 'square-based' hypercubic domains, whereas triangle-based hypernets (e.g. tetra-, octa- and icosohedrons, in 3-space) happen after just one step, and pentagon-based ones (dodecahedrons in 3-space) can't take advantage of this in less than three. (This seems to share some of the mathematics with the 'classical' rabbit-population problem, whereby new offspring only become viable breeding population after a step or two since their generation.)
::*Optimally, in fact, you should aim to double-back in such a way as leave yourself with ''all but one'' onward neighbour unavailable (thus only eating up potential points at a rate of one per step, at that point).
::*Heading vaguely back 'towards' past snake-lengths, in higher-dimensional hypernets, seems like the best(/longest) space-filling strategy. It's a bit like coil-built pottery, but with more undulations (and dimensions) to it. But with care to make sure you don't burrow yourself into a dead-end with ''no'' viable onward choices while still having maybe half of the potential visitable/neighbourable points untouched, or avoiding filling 'voids' to guaranteeing accessing a majority of the potential future visits, but unwisely not exploiting all the phase-space of vertices optimally.
::**I can mentally visualise doing this successfully in 3-, 4- and 5-cube situations, elegantly enough (it's like , but N>=6 versions get increasingly hard to do in my head with certainty. After I've slept on it, I might have to break out the pencil and paper.
::So, yeah, I've set a lower-limit to L, for various Ns, and can construct a ''possible'' upper-limit to L, but I haven't even checked these L(N)s vs. the values stated in the comic. Or what progress (and more advanced logical reasoning) has already been made in the field. I suspect I'm just reinventing the (hyper-)wheel, of course, rather than have the key to the problem that everyone else had failed to spot, but that's not the point. If I get even half way close to what the 'professionals' in this field have managed, I'll be smug and self-satisfied enough for myself. And, anyway, I've explained myself enough tolet any ''other'' similarly-minded nerd the ability to get at least as far as I've got with this problem. Which is as good an outcome, as far as I'm concerned, as getting this done entirely on my own. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.244.41|82.132.244.41]] 00:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::: I'm still having trouble getting hold of long enough snakes. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Psychology is way ahead of y'all, they've been putting actual mice in weird boxes for ''decades''. [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 22:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:Psychology might have been putting animals in boxes for decades, but zoology has been doing it for centuries! [[Special:Contributions/97.118.209.207|97.118.209.207]] 00:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
::Gastronomy has been doing it for as long as people have been storing food. [[User:BunsenH|BunsenH]] ([[User talk:BunsenH|talk]]) 03:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
:: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/284912743/--[[Special:Contributions/2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C|2001:4450:8178:2200:D1C2:8DED:F6FE:E93C]] 04:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Reading (just) the [comments] of the underlying research suggests that 98 is the longest found snake. Perhaps that means a longer one has not been explicitly eliminated (making 8 also not solved to some extent) [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765|2A02:A45B:8867:0:BED8:F2BA:838E:765]] 22:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
:a(8)=98 was proven by: Östergård, P.R.J., Pettersson, V.H. Exhaustive Search for Snake-in-the-Box Codes. Graphs and Combinatorics 31, 1019–1028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00373-014-1423-3

I suppose Randall doesn't consider [[beetles]] cute, or else [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Wittgenstein's_beetle philosophy of language] would be included. [[Special:Contributions/137.25.230.78|137.25.230.78]] 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
: that's a great example [[Special:Contributions/177.12.49.23|177.12.49.23]] 01:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In simultaneous interpreting, humans are the cute animal in the box. {{unsigned|DrInterpreter|07:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)}}

3115: Unsolved Physics Problems

2025-07-15T09:00:29Z

Zmatt: /* Explanation */ add reference for gallium anomaly

{{comic
| number = 3115
| date = July 14, 2025
| title = Unsolved Physics Problems
| image = unsolved_physics_problems_2x.png
| imagesize = 699x422px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'Tin pest' makes more sense to me. Tin just doesn't want to be locked down in a shape like that. I get it. But why would any metal want to grow hair??
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This comic is a sequel to comic [[2529: Unsolved Math Problems]], which follows the same format.

The first question is understanding different models of spacetime. Each possibility represents a different model: time being a background parameter is how we usually think of time, where time is always passing at a constant rate. Time being a dynamic aspect of spacetime refers to the consideration of spacetime being a four-dimensional space, where time can pass faster or slower for different observers. Time being an emergent phenomenon refers to a recent theory, where time is actually just space being manipulated, like code being the functioning of physical hardware.

The second question discusses a precise experiment to understand a specific phenomenon. Essentially, the problem is that how we understand the process gives an answer for how much germanium we expect, but what we see in real life doesn't match up with our calculations. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93American_Gallium_Experiment#Gallium_anomaly

The third question discusses a phenomenon that sounds extremely strange at first sight: hair is usually thought of as an organic property, and spontaneous change in a block of metal would not be a typical problem one would expect.

All true – see https://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/brusse2003-zinc-whisker-awareness.pdf

==Transcript==

{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
: The Three Types of Unsolved Physics Problem

: Vague
: [A Feynman diagram of two particles interacting via the electromagnetic force is to the right of Cueball. The diagram is drawn on a curved surface]
: Cueball: What is the nature of time in quantum gravity? Is it a background parameter, a dynamic aspect of spacetime, or an emergent phenomenon?

: Precise
: [A scientific instrument and a nuclear reaction equation of gallium-71 becoming germanium-71 are to Megan's left]
: Megan: Why does the ''S.A.G.E.'' Gallium Neutrino Capture Experiment produce only 75% as much germanium as predicted?

: Cursed
: [A rectangular block of zinc, with whiskers growing out of it, is visible to the right of White Hat]
: White Hat: Why does some metal randomly grow hairs?
: White Hat: It keeps causing short circuits and we have no idea what's going on.
: Voice from off-panel: Is this a joke?
: White Hat: No! Please help!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

3115: Unsolved Physics Problems

2025-07-15T06:55:16Z

Zmatt: /* Explanation */ Replace zinc whisker link by one that has actual images of the phenomenon

{{comic
| number = 3115
| date = July 14, 2025
| title = Unsolved Physics Problems
| image = unsolved_physics_problems_2x.png
| imagesize = 699x422px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'Tin pest' makes more sense to me. Tin just doesn't want to be locked down in a shape like that. I get it. But why would any metal want to grow hair??
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

This comic is a sequel to comic [[2529]], which follows the same format.

Someone who knows more about physics come explain the rest please

The first question is understanding different models of spacetime. Each possibility represents a different model: time being a background parameter is how we usually think of time, where time is always passing at a constant rate. Time being a dynamic aspect of spacetime refers to the consideration of spacetime being a four-dimensional space, where time can pass faster or slower for different observers. Time being an emergent phenomenon refers to a recent theory(I think), where time is actually just space being manipulated, like code being the functioning of physical hardware(I think, tbh I don't really understand this either)

The second question discusses a precise experiment to understand a specific phenomenon. Essentially, the problem is that how we understand the process gives an answer for how much germanium we expect, but what we see in real life doesn't match up with our calculations.

The third question discusses a phenomenon that sounds extremely strange at first sight: hair is usually thought of as an organic property, and spontaneous change in a block of metal would not be a typical problem one would expect.

All true – see https://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/brusse2003-zinc-whisker-awareness.pdf

==Transcript==

{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
: The Three Types of Unsolved Physics Problem

: Vague
: [A Feynman diagram of two particles interacting via the electromagnetic force is to the right of Cueball]
: Cueball: What is the nature of time in quantum gravity? Is it a background parameter, a dynamic aspect of spacetime, or an emergent phenomenon?

: Precise
: [A scientific instrument and a nuclear reaction equation of gallium-71 becoming germanium-71 are to Megan's left]
: Megan: Why does the ''S.A.G.E.'' Gallium Neutrino Capture Experiment produce only 75% as much germanium as predicted?

: Cursed
: [A rectangular block of zinc, with whiskers growing out of it, is visible to the right of White Hat]
: White Hat: Why does some metal randomly grow hairs?
: White Hat: It keeps causing short circuits and we have no idea what's going on.
: Voice from off-panel: Is this a joke?
: White Hat: No! Please help!

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

Talk:3083: Jupiter Core

2025-04-30T18:08:45Z

Zmatt:

NOOO RANDALL USED ‘DATA’ AS SINGULAR NOOOO I HOPE HE FIXES IT. [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 15:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
:Used with an information science perspective as it is here, it is usually used as a singular (https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/data-is-or-data-are/). At least, that's what I found while clicking around with one of my computer mouses :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:English is not Latin. Latin words work differently in English than they do in Latin. In English, "data" is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun mass noun] (a.k.a., an uncountable noun). For almost as long as the English language has existed, folks have been trying to "correct" people into using Latin rules of grammar, but that's not correct and never has been. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Can someone fix the formatting for the table, it’s annoying on mobile and shrinks the page because its 1 row [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 15:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
: Nevermind, it wasn’t loading properly [[User:Commercialegg|Commercialegg]] ([[User talk:Commercialegg|talk]]) 15:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
: Sorry, that was on me. Just figuring out how to use tables. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 17:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it contains nougat. Perhaps with further study of Jupiter, humanity will finally be able to learn what, exactly, nougat is. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 16:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jupiter_diagram.svg This image] has always given me the impression it's actually a delicious frozen cake. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2966: Exam Numbers

2024-07-31T22:22:42Z

Zmatt:

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)

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 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)

explain xkcd talk:Sandbox

2024-07-31T22:08:57Z

Zmatt: _Actually_ fix paragraphs this time

__NOINDEX__
Make changes, try things out, or just have fun with the wiki here! Just leave everything above the line alone, please.
------
This is a test. [[User:PoolloverNathan|PoolloverNathan]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/PoolloverNathan|s]][[User talk:PoolloverNathan|talk]] [[Wikipedia:WP:SEAOFBLUE|the blue seas]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 20:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
::This is not. —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&printable=yes printable version] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&action=info page information] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:While_False what links there] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&days=30&from=&target=User%3AWhile_False related changes] | [https://www.google.com Google search] | current time: {{CURRENTTIME}}) 18:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

:A foreign student asked me to help fight against his math teacher. That was unusual. He was in that class for just a couple of weeks. The teacher's phone number was sent to me. The student asked me to spam-call the teacher. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.55|172.71.155.55]] 22:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

here i'm just messing around in html, ignore this

furhhfghure guyrburgryhuyvfr "rvhru"
interesting way of writing quotations xd
:hmmm this one of putting "" in a line break will come in handy for when i want it to start at the same place than the first line

::Please beware that on mediawiki also disables automatic paragraph breaks, so you need a closing or you'll break automatic paragraph formatting for the rest of the page. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

edit: da hek did that "</div>" come from [[User:An user who has no account yet|An user who has no account yet]] ([[User talk:An user who has no account yet|talk]]) 14:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

hi uh its hard to get here.
is this a reference to undocumented feature??? hmm... this is interesting.
 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.216|108.162.241.216]] 02:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

explain xkcd talk:Sandbox

2024-07-31T22:06:01Z

Zmatt: Fix paragraph formatting breakage

__NOINDEX__
Make changes, try things out, or just have fun with the wiki here! Just leave everything above the line alone, please.
------
This is a test. [[User:PoolloverNathan|PoolloverNathan]]<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/PoolloverNathan|s]][[User talk:PoolloverNathan|talk]] [[Wikipedia:WP:SEAOFBLUE|the blue seas]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 20:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
::This is not. —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&printable=yes printable version] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&action=info page information] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:While_False what links there] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&days=30&from=&target=User%3AWhile_False related changes] | [https://www.google.com Google search] | current time: {{CURRENTTIME}}) 18:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

:A foreign student asked me to help fight against his math teacher. That was unusual. He was in that class for just a couple of weeks. The teacher's phone number was sent to me. The student asked me to spam-call the teacher. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.155.55|172.71.155.55]] 22:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

here i'm just messing around in html, ignore this

furhhfghure guyrburgryhuyvfr "rvhru"
interesting way of writing quotations xd
:hmmm this one of putting "" in a line break will come in handy for when i want it to start at the same place than the first line
::Please beware that on mediawiki also disables automatic paragraph breaks, so you need a closing or you'll break automatic paragraph formatting for the rest of the page. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 22:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

edit: da hek did that "</div>" come from [[User:An user who has no account yet|An user who has no account yet]] ([[User talk:An user who has no account yet|talk]]) 14:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 
hi uh its hard to get here.
is this a reference to undocumented feature??? hmm... this is interesting.
 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.216|108.162.241.216]] 02:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2951: Bad Map Projection: Exterior Kansas

2024-06-28T03:14:35Z

Zmatt: /* How would the rest of the world look? */

Seems weird that it's just the contiguous US, with "hints" about what lies within. I hope Randall will release another version with the rest of the world included.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.61|162.158.158.61]] 03:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Would the center be both poles ''and'' Kansas's antipode? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.27.150|172.68.27.150]] 03:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Including Hawaii would have been the cherry on the cake. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.242.174|198.41.242.174]] 05:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

: As the center of the map corresponds to Kansas' antipode (Kerguelen in the Indian Ocean https://www.geodatos.net/en/antipodes/united-states/kansas-city), Hawaii isn't really "near the center", but rather to the right of the center (in the direction of the "Pacific Ocean" tag). --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.100|162.158.86.100]] 05:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:: Admittedly, I guessed where they would be. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.139|172.71.174.139]] 06:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the middle part is meant to be seen as 'water', just 'out of scope'. [[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 07:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, this is similar to a map like https://suncatcherstudio.com/uploads/patterns/us-maps/pdf-png/usa-map-states-names-color-010101.png In that map, Canada and Mexico aren't "rendered as water", they're not rendered at all, and neither are the oceans. I'm going to edit that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.73|162.158.78.73]] 13:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

== How would the rest of the world look? ==

Currently the center is all water. If I understand correctly the rest of the world could be added, but how would it look? For example, would Europe and Asia cover a good part of the water or would they be tiny specs in the middle (almost making this a world map already)
:My impression (without measuring/replicating) is that this is mathematically (or whatever) a gnomonic projection (which can only show half the world, anyway, even on a sheet stretching up to infinity) radially inverted. As such quite a lot of features that aren't shown ('beyond/within' the 'coastline'/borders) couldn't be, anyway, as more than half the world away. Map-centre would be the compressed singularity of the Great Circle exactly 90° off the 'centre of Kansas' that itself now exists at infinite-radius-every-angle far off the page.
:Though it could just be stereographic with any negatively positioned projection origin. Instead of -1, for gnomonic, with a -2 radii origin you would get the whole surface (at infinity!) in ways that whatever you do to radially invert (probably the direct reciprocal) and otherwise scale (clearly choosing the additional 'zoom level' factor that neatly brings the Kansas border more or less into frame) to compress all offshore/over-border territories into the 'oceanic' centre. Or it could just be a useful rescale of a -2r projection ''of'' the Kansas-antipode, such that all borders of Kansas are pulled into frame.
:(Regarding Hawaii, if quick googling is right about Hawaii being 3,600km from Kansas(-centre?), then that puts it at various preskewed factors towards the 'hemispherical horizon' of ~10,000km or the antipodal point at ~20,000km, before then being further squashed by the particular coordinate conversion system in use. If it's a near-side orthographic projection and, say approaching +1 radii up from the surface-tangent, then it could perhaps be 'over the horizon' in the direct projection and thus 'beyond the singularity' of the inverted-radius version.)
:I'd have to mess with some map data, to be sure the existing features fit either idea of projection (or find the actual one (ab)used), but this'd probably be what I'd do, straight off the bat. And then I could apply it to extraterratorial features, also. I've got some of the necessary data and mungable code handily sitting on a machine that I am ''unhandily'' not going to next use until at least the weekend, and reimplimenting it on this tablet would mean starting from first principles again/testing/etc... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.120|172.70.163.120]] 09:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

: Check out the Wikipedia article "Azimuthal equidistant projection" and scroll to "Sample azimuthal equidistant projection maps". There is an inverse example, that puts California at the center of a world map. Now imagine everything else in the "great sea" of Randall's map, using a similar projection. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.32|172.71.99.32]] 13:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

: Yay! A task for a geography teacher (i.e. me, and I'm a big fan of Randall's work with maps), and I just happen to have the right bookmarks for this kind of thing in my browser. So here's a little toy to play around with: [https://www.worldmapgenerator.com/en/wizard/step/centering/?config=eyJpZCI6IkNVU1RPTV9XSVpBUkQiLCJsYXllcklkcyI6WyJDTElQX1BBVEgiLCJCQUNLR1JPVU5EIiwiU1BIRVJFIiwiR1JBVElDVUxFUyIsIkxBTkQiLCJPQ0VBTiJdLCJwcm9qZWN0aW9uSWQiOiJBWklNVVRIQUxfRVFVSURJU1RBTlQiLCJyZW5kZXJpbmdBZGFwdGVySWQiOiJDQU5WQVMiLCJtYXBUaGVtZUlkIjoiREVGQVVMVCIsImNlbnRlciI6WzAsMF0sInJvdGF0aW9uIjpbLTgxLDQwLDBdLCJ6b29tIjowLjksIndpemFyZFN0ZXBQcm9ncmVzc0lkeCI6MywidmVyc2lvbiI6IjEuMC4wIn0%3D] I hope my settings got preserved in the link as they should, else whoever added all those letters and numbers clearly has something to answer for! If the link works as it should it'll show you what a map of the whole wide world would look like in an Azimuthal Equidistant Projection with Kansas on the exterior. That is, I first used this Antipodes Map [https://www.antipodesmap.com] to locate the point opposite to Lebanon, Kansas at 39°48'35"S, 81°26'39.8"E , which is quite literally in the middle of the Indian Ocean, near the islands of Saint Paul and Nouvelle Amsterdam (which, incidentally, belong to France and are mainly known for being as far away from anything as you can possibly get on this planet*) and then set the centre of the worldmapgenerator.com map approximately there. It's not a very precise tool, but it'll do - it's precise enough for me to use in lessons anyway. Surprisingly, you actually get a more or less usable map for much of the world (if you're not too fussy or trying to navigate with it or anything), ''except only'' for North and Middle America. :D [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:: * At least, you can say that if you happen to land there, you're really not in Kansas any more. ;) [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] ([[User talk:PaulEberhardt|talk]]) 16:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::Oh, I really like map stuff, but: "This site uses cookies to improve the results of our bakery. With your acceptance we can add more honey, sugar and flour to improve the website. [Accept]". Only "[Accept]", no other options (even long-winded 'deselect "things ''we'' suggest are important" options that I might disagree with'). I really don't like that. And then it also offers to install an App, apparently... Oh, website builders, just because I'm currently on a mobile device, it doesn't mean I'm eager to "app everything"; entirely the opposite, perhaps! Yeah, I know script/cookie blockers or specialist browsers exist to avoid these things, but... Anyway, nice to see a geography teacher taking it seriously, even if I've got my own conflicting issues in picking up on what you've found. (Behind/before the popup stuff, it truly looked interesting. Don't know if there's a legit way to get a screenshot of it. Don't break any Ts&Cs in doing so!) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.164|141.101.98.164]] 17:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::: The joke is that worldmapgenerator doesn't store ANY cookies. Meanwhile the site you are posting from stores 63 kB of browser data just visiting the homepage. [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 21:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: Hmm, I get the "This site uses cookies to improve the results of our bakery." too. If they don't use cookies, then they shouldn't have that.
:::: I am actually on a desktop system, I can probably go in there and remove the "don't do anything until the Accept is clicked" popover ''without clicking on the popover'', and even check out what it tries to store, or doesn't... I'm not even overly paranoid about these things, but I agree with above poster that it's bad form. ''Especially'' if it's a joke (no reason to suppose it is).
:::: Yeah, I'll accept Cookies if essential, but often they aren't, so it's not even a very good joke to make. Maybe they do just do everything in URL-encoded/GET data. It's my own prefered method, to make fully transparent GET data on websites I use (barring anything that needs to be POST-submitted), and if I ever use cookies it's a single own-site-only cookie for session control, not the mass of "Legitimate Use" (as if!) items.
:::: Have you ever gone and looked in the list? (Assuming the "Do you accept cookies" doesn't do a "Yes, accept all"/"No, reject all (inessential)" and gives you the 'option' to painstakingly turn off half a dozen "default cookie sets".) It's frightening how many 'interested parties' are potentially getting info (dozens to hundreds, at a time). And, realistically, I'm not sure I even believe that by selecting 'off' on that kind of dialogue that I'm actually not being Cookified just as much as if I accidentally clicked on the prominent "Accept All".
:::: Sorry, the above comment just resonates with me, too. Decided I had to vent a bit. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.121|172.70.163.121]] 23:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: I checked the cookies it uses, none of them contain any sort of tracking identifier. It stores the selected language, whether you accepted cookies, and for which screens of the wizard you've seen the tutorial screen. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 03:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:: Thanks for the wonderful link. I suggest we include an image from this in the article. Your settings were preserved nicely. Given how little of north America is visible, I suspect that Randal must have used an even more extreme azimuthal protection than the equidistant one to shrink the center. [[User:Quantum7|Quantum7]] ([[User talk:Quantum7|talk]]) 21:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

==Adding an image?==
Is it possible to add an image to the description? I'm looking at the Wikipedia article "Azimuthal equidistant projection" and the "external Antarctica" map is relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.32|172.71.99.32]] 13:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:You could use a variation on <code><nowiki>[[File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_SW.jpg|300px]]</nowiki></code> maybe. Add align/wrap options, as necessary, and use a size that seems to work. Remember to try it with Preview, before you're submitting it for real, lets you fine-tune to your liking without spamming the edit-history. Doesn't need (explicit) uploading to the wiki, this way. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97|172.69.194.97]] 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Should Now [https://xkcd.com/1335/] be mentioned? Same type of projection. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.90|162.158.159.90]] 20:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

== Actual azimuthal projection centered at Kansas' antipode ==

It turns out that, this being the internet, there's an actual tool for generating azimuthal projections ([https://ns6t.net/azimuth/]). For the curious minds out there, here's what the exterior Kansas would look like as an actual azimuthal projection: [https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i87r5524u952cam4dbtdx/Kansas-Azimuthal.pdf?rlkey=h5f3qp8esotyk50uaurht8gj4&st=drjzszjk&dl=0]. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.178|172.69.90.178]] 21:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:[https://i.ibb.co/W33xmKC/Screenshot-2024-06-27-3-17-30-PM.png Here's one where the conformal lines are still latitude and longitude], from https://maps.ontarget.cc/azmap/en.html which releases it as CC-BY-SA if someone wants to upload it. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.23.73|172.68.23.73]] 01:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

2400: Statistics

2023-07-28T19:30:41Z

Zmatt: /* Graph */ Make link to chart actually link to the chart

{{comic
| number = 2400
| date = December 18, 2020
| title = Statistics
| image = statistics.png
| titletext = We reject the null hypothesis based on the 'hot damn, check out this chart' test.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is another in a [[:Category:COVID-19|series of comics]] related to the {{w|COVID-19 pandemic}}, specifically regarding the [[:Category:COVID-19 vaccine|COVID-19 vaccine]]. It is also another one of [[Randall|Randall's]] [[:Category:Tips|Tips]], this time a statistics tip.

===Graph===
The main focus of the comic is a graph showing cases of COVID-19 versus time for two groups: one group was vaccinated and the other group was not. Graphs are ways to visualize data, and for real data indicate specific values. This graph seems to be based on [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 the Pfizer vaccine's results]. The higher line ("placebo group") rises in a steep curve. The lower line ("vaccine group") follows the first for a bit but then levels out to a much slower rate of climb. Officially, a scientific assessment of the effectiveness of anything requires rigorous statistical analysis. This is particularly true in medical studies, where impacts of biology can be highly complex and subject to many factors, meaning that careful review of the data is necessary to confirm that an intervention was effective. The joke of this comic is that the intervention presented here is so ''obviously'' effective that it's obvious even to a layman with little understanding of the math. A few days after the vaccine was administered, cases in the vaccinated group essentially flatline, while cases in the placebo group continue to rise as a significant rate. The data is so "good", meaning that numbers for the treatment and control groups diverge so dramatically, that actual analysis becomes almost a formality: a glance at the chart would convince most people that the treatment is effective.

This comic was released one week after the FDA granted an emergency use authorization for the {{w|BNT162b2|Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine}} was released, and 8 days after results of its Phase 3 clinical trial were published in [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 the ''New England Journal of Medicine'']. The document includes the following [https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2020/nejm_2020.383.issue-27/nejmoa2034577/20210819/images/img_xlarge/nejmoa2034577_f3.jpeg chart]. The charts draw the integral of the incidence data rather than the data itself ("cumulative" rather than "rate"): this results in changes in disease rate towards the left side of the chart, being added into the data on the right side, amplifying their difference. This technique for emphasizing the data is valid: the spread between the lines only continues to increase if the effect continues happening, such that the total spread at the right is proportional to the total effect the vaccine had. The charts do not show any information on other possible variables. Randall has described previously in his webcomics how very clear charts can be made to hide misleading data. The linked graph does not leave the numbers out, and the numbers indicate the vaccine is 91% effective at preventing the disease (and a 95% chance of being between 85 and 95% efficient).

The advice here could be seen as the inverse of the "science tip" in [[2311: Confidence Interval]], in which the data was so ''bad'' that its error bars fell outside of the graph and were not shown. Also there's some association with [[1725: Linear Regression]] where the data is not so good that you don't need to perform linear analysis.

===Null hypothesis===

The null hypothesis, mentioned in the title text, is the hypothesis in a statistical analysis that indicates that the effect investigated by the analysis does not occur, i.e. 'null' as in zero effect. For example, the null hypothesis for this study might be "The vaccine has no effect on whether subjects catch COVID." The null hypothesis was previously the subject of [[892: Null Hypothesis]]. The null hypothesis is rejected when the probability of something like the observed data would be very low were the null hypothesis true.

For a simplified example, imagine there are 10 000 people in the vaccinated group, and each has a 5% chance of catching COVID under the null hypothesis; we expect 500 people to catch COVID. If only 490 catch COVID, the null hypothesis remains plausible, but if just 10 do, the odds are (in Python; see {{w|binomial distribution}}) <code>sum([math.comb(10000, i) * 0.05**i * 0.95**(10000-i) for i in range(0,10)])</code> = 1.5 × 10-204. In other words, it is wildly improbably that an ineffective vaccine would have produced such excellent results. We therefore conclude that the vaccine is not ineffective, and have rejected the null hypothesis.

Most people however, on seeing the raw results, would have concluded that the vaccine worked and statistics were just a formality. As the title text says, they would have "reject[ed] the null hypothesis based on the 'hot damn, check out this chart' test."

==Transcript==
:[Shown is a graph with the x-axis labeled "time" and the y-axis labeled "COVID cases." There is a black line on the graph labeled "placebo group", which has a roughly linear slope moving toward the top right corner. There is a red line labeled "vaccine group", which follows the black line for about an eighth of the width of the graph before leveling off at a much slower increase.]

:Caption beneath the graph: Statistics tip: Always try to get data that's good enough that you don't need to do statistics on it

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:COVID-19]]
[[Category:COVID-19 vaccine]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Tips]]
[[Category:Scientific research]]

Talk:2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T20:11:32Z

Zmatt:

Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.57|162.158.146.57]] 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:For more information have a look at my paper here-https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00690 [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text [[User:InfoManiac|InfoManiac]] ([[User talk:InfoManiac|talk]]) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.160|172.68.51.160]] 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::You seem to be describing the "equal transit time fallacy". Air going over the top of a wing doesn't necessarily have to travel further (that depends on the shape of the airfoil), and even if it does that doesn't in itself imply anything about the pressure. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
:I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.26|172.70.86.26]] 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.237|172.70.38.237]] 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.20|172.69.68.20]] 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone help fix my reference. It said citation needed, so I went to the first great source, which is Prandtl. However, even though I followed the wikipedia way for making a reference, it has not produced a helpful link at the bottom. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:I can see why this was confusing. On this site, there's an inside joke surrounding the citation needed tag, based on an older comic and on the way it's used in the What If section of xkcd. It basically means the opposite of what it means on wikipedia, and is sometimes inserted as a joke behind obvious statements or common knowledge. Your edit was fine, don't worry. No actual citation needed. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.49|172.71.102.49]] 07:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::He was refering to the citation that ended up below this discussion page on the main page. In stead of in a ref section:
Tietjens, Oskar Karl Gustav; Prandtl, Ludwig (1957). Fundamentals of Hydro- and Aeromechanics. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-60374-2
::We usually do no make this kind of references, but just links to them. Also therefore I do not know how to make the ref section, and would also prefer it was just a link to something usefull. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2641: Mouse Turbines

2022-07-06T11:38:33Z

Zmatt:

Is anybody going to try to calculate the amount of power such a turbine could collect? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:Good idea; what should we use for an estimate of the geometry for https://www.omnicalculator.com/ecology/wind-turbine ? The final panel makes it look like the blade diameter is about twice the size of a fist. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215098616300830] says "exhaled air velocity varies from 2.2 m/s to 9.9 m/s (5.66 ± 1.57 m/s, mean ± SD) and exhalation time varies from 2.10 s to 8.21 s (4.42 ± 1.73s, mean ± SD)."
:I guessed 10 cm radius and used that mean breath speed. I should have used the top 9.9 m/s though, shouldn't I? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.185|172.70.214.185]] 20:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:After a closer look at that article, the mean is more appropriate. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 21:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
: I'm not sure how you'd judge that it's twice the size of a fist, given that stick people don't really have fists. I would assume that they're meant to be about the same size as dandelion heads - so about 3 or 4 cm (unless US dandelions are bigger than UK ones). They certainly look about that size in the second panel. You'd also need to factor in problems of interference, given the 'planting density' of these turbines, and the sub-optimal location surrounded by grasses, etc. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.44|172.70.86.44]] 08:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Although these miniscule wind turbines don't generate much power, mice probably don't need much. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:That's certainly a fair point. How much power would a mouse-sized fridge need? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.95|172.70.206.95]] 21:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
::Mice consume a lot more food per body weight (especially for body heat because heat transfer scales with surface area, not mass/volume) than humans. Mouse-sized fridge efficiency would also be poor both because of the same size issue and reduced room for insulation. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
::A 480 ml insulin travel fridge uses 5 watts on a 3% duty cycle depending on the ambient temperature and how much it's loaded, so that's in the realm of possibility, and seems large enough. I used to feed lab mice about 5 grams of Purina Lab Rodent Chow daily, which was maybe 8ml volume, but it doesn't need to be refrigerated. Googling suggests field mice can get all the water they need from a diet of seeds. It seems to me that if mice could use electricity, they'd need it more in the winter than the summer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 22:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone please check my mouse energy needs math and assumptions. I made a couple misplaced decimal mistakes getting to where it is now, and I'm going to have another beer. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.52|172.70.211.52]] 22:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:Not sure about numbers but some (if not most) energy requirements scale by surface area ({{w|Square–cube law}} or other measurements. There are also efficiency issues with at least lots of human-made miniature machines. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
::What energy requirements scale by surface area? Pumping water, cooking, and refrigerating scales by mass. Converting footcandles to lumens depends on area, but that doesn't account for much lower mouse ceilings. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.6|172.69.34.6]] 22:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused by the statement that smaller turbines are less "efficient". There's nothing about efficiency at that link. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.43|172.70.114.43]] 22:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:The graph shows the ratio between size and output has risen from about half to 85%. What is a better term for this? I'm pretty sure one of the multiple definitions of efficiency is technically correct, but it can never hurt explaining better. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.113|172.69.33.113]] 22:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:Changed to "relative power output" but I'm not sure that captures the idea very well either. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.113|172.69.33.113]] 22:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Well wind turbines may not scale down ideally but still better than nuclear power plants. I suspect those have fixed minimal size and it's pretty big. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

:Apparently nuclear power can be [https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/LAR-TOPS-294 "as small as a button cell"] but mice are vulnerable to radioactive hazards, and haven't solved the waste disposal problem. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.185|172.70.214.185]] 23:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

::Batteries based on radioactive decay (such as RTGs, thermionic cells, betavoltaic cells) are not nuclear power plants. That term specifically refers to power plants based on nuclear fission reactors. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 11:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the power output of a solar panel directly dependent on its size (and wether it's covered with snow, angle to the sun, clouds? And prolly something I'll think of as soon as I hit save).[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.106|172.70.131.106]] 23:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, but the power per size doesn't increase with size like wind turbines do. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.63|172.69.33.63]] 00:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

What is the smallest Tesla Powerwall available for purchase? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.163|172.70.206.163]] 02:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:You probably want an {{w|18650}} or similar cell, which are [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsJMj7FtroY frequently discarded on the street] and thus easily obtainable by mice. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.171|172.69.33.171]] 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't pico hydro have the same problems scaling down as wind? They're both fluid turbines. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.185|172.70.214.185]] 02:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:For the same reasons that small fans have several vanes, but large wind turbines have only three. I remember reading something about the physics (it's a laminar versus turbulent thing) but I can't remember the details now. I'll update here if I can find it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.125|172.70.210.125]] 03:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:[https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/why-do-wind-turbines-have-three-blades/ Here's part of it,] but doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.125|172.70.210.125]] 03:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:I think it has more to do with the relative magnitude of drag in gases instead of liquids. I don't have a good source though. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.36|172.70.211.36]] 03:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
::Turbine efficiency (especially for very small turbines) mostly depends on pressure differential and mass throughput. Water has three orders of magnitude higher density than air. Also, even with just a meter of water column, water offers a 10 kPa pressure differential while you only rarely get that much of a pressure differential in air (at the same height) even between areas of high and low pressure usually at least dozens (and commonly hundreds) of miles apart (there may be exceptions for things like tornadoes but good luck using their wind power), certainly not between the high and low pressure sides of a turbine. Efficiency in practice mostly depends on moved mass (of turbine blades, etc) compared to moved medium (water or air), friction (mount, generator, maybe a gearbox) compared to total power input and (if electricity is desired) generator efficiency which itself depends on generator size and rotation speed (hence the need for a gearbox). For a very small turbine, all those things would need to be extremely light as well. [[User:627235|627235]] ([[User talk:627235|talk]]) 11:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Who is Beret Guy telling to make a wish - Megan or the mice? -- [[User:Ken g6|Ken g6]] ([[User talk:Ken g6|talk]]) 04:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

[https://www.cornel1801.com/animated/Secret-of-NIMH-1982/pictures/64.jpg I must tell you about NIMH.] - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.81|172.70.254.81]] 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the explanation is funnier than the comic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.159|172.68.133.159]] 03:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

2480: No, The Other One

2021-06-25T02:36:41Z

Zmatt: /* Explanation */ Texas, New York and vice versa

{{comic
| number = 2480
| date = June 23, 2021
| title = No, The Other One
| image = no_the_other_one.png
| titletext = Key West, Virginia is not to be confused with Key, West Virginia.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by SPRINGFIELD. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a map of the United States, showing cities or towns with the same name as other more famous places. For example, the map has a dot for a place called Los Angeles in Texas, not to be confused with Los Angeles, California.

Few place names are unique, and there may be {{w|List of the most common U.S. place names|many places with the same name}}. Multiple American towns have been named after the same British town, famous person, or geographic feature.

However, names can become associated with specific places on a national level, where the best-known example is usually the biggest or otherwise the most significant. The name of this comic indicates the contextualization required to specify one of the less-famous exemplars of a given name. Someone might say they are from "Los Angeles" and would have to say "no, the other one" since the listener would assume they are from Los Angeles, California.

The [[title text]] references {{w|Key, West Virginia}} and {{w|Key West, Virginia}}, two places that, when spoken aloud, are only distinguishable by the pause (comma) location. Neither are to be confused with {{w|Key West|Key West, Florida}}, which is a well-known national location.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Place name in comic
! Well-known place
! Notes
|-
| {{w|Albany, Georgia|Albany, GA}}
| rowspan="3" | {{w|Albany,_New_York|Albany, NY}}
| rowspan="3" | Albany is the capital of New York state.
|-
| {{w|Albany, Minnesota|Albany, MN}}


|-
| {{w|Albany, Wyoming|Albany, WY}}

|-
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Alexandria,_Louisiana|Alexandria, LA}}
| {{w|Alexandria,_Virginia|Alexandria, VA}}
| Alexandria, VA is known for being George Washington's hometown.
|-
| {{w|Alexandria|Alexandria, Egypt}}
| Major economic and cultural center on the Mediterranean.
|-
| {{w|Anchorage, Kentucky|Anchorage, KY}}
| {{w|Anchorage,_Alaska|Anchorage, AK}}
| Anchorage is Alaska's most populous city.
|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Delaware|Atlanta, DE}}
| rowspan="6" | {{w|Atlanta|Atlanta, GA}}
| rowspan="6" | Atlanta is the capital of Georgia, a center of the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's, and a major air transportation hub.
|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Michigan|Atlanta, MI}}

|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Idaho|Atlanta, ID}}

|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Nebraska|Atlanta, NE}}

|-
| {{w|Atlanta, Texas|Atlanta, TX}}
|-
| {{w|Atlanta, Wisconsin|Atlanta, WI}}
|-
| {{w|Atlantic City, Wyoming|Atlantic City, WY}}
| {{w|Atlantic City, New Jersey|Atlantic City, NJ}}
| Atlantic City, NJ is a famous coastal resort town in New Jersey known for its casinos, boardwalk and beaches.
|-
| {{w|Austin, Minnesota|Austin, MN}}
| {{w|Austin, Texas|Austin, TX}}
| Austin is the capital of the state of Texas, and the 11th populous city in the US.
|-
| {{w|Baton Rouge, South Carolina|Baton Rouge, SC}}
| {{w|Baton Rouge, Louisiana|Baton Rouge, LA}}
| Baton Rouge is the capital of the state of Louisiana.
|-
| {{w|Beaumont, California|Beaumont, CA}}
| {{w|Beaumont, Texas|Beaumont, TX}}
| Beaumont is best known for the oil discovery that sparked the Texas oil boom of the early 1900s.
|-
| {{w|Beverly Hills, Illinois|Beverly Hills, IL}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Beverly Hills, California|Beverly Hills, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | Beverly Hills is a city in Los Angeles County, CA and is home to many celebrities, luxury hotels, and the Rodeo Drive shopping district.
|-
| {{w|Beverly Hills, Texas|Beverly Hills, TX}}

|-
| {{w|Bloomington, Minnesota | Bloomington, MN}}
| {{w|Bloomington, Indiana | Bloomington, IN}}
| Bloomington is the location of Indiana University.
|-
| Boston, MO
| {{w|Boston|Boston, MA}}
| Boston is the capital of Massachusetts and the site of several key events of the American Revolution.
|-
| Bowling Green, FL
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Bowling Green, Kentucky|Bowling Green, KY}}
| rowspan="2" | Bowling Green, KY is the largest city of this name, and the 3rd most populous city in Kentucky. Home of the auto plant that makes the Chevy Corvette.
|-
| Bowling Green, OH
|-
| Bridgeport, WV
| {{w|Bridgeport, Connecticut|Bridgeport, CT}}
| Bridgeport is the most populous city in Connecticut and fifth most populous in {{w|New England}}.
|-
| Buffalo, TX
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Buffalo, New York|Buffalo, NY}}
| rowspan="2" | Buffalo is the second most populous city in the state of New York, after New York City itself.
|-
| Buffalo, WY
|-
| rowspan="2" | Cambridge, OH
| {{w|Cambridge|Cambridge, England}}
| A city in Cambridgeshire, known as the home of {{w|University of Cambridge|Cambridge}} and Anglia Ruskin Universities. There is also a village of Cambridge in Gloucestershire.
|-
| {{w|Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge, MA}}
| Cambridge, Massachusetts is a city in the Boston metropolitan area, known as the home of {{w|Harvard University}} and {{w|Massachusetts Institute of Technology}} among others. Cambridge, Massachusetts is in turn named after Cambridge, England.
|-
| Cedar Rapids, NE
| {{w|Cedar Rapids, Iowa|Cedar Rapids, IA}}
| Cedar Rapids is the 2nd most populous city in the state of Iowa.
|-
| Charlestown, NY
| {{w|Charlestown, Massachusetts|Charlestown, MA}}
| Charlestown is an area of Boston and home to Bunker Hill, the site of a key American Revolutionary War battle. Originally a separate town, it was the first capital of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. [There was no dot for the Charlestown label in the original comic, and an update later removed the Charlestown label entirely.]
|-
| Cleveland, UT
| {{w|Cleveland|Cleveland, OH}}
| Cleveland, Ohio, named after its founder, General Moses Cleaveland, is one of the 3 largest cities in the state of Ohio.
|-
| Columbus, GA
| {{w|Columbus, Ohio|Columbus, OH}}
| Columbus is the most populous city in Ohio, as well as its state capital. It is named after {{w|Christopher Columbus}} and {{w|Columbus#United_States|many other locations}} throughout the United States bear that name.
|-
| Dallas, GA
| rowspan="4" | {{w|Dallas|Dallas, TX}}
| rowspan="4" | Dallas is the 3rd most populous city in Texas and the 9th most populous city in the United States.
|-
| Dallas, NC
|-
| Dallas, OR
|-
| Dallas, SD
|-
| Dayton, NV
| {{w|Dayton, Ohio|Dayton, OH}}
| Dayton was a prominent city in the industrial growth of the Midwest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but is best known as the home of the Wright Brothers, where they constructed the first airplane.
|-
| Des Moines, NM
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Des Moines, Iowa|Des Moines, IA}}
| rowspan="2" | Des Moines is the capital of the state of Iowa, and its largest city by population.
|-
| Des Moines, WA
|-
| {{w|Detroit,_Alabama|Detroit, AL}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Detroit|Detroit, MI}}
| rowspan="2" | Detroit is best known as the center of the U.S. automobile industry.
|-
| Detroit, KS
|-
| Disney, OK
| {{w|Disneyland}} {{w|Walt Disney World|Disney World}}
| Disney is a small town in Mayes County, Oklahoma, but has no relation to either {{w|Walt Disney}} himself or to the Disney Corporation. There are no other towns or cities with this name, but references to being at "Disney" could include {{w|Disneyland}} in California, {{w|Walt Disney World}} in Florida, or other Disney amusement parks around the world.
|-
| Fayetteville, TN
| {{w|Fayetteville, Arkansas|Fayetteville, AR}}
| Fayetteville, Arkansas is the 3rd most populous city in Arkansas and the home of the {{w|University of Arkansas}}. There are {{w|Fayetteville|many other places}} with this name.
|-
| Gettysburg, OH
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Gettysburg, Pennsylvania|Gettysburg, PA}}
| rowspan="2" | Gettyburg in Pennsylvania is best known for being the site of the {{w|Battle of Gettysburg}}, the deadliest battle in the US Civil War, and the site of Abraham Lincoln's {{w|Gettysburg Address}}.
|-
| Gettysburg, SD
|-
| Grand Rapids, MN
| {{w|Grand Rapids|Grand Rapids, MI}}
| The second most populous city in the state of Michigan.
|-
| {{w|Houston,_Alaska|Houston, AK}}
| rowspan="6" | {{w|Houston|Houston, TX}}
| rowspan="6" | Houston is the most populous city in Texas and the fourth-most populous city in the United States.
|-
| {{w|Houston,_Alabama|Houston, AL}}
|-
| Houston, FL
|-
| Houston, IN
|-
| Houston, MO
|-
| Houston, OH
|-
| Indianapolis, IA
| {{w|Indianapolis|Indianapolis, IN}}
| Indianapolis the capital of Indiana and the most populous city in the state.
|-
| {{w|Jackson,_Alabama|Jackson, AL}}
| {{w|Jackson,_Mississippi|Jackson, MS}}
| Jackson is the capital of Mississippi, but there are {{w|Jackson|many other}} states with Jacksons. This one is likely particularly notable due to its proximity to Jackson, MS.
|-
| {{w|Jamestown,_California|Jamestown, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Jamestown,_Virginia|Jamestown, VA}}
| rowspan="2" | Jamestown was the first permanent English settlement in the Americas.
|-
| Jamestown, ND
|-
| Jersey Shore, PA
| {{w|Jersey_Shore|Jersey Shore}} region, NJ
| The {{w|Jersey_Shore|Jersey Shore}} is a coastal region of New Jersey. It is also the namesake of a {{w|Jersey_Shore_(TV_series)|reality TV show}}.
|-
| Key West, VA
| {{w|Key_West|Key West, FL}}
| Key West is an island off the tip of Florida that is popular with tourists and contains the southernmost point of the continental states.
|-
| Knoxville, IA
| {{w|Knoxville,_Tennessee|Knoxville, TN}}
| Knoxville is the 3rd most populous city in Tennessee and the home of the {{w|University of Tennessee}}.
|-
| Las Vegas, NM
| {{w|Las_Vegas|Las Vegas, NV}}
| Las Vegas is the most populous city in the state of Nevada and is well known for its gambling, shopping, fine dining, entertainment, and nightlife.
|-
| {{w|Lincoln,_California|Lincoln, CA}}
| rowspan="4" | {{w|Lincoln,_Nebraska|Lincoln, NE}}
| rowspan="4" | Lincoln is the capital of Nebraska.
|-
| Lincoln, IL
|-
| Lincoln, MT
|-
| Lincoln, RI
|-
| Lisbon, ME
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Lisbon,_Portugal|Lisbon, Portugal}}
| rowspan="2" | Lisbon is the capital of Portugal, in Europe.
|-
| Lisbon, NH
|-
| {{w|Long_Beach Township, New_Jersey|Long Beach, NJ}}
| {{w|Long Beach, California|Long Beach, CA}}
| Long Beach, California is the 7th most populous city in California. The location in New Jersey is typically referred to by its full name, Long Beach Township, or the more generalized location of {{w|Long Beach Island}}.
|-
| Los Angeles, TX
| {{w|Los_Angeles|Los Angeles, CA}}
| Los Angeles is the 2nd most populous city in the United States, behind New York City.
|-
| {{w|Louisville, Colorado|Louisville, CO}}
| {{w|Louisville, Kentucky|Louisville, KY}}
| Louisville is the largest city in Kentucky.
|-
| Manhattan, KS
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Manhattan|Manhattan, NY}}
| rowspan="2" | Manhattan is one of the {{w|Boroughs of New York City|five boroughs of New York City}}, corresponds to the {{w|New York County}}.
|-
| Manhattan, MT
|-
| Memphis, NE
| {{w|Memphis,_Tennessee|Memphis, TN}}
| Memphis is the 2nd most populous city in Tennessee and had a prominent role in the US Civil Rights movement.
|-
| {{w|Mesa,_California|Mesa, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Mesa,_Arizona|Mesa, AZ}}
| rowspan="2" | Mesa is a suburb of Phoenix, and the largest suburban city by population in the United States.
|-
| Mesa, CO
|-
| {{w|Miami,_Arizona|Miami, AZ}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Miami|Miami, FL}}
| rowspan="2" | Miami is the seventh largest city in the United States and a major tourism hub.
|-
| Miami, TX
|-
| Mountain View, HI
| {{w|Mountain_View,_California|Mountain View, CA}}
| Mountain View is the "birthplace" of Silicon Valley, and is the location of many high technology companies, such as Google.
|-
| {{w|Nashville,_Arkansas|Nashville, AR}}
| {{w|Nashville,_Tennessee|Nashville, TN}}
| Nashville is the capital of Tennessee and a major center for the country music industry.
|-
| New England, ND
| {{w|New England}}, Northeast
| The New England region consists of 6 states in the northeast United States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
|-
| New Haven, KY
| {{w|New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT}}
| New Haven is the second largest city in Connecticut, and is known for its distinctive {{w|New Haven-style pizza|pizza}}. It also home to {{w|Yale University}}
|-
| {{w|New York, Texas|New York, TX}}
| {{w|New_York_City|New York, NY}}
| New York City is the largest city in the United States.
|-
| Newark, DE
| {{w|Newark,_New_Jersey|Newark, NJ}}
| {{w|Newark,_New_Jersey|Newark, NJ}} is the largest city in the state of New Jersey, and part of the greater New York metropolitan area. It hosts one of the New York metro area's three major airports.
|-
| rowspan="2" |North Pole, NY
| {{w|North_Pole,_Alaska|North Pole, AK}}
| North Pole is a small city in Alaska known as a tourist attraction and the recipient of letters addressed to Santa Claus.
|-
| {{w|North Pole}}
| Northernmost point on Earth's surface.
|-
| Oakland, OR
| {{w|Oakland,_California|Oakland, CA}}
| Oakland, CA is currently the home to three professional sports teams including the {{w|Oakland_Athletics|Oakland Athletics}} and is the former home of several more, including the {{w|History_of_the_Oakland_Raiders|Oakland Raiders}}, now in Las Vegas.
|-
| Orlando, OK
| {{w|Orlando,_Florida|Orlando, FL}}
| Orlando is the 4th most populous city in Florida and home to Walt Disney World and Universal Orlando.
|-
| Ottawa, KS
| {{w|Ottawa|Ottawa, ON}}
| Ottawa is the capital of Canada.
|-
| Pasadena, MD
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Pasadena, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | Pasadena, California is the home to the {{w|California Institute of Technology}} and the NASA {{w|Jet Propulsion Laboratory}}. It is also the home of the New Years Day Tournament of Roses Parade, {{w|Rose Parade}}, and the {{w|Rose_Bowl_(stadium)}} where the collegiate football {{w|Rose_Bowl_Game}} is played on New Years Day afternoon.
|-
| Pasadena, TX
|-
| {{w|Peoria,_Arizona|Peoria, AZ}}
| {{w|Peoria, Illinois|Peoria, IL}}
| Peoria is known for being considered an "Average American Town", in the phrase {{w|Will_it_play_in_Peoria%3F|"Will it play in Peoria?"}} It is actually smaller than Peoria, AZ.
|-
| Philadelphia, MS
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Philadelphia|Philadelphia, PA}}
| rowspan="2" | Philadelphia is the most populous city in Pennsylvania and was an important meeting place during the American Revolution.
|-
| Philadelphia, NY
|-
| Phoenix, MD
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Phoenix,_Arizona|Phoenix, AZ}}
| rowspan="2" | Phoenix is the capital of Arizona and the 5th most populous state in the United States.
|-
| Phoenix, OR
|-
| {{w|Plano,_Illinois|Plano, IL}}
| {{w|Plano,_Texas|Plano, TX}}
| Plano is part of the {{w|Dallas–Fort_Worth_metroplex|Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex}}, and the home of many corporate headquarters.
|-
| {{w|Plymouth,_California|Plymouth, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Plymouth,_Massachusetts|Plymouth, MA}}
| rowspan="2" | Plymouth was the site of the colony founded in 1620 by the Mayflower Pilgrims. Named after the {{w|Pymouth|city in the Southwest of England}} which was the final port of departure.
|-
| Plymouth, IN
|-
| {{w|Portland,_Maine|Portland, ME}}
| {{w|Portland,_Oregon|Portland, OR}}
| Portland, Oregon is the largest city in the state of Oregon and was {{w|Portland,_Oregon#Establishment|named after}} Portland, ME
|-
| Princeton, ID
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Princeton, New Jersey|Princeton, NJ}}
| rowspan="2" | Princeton, NJ is famous for being the home of the eponymous {{w|Princeton University}} and the {{w|Institute for Advanced Study}}
|-
| Princeton, MA
|-
| {{w|Richmond, Vermont|Richmond, VT}}
| {{w|Richmond, Virginia|Richmond, VA}}
| Richmond is the capital of Virginia. It was named after {{w|Richmond,_London|the suburb of London, UK}} due to an observed similarity of the river. London's Richmond was named for the palace built there by Henry VII, itself named after the {{w|Richmond,_North_Yorkshire|market town}} and castle in the north of England that was a childhood home. That was in turn named for the {{w|Richemont,_Seine-Maritime|Normandy}} area from which the noble family came who were gifted this land for their part of the Norman Conquest of England in the 11th century. There are more than fifty settlements called Richmond across the world, directly or indirectly taking their names from one or other of the English 'originals'.
|-
| Roswell, GA
| {{w|Roswell, New Mexico|Roswell, NM}}
| Roswell, New Mexico is the site of one of the most famous “alien coverups” in American history, and is well known for its alien-themed tourism.
|-
| Saint Louis, MI
| rowspan="2" | {{w|St._Louis|St. Louis, MO}}
| rowspan="2" | St. Louis is the 2nd most populous city in the state of Missouri and has the iconic {{w|Gateway Arch}}.
|-
| Saint Louis, OK
|-
| rowspan="2" | Salem, CT
| {{w|Salem,_Oregon|Salem, OR}}
| Capital of Oregon.
|-
| {{w|Salem,_Massachusetts|Salem, MA}}
| Location of the {{w|Salem_witch_trials|Salem witch trials}}.
|-
| San Diego, TX
| {{w|San_Diego|San Diego, CA}}
| San Diego is the 8th most populous city in the US and the 2nd most populous in California.
|-
| Santa Fe, TX
| {{w|Santa_Fe,_New_Mexico|Santa Fe, NM}}
| Santa Fe is the capital of the state of New Mexico.
|-
| Savannah, MO
| {{w|Savannah|Savannah, GA}}
| Savannah is the oldest city in the state of Georgia and its fifth most populous.
|-
| South Bend, TX
| {{w|South_Bend|South Bend, IN}}
| South Bend, Indiana is the location of {{w|University_of_Notre_Dame|the University of Notre Dame}}.
|-
| {{w|Texas, New York|Texas, NY}}
| {{w|Texas|State of Texas}}
| Located in Mexico Township, NY. North of the village of Mexico. No plans for a wall {{fact}}. Not to be confused with {{w|New York, Texas}}.
|-
| Vienna, ME
| {{w|Vienna, Austria}}
| Vienna is the capital and largest city of Austria.
|-
| rowspan="2" | Washington, NC
| {{w|Washington, DC}}
| Washington DC is the capital of the United States.
|-
| {{w|Washington (state)|State of Washington}}
|
|-
| White House, TN
| {{w|White House|White House, DC}}
| The White House is the home of the U.S. President in Washington, DC.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:US maps]]

2480: No, The Other One

2021-06-25T02:29:37Z

Zmatt: /* Explanation */ Fix link for Austin, Minnesota

{{comic
| number = 2480
| date = June 23, 2021
| title = No, The Other One
| image = no_the_other_one.png
| titletext = Key West, Virginia is not to be confused with Key, West Virginia.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by SPRINGFIELD. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This is a map of the United States, showing cities or towns with the same name as other more famous places. For example, the map has a dot for a place called Los Angeles in Texas, not to be confused with Los Angeles, California.

Few place names are unique, and there may be {{w|List of the most common U.S. place names|many places with the same name}}. Multiple American towns have been named after the same British town, famous person, or geographic feature.

However, names can become associated with specific places on a national level, where the best-known example is usually the biggest or otherwise the most significant. The name of this comic indicates the contextualization required to specify one of the less-famous exemplars of a given name. Someone might say they are from "Los Angeles" and would have to say "no, the other one" since the listener would assume they are from Los Angeles, California.

The [[title text]] references {{w|Key, West Virginia}} and {{w|Key West, Virginia}}, two places that, when spoken aloud, are only distinguishable by the pause (comma) location. Neither are to be confused with {{w|Key West|Key West, Florida}}, which is a well-known national location.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Place name in comic
! Well-known place
! Notes
|-
| {{w|Albany, Georgia|Albany, GA}}
| rowspan="3" | {{w|Albany,_New_York|Albany, NY}}
| rowspan="3" | Albany is the capital of New York state.
|-
| {{w|Albany, Minnesota|Albany, MN}}


|-
| {{w|Albany, Wyoming|Albany, WY}}

|-
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Alexandria,_Louisiana|Alexandria, LA}}
| {{w|Alexandria,_Virginia|Alexandria, VA}}
| Alexandria, VA is known for being George Washington's hometown.
|-
| {{w|Alexandria|Alexandria, Egypt}}
| Major economic and cultural center on the Mediterranean.
|-
| {{w|Anchorage, Kentucky|Anchorage, KY}}
| {{w|Anchorage,_Alaska|Anchorage, AK}}
| Anchorage is Alaska's most populous city.
|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Delaware|Atlanta, DE}}
| rowspan="6" | {{w|Atlanta|Atlanta, GA}}
| rowspan="6" | Atlanta is the capital of Georgia, a center of the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's, and a major air transportation hub.
|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Michigan|Atlanta, MI}}

|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Idaho|Atlanta, ID}}

|-
| {{w|Atlanta,_Nebraska|Atlanta, NE}}

|-
| {{w|Atlanta, Texas|Atlanta, TX}}
|-
| {{w|Atlanta, Wisconsin|Atlanta, WI}}
|-
| {{w|Atlantic City, Wyoming|Atlantic City, WY}}
| {{w|Atlantic City, New Jersey|Atlantic City, NJ}}
| Atlantic City, NJ is a famous coastal resort town in New Jersey known for its casinos, boardwalk and beaches.
|-
| {{w|Austin, Minnesota|Austin, MN}}
| {{w|Austin, Texas|Austin, TX}}
| Austin is the capital of the state of Texas, and the 11th populous city in the US.
|-
| {{w|Baton Rouge, South Carolina|Baton Rouge, SC}}
| {{w|Baton Rouge, Louisiana|Baton Rouge, LA}}
| Baton Rouge is the capital of the state of Louisiana.
|-
| {{w|Beaumont, California|Beaumont, CA}}
| {{w|Beaumont, Texas|Beaumont, TX}}
| Beaumont is best known for the oil discovery that sparked the Texas oil boom of the early 1900s.
|-
| {{w|Beverly Hills, Illinois|Beverly Hills, IL}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Beverly Hills, California|Beverly Hills, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | Beverly Hills is a city in Los Angeles County, CA and is home to many celebrities, luxury hotels, and the Rodeo Drive shopping district.
|-
| {{w|Beverly Hills, Texas|Beverly Hills, TX}}

|-
| {{w|Bloomington, Minnesota | Bloomington, MN}}
| {{w|Bloomington, Indiana | Bloomington, IN}}
| Bloomington is the location of Indiana University.
|-
| Boston, MO
| {{w|Boston|Boston, MA}}
| Boston is the capital of Massachusetts and the site of several key events of the American Revolution.
|-
| Bowling Green, FL
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Bowling Green, Kentucky|Bowling Green, KY}}
| rowspan="2" | Bowling Green, KY is the largest city of this name, and the 3rd most populous city in Kentucky. Home of the auto plant that makes the Chevy Corvette.
|-
| Bowling Green, OH
|-
| Bridgeport, WV
| {{w|Bridgeport, Connecticut|Bridgeport, CT}}
| Bridgeport is the most populous city in Connecticut and fifth most populous in {{w|New England}}.
|-
| Buffalo, TX
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Buffalo, New York|Buffalo, NY}}
| rowspan="2" | Buffalo is the second most populous city in the state of New York, after New York City itself.
|-
| Buffalo, WY
|-
| rowspan="2" | Cambridge, OH
| {{w|Cambridge|Cambridge, England}}
| A city in Cambridgeshire, known as the home of {{w|University of Cambridge|Cambridge}} and Anglia Ruskin Universities. There is also a village of Cambridge in Gloucestershire.
|-
| {{w|Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge, MA}}
| Cambridge, Massachusetts is a city in the Boston metropolitan area, known as the home of {{w|Harvard University}} and {{w|Massachusetts Institute of Technology}} among others. Cambridge, Massachusetts is in turn named after Cambridge, England.
|-
| Cedar Rapids, NE
| {{w|Cedar Rapids, Iowa|Cedar Rapids, IA}}
| Cedar Rapids is the 2nd most populous city in the state of Iowa.
|-
| Charlestown, NY
| {{w|Charlestown, Massachusetts|Charlestown, MA}}
| Charlestown is an area of Boston and home to Bunker Hill, the site of a key American Revolutionary War battle. Originally a separate town, it was the first capital of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. [There was no dot for the Charlestown label in the original comic, and an update later removed the Charlestown label entirely.]
|-
| Cleveland, UT
| {{w|Cleveland|Cleveland, OH}}
| Cleveland, Ohio, named after its founder, General Moses Cleaveland, is one of the 3 largest cities in the state of Ohio.
|-
| Columbus, GA
| {{w|Columbus, Ohio|Columbus, OH}}
| Columbus is the most populous city in Ohio, as well as its state capital. It is named after {{w|Christopher Columbus}} and {{w|Columbus#United_States|many other locations}} throughout the United States bear that name.
|-
| Dallas, GA
| rowspan="4" | {{w|Dallas|Dallas, TX}}
| rowspan="4" | Dallas is the 3rd most populous city in Texas and the 9th most populous city in the United States.
|-
| Dallas, NC
|-
| Dallas, OR
|-
| Dallas, SD
|-
| Dayton, NV
| {{w|Dayton, Ohio|Dayton, OH}}
| Dayton was a prominent city in the industrial growth of the Midwest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but is best known as the home of the Wright Brothers, where they constructed the first airplane.
|-
| Des Moines, NM
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Des Moines, Iowa|Des Moines, IA}}
| rowspan="2" | Des Moines is the capital of the state of Iowa, and its largest city by population.
|-
| Des Moines, WA
|-
| {{w|Detroit,_Alabama|Detroit, AL}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Detroit|Detroit, MI}}
| rowspan="2" | Detroit is best known as the center of the U.S. automobile industry.
|-
| Detroit, KS
|-
| Disney, OK
| {{w|Disneyland}} {{w|Walt Disney World|Disney World}}
| Disney is a small town in Mayes County, Oklahoma, but has no relation to either {{w|Walt Disney}} himself or to the Disney Corporation. There are no other towns or cities with this name, but references to being at "Disney" could include {{w|Disneyland}} in California, {{w|Walt Disney World}} in Florida, or other Disney amusement parks around the world.
|-
| Fayetteville, TN
| {{w|Fayetteville, Arkansas|Fayetteville, AR}}
| Fayetteville, Arkansas is the 3rd most populous city in Arkansas and the home of the {{w|University of Arkansas}}. There are {{w|Fayetteville|many other places}} with this name.
|-
| Gettysburg, OH
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Gettysburg, Pennsylvania|Gettysburg, PA}}
| rowspan="2" | Gettyburg in Pennsylvania is best known for being the site of the {{w|Battle of Gettysburg}}, the deadliest battle in the US Civil War, and the site of Abraham Lincoln's {{w|Gettysburg Address}}.
|-
| Gettysburg, SD
|-
| Grand Rapids, MN
| {{w|Grand Rapids|Grand Rapids, MI}}
| The second most populous city in the state of Michigan.
|-
| {{w|Houston,_Alaska|Houston, AK}}
| rowspan="6" | {{w|Houston|Houston, TX}}
| rowspan="6" | Houston is the most populous city in Texas and the fourth-most populous city in the United States.
|-
| {{w|Houston,_Alabama|Houston, AL}}
|-
| Houston, FL
|-
| Houston, IN
|-
| Houston, MO
|-
| Houston, OH
|-
| Indianapolis, IA
| {{w|Indianapolis|Indianapolis, IN}}
| Indianapolis the capital of Indiana and the most populous city in the state.
|-
| {{w|Jackson,_Alabama|Jackson, AL}}
| {{w|Jackson,_Mississippi|Jackson, MS}}
| Jackson is the capital of Mississippi, but there are {{w|Jackson|many other}} states with Jacksons. This one is likely particularly notable due to its proximity to Jackson, MS.
|-
| {{w|Jamestown,_California|Jamestown, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Jamestown,_Virginia|Jamestown, VA}}
| rowspan="2" | Jamestown was the first permanent English settlement in the Americas.
|-
| Jamestown, ND
|-
| Jersey Shore, PA
| {{w|Jersey_Shore|Jersey Shore}} region, NJ
| The {{w|Jersey_Shore|Jersey Shore}} is a coastal region of New Jersey. It is also the namesake of a {{w|Jersey_Shore_(TV_series)|reality TV show}}.
|-
| Key West, VA
| {{w|Key_West|Key West, FL}}
| Key West is an island off the tip of Florida that is popular with tourists and contains the southernmost point of the continental states.
|-
| Knoxville, IA
| {{w|Knoxville,_Tennessee|Knoxville, TN}}
| Knoxville is the 3rd most populous city in Tennessee and the home of the {{w|University of Tennessee}}.
|-
| Las Vegas, NM
| {{w|Las_Vegas|Las Vegas, NV}}
| Las Vegas is the most populous city in the state of Nevada and is well known for its gambling, shopping, fine dining, entertainment, and nightlife.
|-
| {{w|Lincoln,_California|Lincoln, CA}}
| rowspan="4" | {{w|Lincoln,_Nebraska|Lincoln, NE}}
| rowspan="4" | Lincoln is the capital of Nebraska.
|-
| Lincoln, IL
|-
| Lincoln, MT
|-
| Lincoln, RI
|-
| Lisbon, ME
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Lisbon,_Portugal|Lisbon, Portugal}}
| rowspan="2" | Lisbon is the capital of Portugal, in Europe.
|-
| Lisbon, NH
|-
| {{w|Long_Beach Township, New_Jersey|Long Beach, NJ}}
| {{w|Long Beach, California|Long Beach, CA}}
| Long Beach, California is the 7th most populous city in California. The location in New Jersey is typically referred to by its full name, Long Beach Township, or the more generalized location of {{w|Long Beach Island}}.
|-
| Los Angeles, TX
| {{w|Los_Angeles|Los Angeles, CA}}
| Los Angeles is the 2nd most populous city in the United States, behind New York City.
|-
| {{w|Louisville, Colorado|Louisville, CO}}
| {{w|Louisville, Kentucky|Louisville, KY}}
| Louisville is the largest city in Kentucky.
|-
| Manhattan, KS
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Manhattan|Manhattan, NY}}
| rowspan="2" | Manhattan is one of the {{w|Boroughs of New York City|five boroughs of New York City}}, corresponds to the {{w|New York County}}.
|-
| Manhattan, MT
|-
| Memphis, NE
| {{w|Memphis,_Tennessee|Memphis, TN}}
| Memphis is the 2nd most populous city in Tennessee and had a prominent role in the US Civil Rights movement.
|-
| {{w|Mesa,_California|Mesa, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Mesa,_Arizona|Mesa, AZ}}
| rowspan="2" | Mesa is a suburb of Phoenix, and the largest suburban city by population in the United States.
|-
| Mesa, CO
|-
| {{w|Miami,_Arizona|Miami, AZ}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Miami|Miami, FL}}
| rowspan="2" | Miami is the seventh largest city in the United States and a major tourism hub.
|-
| Miami, TX
|-
| Mountain View, HI
| {{w|Mountain_View,_California|Mountain View, CA}}
| Mountain View is the "birthplace" of Silicon Valley, and is the location of many high technology companies, such as Google.
|-
| {{w|Nashville,_Arkansas|Nashville, AR}}
| {{w|Nashville,_Tennessee|Nashville, TN}}
| Nashville is the capital of Tennessee and a major center for the country music industry.
|-
| New England, ND
| {{w|New England}}, Northeast
| The New England region consists of 6 states in the northeast United States: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
|-
| New Haven, KY
| {{w|New Haven, Connecticut|New Haven, CT}}
| New Haven is the second largest city in Connecticut, and is known for its distinctive {{w|New Haven-style pizza|pizza}}. It also home to {{w|Yale University}}
|-
| New York, TX
| {{w|New_York_City|New York, NY}}
| New York City is the largest city in the United States.
|-
| Newark, DE
| {{w|Newark,_New_Jersey|Newark, NJ}}
| {{w|Newark,_New_Jersey|Newark, NJ}} is the largest city in the state of New Jersey, and part of the greater New York metropolitan area. It hosts one of the New York metro area's three major airports.
|-
| rowspan="2" |North Pole, NY
| {{w|North_Pole,_Alaska|North Pole, AK}}
| North Pole is a small city in Alaska known as a tourist attraction and the recipient of letters addressed to Santa Claus.
|-
| {{w|North Pole}}
| Northernmost point on Earth's surface.
|-
| Oakland, OR
| {{w|Oakland,_California|Oakland, CA}}
| Oakland, CA is currently the home to three professional sports teams including the {{w|Oakland_Athletics|Oakland Athletics}} and is the former home of several more, including the {{w|History_of_the_Oakland_Raiders|Oakland Raiders}}, now in Las Vegas.
|-
| Orlando, OK
| {{w|Orlando,_Florida|Orlando, FL}}
| Orlando is the 4th most populous city in Florida and home to Walt Disney World and Universal Orlando.
|-
| Ottawa, KS
| {{w|Ottawa|Ottawa, ON}}
| Ottawa is the capital of Canada.
|-
| Pasadena, MD
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Pasadena, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | Pasadena, California is the home to the {{w|California Institute of Technology}} and the NASA {{w|Jet Propulsion Laboratory}}. It is also the home of the New Years Day Tournament of Roses Parade, {{w|Rose Parade}}, and the {{w|Rose_Bowl_(stadium)}} where the collegiate football {{w|Rose_Bowl_Game}} is played on New Years Day afternoon.
|-
| Pasadena, TX
|-
| {{w|Peoria,_Arizona|Peoria, AZ}}
| {{w|Peoria, Illinois|Peoria, IL}}
| Peoria is known for being considered an "Average American Town", in the phrase {{w|Will_it_play_in_Peoria%3F|"Will it play in Peoria?"}} It is actually smaller than Peoria, AZ.
|-
| Philadelphia, MS
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Philadelphia|Philadelphia, PA}}
| rowspan="2" | Philadelphia is the most populous city in Pennsylvania and was an important meeting place during the American Revolution.
|-
| Philadelphia, NY
|-
| Phoenix, MD
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Phoenix,_Arizona|Phoenix, AZ}}
| rowspan="2" | Phoenix is the capital of Arizona and the 5th most populous state in the United States.
|-
| Phoenix, OR
|-
| {{w|Plano,_Illinois|Plano, IL}}
| {{w|Plano,_Texas|Plano, TX}}
| Plano is part of the {{w|Dallas–Fort_Worth_metroplex|Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex}}, and the home of many corporate headquarters.
|-
| {{w|Plymouth,_California|Plymouth, CA}}
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Plymouth,_Massachusetts|Plymouth, MA}}
| rowspan="2" | Plymouth was the site of the colony founded in 1620 by the Mayflower Pilgrims. Named after the {{w|Pymouth|city in the Southwest of England}} which was the final port of departure.
|-
| Plymouth, IN
|-
| {{w|Portland,_Maine|Portland, ME}}
| {{w|Portland,_Oregon|Portland, OR}}
| Portland, Oregon is the largest city in the state of Oregon and was {{w|Portland,_Oregon#Establishment|named after}} Portland, ME
|-
| Princeton, ID
| rowspan="2" | {{w|Princeton, New Jersey|Princeton, NJ}}
| rowspan="2" | Princeton, NJ is famous for being the home of the eponymous {{w|Princeton University}} and the {{w|Institute for Advanced Study}}
|-
| Princeton, MA
|-
| {{w|Richmond, Vermont|Richmond, VT}}
| {{w|Richmond, Virginia|Richmond, VA}}
| Richmond is the capital of Virginia. It was named after {{w|Richmond,_London|the suburb of London, UK}} due to an observed similarity of the river. London's Richmond was named for the palace built there by Henry VII, itself named after the {{w|Richmond,_North_Yorkshire|market town}} and castle in the north of England that was a childhood home. That was in turn named for the {{w|Richemont,_Seine-Maritime|Normandy}} area from which the noble family came who were gifted this land for their part of the Norman Conquest of England in the 11th century. There are more than fifty settlements called Richmond across the world, directly or indirectly taking their names from one or other of the English 'originals'.
|-
| Roswell, GA
| {{w|Roswell, New Mexico|Roswell, NM}}
| Roswell, New Mexico is the site of one of the most famous “alien coverups” in American history, and is well known for its alien-themed tourism.
|-
| Saint Louis, MI
| rowspan="2" | {{w|St._Louis|St. Louis, MO}}
| rowspan="2" | St. Louis is the 2nd most populous city in the state of Missouri and has the iconic {{w|Gateway Arch}}.
|-
| Saint Louis, OK
|-
| rowspan="2" | Salem, CT
| {{w|Salem,_Oregon|Salem, OR}}
| Capital of Oregon.
|-
| {{w|Salem,_Massachusetts|Salem, MA}}
| Location of the {{w|Salem_witch_trials|Salem witch trials}}.
|-
| San Diego, TX
| {{w|San_Diego|San Diego, CA}}
| San Diego is the 8th most populous city in the US and the 2nd most populous in California.
|-
| Santa Fe, TX
| {{w|Santa_Fe,_New_Mexico|Santa Fe, NM}}
| Santa Fe is the capital of the state of New Mexico.
|-
| Savannah, MO
| {{w|Savannah|Savannah, GA}}
| Savannah is the oldest city in the state of Georgia and its fifth most populous.
|-
| South Bend, TX
| {{w|South_Bend|South Bend, IN}}
| South Bend, Indiana is the location of {{w|University_of_Notre_Dame|the University of Notre Dame}}.
|-
| Texas, NY
| {{w|Texas|State of Texas}}
| Located in Mexico Township, NY. North of the village of Mexico. No plans for a wall {{fact}}.
|-
| Vienna, ME
| {{w|Vienna, Austria}}
| Vienna is the capital and largest city of Austria.
|-
| rowspan="2" | Washington, NC
| {{w|Washington, DC}}
| Washington DC is the capital of the United States.
|-
| {{w|Washington (state)|State of Washington}}
|
|-
| White House, TN
| {{w|White House|White House, DC}}
| The White House is the home of the U.S. President in Washington, DC.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:US maps]]

Talk:2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral

2020-06-19T18:39:03Z

Zmatt:

It annoys me that the hover text says 11/8.5 = pi/4, when 8.5/11≈0.77272727272 and pi/4≈0.78539816339. Claiming 8.5/11 equals pi/4 would be a much more beleiveable lie. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.37|162.158.79.37]] 15:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The explanation says that the A series "side lengths shrink by a factor of the square root of two" but that's not true. The width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n) as depicted. The sqrt(2) ratio referenced is between the length and width of any one piece of paper.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.124|172.69.62.124]] 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:The side lengths do shrink by a factor of sqrt(2): the width of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the width of A(n+1), the length of A(n) is sqrt(2) times the length of A(n+1). Your statement that "the width of A(n+1) is half the length of A(n)" is also true, but it does not contradict that each step in the A-series shrinks the sides by a factor of sqrt(2). [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 16:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.61|162.158.74.61]] 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi ! How come 11/8.5 = Pi/4 ? First one is more thant 1, second one is less than one... Although Pi/4 and 8.5/11 (or the reverse) are pretty similar, as usual in "let's annoy mathematicians" Randall's style...

https://xkcd.com/spiral/ --[[Special:Contributions/188.114.103.233|188.114.103.233]] 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand why it annoys mathematicians (it's not the golden ratio), but why does it annoy graphics designers? Please add explanation!

It should be noted that the logarithmic spiral this comic implies it is would actually go outside the bounds of the paper. The leftmost point of the spiral would be about 6.4mm to the left of the left edge of the A1 sheet. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral

2020-06-19T16:11:03Z

Zmatt: Undo revision 193626 by 108.162.216.202 (talk) It was correct before

{{comic
| number = 2322
| date = June 19, 2020
| title = ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral
| image = iso_paper_size_golden_spiral.png
| titletext = The ISO 216 standard ratio is cos(45°), but American letter paper is 8.5x11 because it uses radians, and 11/8.5 = pi/4.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a GRAPHICS DESIGNER. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_spiral Golden Spiral] is a figure made by concatenating squares whose side lengths shrink according to the golden ratio. One can make a similar shape with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#A_series A Series] of standard paper sizes, but the figures are rectangles whose side lengths shrink by a factor of the square root of two, not squares whose side lengths shrink by a factor of the golden ratio. This is meant to parody the numerous questionable examples of the golden ratio in everyday life.

==Transcript==
:[Caption inside panel:]
:The golden ratio is everywhere!

:[Picture of the ISO standard paper sizes (i.e. A1, A2, etc.) overlaid with what looks like a golden spiral]

:[Caption below panel:] 
:How to annoy both graphic designers and mathematicians

{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:2322: ISO Paper Size Golden Spiral

2020-06-19T16:09:36Z

Zmatt:

Talk:2286: 6-Foot Zone

2020-03-28T05:24:34Z

Zmatt:

Ok... 34 feet, in total, but how many hands? (All of which you should wash!) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.210|162.158.34.210]] 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

: Love it. Given the extra 1.7 feet for the person, a radius of 20.53 hands. If it were just 6 feet, 18 hands -- brad --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122|108.162.216.122]] 00:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

So Randall is figuring about 1.7 feet diameter for the person. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.70|172.68.174.70]] 00:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The 190,000 people / mile^2 assumes (I'm guessing) flat ground. Skyscrapers make a difference [citation needed] -- brad --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122|108.162.216.122]] 00:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that the population density he gives ignores circle packing. Population should be 174,000. -- coyne -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.156|162.158.122.156]] 04:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
: Circle packing is unimportant since he's just giving the population of this one circle. He's taking a radius of 6 foot ''around'' that person without specifying what he considers to be the radius of the person, but it can be inferred from the numbers: from area: <math>\sqrt{145/\pi} \approx 6.8</math>, from circumference: <math>43/(2\pi) \approx 6.8</math>, from population density: <math>\sqrt{1/190000/\pi} \cdot 5280 \approx 6.8</math>, so apparently he considers a person to have a radius of 0.8 ft, or about 0.5 m diameter, which seems reasonable. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
: Note that even if you want to know the population of optimally packed people, your number is still wrong since the circles overlap: your circle is supposed to exclude other people, it doesn't exclude other people's circles. Optimally you'd have a triangular lattice of people with a lattice distance of 7.6 ft (assuming we want 6 ft between people and we consider people to be circles of radius 0.8 ft). This yields a population density of 1 person per <math>\tfrac{1}{4}\sqrt{3} \cdot 7.6^2 \text{ ft}^2</math>, which is about 1.1 million people per square mile. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 05:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly a play on the fact that horses are measured in hands? --orbitalbuzzsaw--

Talk:2286: 6-Foot Zone

2020-03-28T05:11:43Z

Zmatt:

Ok... 34 feet, in total, but how many hands? (All of which you should wash!) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.210|162.158.34.210]] 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

: Love it. Given the extra 1.7 feet for the person, a radius of 20.53 hands. If it were just 6 feet, 18 hands -- brad --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122|108.162.216.122]] 00:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

So Randall is figuring about 1.7 feet diameter for the person. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.70|172.68.174.70]] 00:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The 190,000 people / mile^2 assumes (I'm guessing) flat ground. Skyscrapers make a difference [citation needed] -- brad --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.122|108.162.216.122]] 00:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that the population density he gives ignores circle packing. Population should be 174,000. -- coyne -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.156|162.158.122.156]] 04:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
: Circle packing is unimportant since he's just giving the population of this one circle. He's taking a radius of 6 foot ''around'' that person without specifying what he considers to be the radius of the person, but it can be inferred from the numbers: from area: <math>\sqrt{145/\pi} \approx 6.8</math>, from circumference: <math>43/(2\pi) \approx 6.8</math>, from population density: <math>\sqrt{1/190000/\pi} \cdot 5280 \approx 6.8</math>, so apparently he considers a person to have a radius of 0.8 ft, or about 0.5 m diameter, which seems reasonable. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Possibly a play on the fact that horses are measured in hands? --orbitalbuzzsaw--

Talk:2266: Leap Smearing

2020-02-11T06:30:53Z

Zmatt:

Although to be fair, leap seconds are confusing. [[User:Unpopular Opinions|Unpopular Opinions ]] ([[User talk:Unpopular Opinions|talk]]) 04:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Leap seconds are idiotic. The only people who care about keeping the Earth tied to the time are astronomers. And no one cares about them.[[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 04:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
:Leap seconds are a mess, but so is changing the definition of UTC and letting it drift away from solar time. There are movements to try to make this change, but there are significant obstacles. (For example, the signatories to the 1884 International Meridian Conference agreed that the civil time everyone should use is based on mean solar time, and US Federal Law indicates that the legal time of the US is based on mean solar time.) [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 06:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe the actual time would be 11:42am (on the 11th of February). [[User:Dakranon|Dakranon]] ([[User talk:Dakranon|talk]]) 06:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2181: Inbox

2019-07-29T14:43:13Z

Zmatt:

Key to the joke is that the Romans had (allegedly?) no concept of zero, i.e. Roman numerals cannot express 0.[[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 18:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe, but I think this refers to the Inbox Zero methodology more. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.209|172.68.46.209]] 19:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a pun. It doesn't work without the notion that Romans had no concept of zero.
:I don't see how that is remotely relevant, or how it would make the joke "work". They didn't have a concept of "Inbox Zero" because they didn't have email. But regardless of ''why'' they didn't have Inbox Zero, I don't understand what the joke is here, since if I understand correctly Inbox Zero is basically about spending as little time as possible on email. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually find there's nothing in this comic that suggests it's referencing the idea that Romans didn't have a "zero". They didn't have the concept of Inbox Zero because they didn't have inboxes. It's a cute additive, though. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Since when does "email usually demands a reply"? By some statistics much to most (45-73%) of email is spam. A good chunk of other email is notifications of orders, tracking updates, forum/etc subscriptions, social media notifications, and so on -- those certainly don't require a reply (though some may require or prompt further action). Then there's all the RE:FW:RE:RE:FW:FW:RE type chain letter stuff (as differentiated from spam) and a lot of CC/BCC stuff for people being "looped in" but not needing to reply. Only a tiny portion of email (higher on work accounts) requires a reply, and even then a lot of that email itself doesn't _demand_ a reply, but rather that societal conventions of courtesy (and/or "being a team player") make non-responsiveness sometimes problematic. YMMV, but IMO the only emails that really need a reply are direct questions from supervisors/subordinates, clients, and friends/family members. Anything else is extra. Never mind the whole pedantic argument that email itself cannot demand anything as it is the message/medium rather than the sender of the message...

Talk:2163: Chernobyl

2019-06-16T08:59:46Z

Zmatt:

Please note that the first panel is referring to an HBO mini-series about the Chernobyl disaster, not the disaster itself! White Hat is NOT expressing enjoyment of the disaster itself, which was my initial reaction! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 16:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
:If I were Randall, I would have put "HBO's ''Chernobyl''" to dispel that confusion. Also, I'd be much cooler. [[User:OhFFS|OhFFS]] ([[User talk:OhFFS|talk]]) 18:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
:That’s why Randall put it in italics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.160.132|172.69.160.132]] 18:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
:Actually that's exactly what I thought until I came here, I've only been marginally aware such a show even existed, LOL! Actually, I took White Hat's enjoyment as "I find the subject interesting". In April & May I was coming to a bar for a Game Of Thrones viewing party (I only made it to three), and one either started or ended with Chernobyl, that was my only awareness of it. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In the transcript, there's two words that might be both italic and bold: First, when Ponytail says "30 years ago, we banged some rocks together too hard.", I think "too" is italic and bold, and when she says "Yeah, we messed up real bad.", I think the "real" is also italic and bold. If this is the case, I don't know how to apply both bold and italic to text in wiki markup! Can anyone help? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 01:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:Never mind - I figured it out via the Wikitext Cheatsheet! Putting 5 single quotes around the text did it! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 02:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:: I completely agree those words are both, and I feel I can say so with utmost certainty. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:::I appreciate the feedback. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If you’re going to watch the series, be sure to read this so you’ll know which parts are total BS: https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-hbos-chernobyl-got-right-and-what-it-got-terribly-wrong [[User:Tualha|Tualha]] ([[User talk:Tualha|talk]]) 08:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's a really short and simple explanation: "The reactor was a shit design." :P The exact circumstances aren't even that important, since it could just as easily have gone wrong in a variety of different ways. (To quote a 1993 report from a Soviet committee, translated by IAEA, "''The Commission considers that the negative properties of this type of reactor are likely to predetermine the inevitability of emergency situations.''") [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 08:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2129: 1921 Fact Checker

2019-03-27T18:01:41Z

Zmatt:

Two gallons of vinegar, huh?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.144|162.158.106.144]] 14:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

While I too respect this fact checker's perspective on what really matters (and what doesn't), it's clear to me that in this fact-obsessed 21st century we cannot let this purported fact go unverified. Get on it, people! ;) [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I fact checked this comic. The text in question is on page 8 of the newspaper, leftmost column, three paragraphs from the bottom. [[User:Billtheplatypus|Billtheplatypus]] ([[User talk:Billtheplatypus|talk]]) 15:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
: [citation needed] The LOC link in the explanation says that the Kansas City Sun was a Saturday Weekly, so it wouldn't have been published on Friday, May 6th, 1921 as claimed. Unfortunately, the LOC only has scans of from 1914 through 1920, so it doesn't have scans for 1921. Do you have a source where you fact checked it? [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
::[https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/477982773/ This]. You can get the OCR if you don't want to sign up. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.176|162.158.155.176]] 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
::: Off topic, but oldnewspapers are interesting. Especially the notices and lawsuit notifications, it's interesting to see that the newspaper notifications was considered enough notice that a judgement could be rendered. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.215|172.68.46.215]] 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't "whatever" be not worth checking? "Mostly whatever" implies it could be worth checking but beyond current enthusiasm. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.41|141.101.99.41]] 15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought corn travelling back from England to America was the problem... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.90|162.158.90.90]] 16:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
: By 1620 there should've been plenty of time to establish some growing of maize in England. I don't know the real truth, but it's plausible. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
: Historically, "corn" was a general term for grain, usually the local grain. It also referred to things which where grain-sized, like the large grains of salt used to make "corned beef" or hard warts on the feet. It was only in North America where the predominant local grain was maize that "corn" came to have the narrower meaning of maize. If there really was a requirement to bring a supply of "cornmeal" in the early 1600's from England to the Americas, I'd expect it to be ground wheat, barleycorn, or rye, not maize. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
:: It's there any more information/sources on this? I find this interesting. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.215|172.68.46.215]] 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
::: Source: [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/corn#Noun wiktionary], [https://www.google.com/search?q=dictionary+corn google's dictionary], and presumably any other English dictionary you might prefer. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2124: Space Mission Hearing

2019-03-18T07:42:43Z

Zmatt:

Spaceship noises? What exactly does a spaceship sound like if you can't hear anything in space? Perhaps this is part of the joke! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Actauly you can - your own spaceship might be producing some sounds. Like sort of humming device. {{unsigned|172.68.244.102}}
::Spaceships sound like the computer-generated chirps, whistles, and whooshes used in sci-fi media to make travel through space familiar to those of us who travel through air. I hear little 'pew pew pew' noises come from my computer whenever I burn a cd! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.198|172.68.65.198]] 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:::they add them artificcially like on electric cars, so that you do not get run over by a spaceship when crossing the milkyway. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

And I see that main idea behind this comics - that while we are trying to find some serious reasoning of space programms, the real motive that realy matters - IT IS SPAAAAAAACE!!! Everything else is not enough to justify such expenses.{{unsigned|172.68.244.102}}
: It could be meaningful to list some reasons for exploring or not exploring space in the article ... There's a TV show about colonizing Mars that makes the point that once we inhabit two planets, we guarantee a future for our race if the planet doesn't survive. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.198|172.68.65.198]] 13:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:: Indeed, the main reasons for exploring space are (so very human) curiosity and need of achievement. Like exploring the lands and seas of Earth in the previous centuries (even if greed was a big factor as well). The former is more rational and largely more fruitful than the latter, in the sense that pursuing curiosity we (the humanity) learn new things while exploring space and advance general science and technology, which eventually (in some cases) leads to improvements of daily life. The need of achievement (hurray! we're first to do it!) is what mostly drives manned exploration, which also provides some scientific results but comes at a vastly greater cost. Given current and near-future advances in robotics, mechatronics, etc. the scientific value/cost quotient of manned exploration is very low compared to robotic missions in my opinion. I'd vote for building a thousand of Mars probes that will take some measurements in a thousand of points on the planet's surface over doing a manned mission that'll visit one spot - for a comparable price. But humans are not entirely rational beings and sometimes do crazy things just for the sake of them. Colonization on the other hand is a completely outworldlish idea. The colony would not survive without constant resupply from Earth - not in any forseeable future state of technology. Maybe in thousands of years, maybe never (i.e. we'd go extinct before we could achieve it). -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 14:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::: See {{w|Mars (2016 TV series)}} which basically plays as a mix of advertisement for SpaceX and conventional sci-fi. They've got a surprising amount of how to do this figured out. And I can only imagine the funding comes from people saying "Spaaaaaace" with stars in their eyes. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.149|162.158.79.149]] 17:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
::Both rational though and our genetic programming says that we need to spread more to avoid the risk of extinction. Note that Mars guarantees nothing: Sun will go nova in just five billion years and destroys all inner planets. That's the deadline to moving to different solar system or at least moons of Jupiter. We would need to move to Mars sooner, as Earth will get too hot (yes, even if we stop current episode of climate changes). Also, that's assuming nothing will crash into our solar system when {{w|Andromeda–Milky Way collision|our galaxy will be crashing into Andromeda}} in 3.75 billion years. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
:::The travel-into-space efforts seem to either be "right now!" or "that's stupid" when it seems a more rational approach would be, "let's just make sure we're always working on this a little bit." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.100|162.158.78.100]] 17:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m glad there’s now a comic featuring literally me. Complicated explanation prior to yelling space and making laser noises. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Spaaaaaace" reminds me of the "Spaaace" substitution in 1288. Probably just a coincidence. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.77|172.68.142.77]] 17:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
:Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace! [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 07:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The obsession with Space makes me think of Space Core from Portal 2
~Diceguy [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.7|173.245.54.7]] 00:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Are there any recent real-life hearings to justify a space-related project that this comic could be referencing? The comic feels like a parody of a real-life event, but a quick search of recent news found only a tiny statement by NASA, nothing like a big hearing.—[[User:Roryokane|Roryokane]] ([[User talk:Roryokane|talk]]) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-10T11:01:31Z

Zmatt:

Now we wait for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroes_theorem. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.165|172.69.54.165]] 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:Can't wait to see how long it takes to remove the article. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:I do not have the time to do it good, so here a suggestion: Would someone go to the wikipedia page of Rolle's theorem and add a "in popular culture" section? may be a first? Not even "Nash equilibrum" has that :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.16|162.158.234.16]] 08:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::Speaking of popular culture, there's a (moderately) well known Ballad of Rolle's theorem [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0BXv90MlhA Balada o vete Rolleovej] ("moderately" meaning some people who studied at Faculty of mathematics in Bratislava might have heard (of) it) --[[User:Kventin|Kventin]] ([[User talk:Kventin|talk]]) 07:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like Euclid beat Randall to the punch here, a couple millennia. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that Thales has proven Randall's theorem. Do not to be confused with {{w|Thales's theorem}}, that's about right angles. Maybe I'm blind or just dumb, but if so it has to be explained with more traceable background. I just believe that this diagonal is so trivial that even the ancient Greeks weren't engaged on a proof. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
* From {{w|Thales|Wikipedia}}: Other quotes from Proclus list more of Thales' mathematical achievements: "They say that Thales was the first to demonstrate that the circle is bisected by the diameter, the cause of the bisection being the unimpeded passage of the straight line through the centre." [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
* On the other hand not all historian believe Proclus. But van der Waerden does: [https://books.google.com/books?id=HK3vCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false]. [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?'''

Isn't the TAN(x) function a counterexample to this? Starting at a given point, it rises to infinity, then returns from negative infinity to the same point without ever having a slope of zero. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:TAN(x) isn't differentiable at pi/2, hence the theorem doesn't apply--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.40|162.158.92.40]] 07:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::And tan(x) has a slope of 0 at pi, so even if it applied, it wouldn't prove it wrong. A better example would be 1/x, but still invalid. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Nope: tan(x) has a slope of 1 at pi, and its slope is never less than 1. Of course, that doesn't make it a counterexample. Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Clueless Museum Visitor'''

The math in the comic is well explained, but shouldn't there be something about the "math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor..." part? Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: Seconded, all the argument here is about math that isn't even *in* the comic, whereas the bit that confuses me is the cultural metaphor... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.235|162.158.154.235]] 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
: I had a go.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 08:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, while the proof of Rolle's theorem is not completely trivial, neither is it difficult by any means. Proving it seems to be a pretty common homework assignment in undergrad math classes, for example, so one might legitimately ask why it deserved to be named. Perhaps it's simply that it's old enough that the methods at the time were crappy, and so modern proofs are much easier. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.140|172.69.22.140]]
: It is named because it's a very important theorem in calculus, used to prove many other theorems or results. So when you need to prove something using this property, instead of re-demonstrating it or merely saying "it is well known that..." (which often raises alarm bells in the mind of the reader/corrector), all you have to do is reference Rolle's theorem.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.158|162.158.155.158]] 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: When I am teaching Rolle's theorem, I always make it a point to draw the link to reals. Rolle's theorem fails when the output is complex valued. Then you can see for yourself how non-trivial this is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the irony of having a wiki page to explain a comic whose subject is how some things are self-evident? [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the Kepler Conjecture actually belong on that list at the end? Most of the others are "derp" level intuitively obvious and/or essentially tautological on a very basic level, but the Kepler Conjecture couldn't actually be exhaustively proven until machine computation, nor is it intuitively definitive--if you've ever stacked round things into a box you've noticed that it feels like you're wasting a lot of space at the edges. So...? [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:I would also argue against most of the other examples. Neither the isoperimetric inequality nor the hairy ball theorem are obviously true and their proof is quite a bit more involved than the one of Rolle's theorem. The Jordan curve theorem sounds obvious but then the proof definitely isn't. The parallel postulate isn't even a theorem. The only real good example in the list is the pigeonhole principle.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.155|162.158.91.155]] 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
:I have removed all but that, as it is the only one comparable to Rolle's in simplicity to understand without understanding math. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I agree, Randall mentions nothing like that and a simple parallel is enough. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
::I would argue that a lot of them could have stayed. Just because some of the examples given do have a lot of "hidden" mathematical complexity and are important bases for mathematical fields does not mean they are not useful parallels to the comic's example. In fact, one that comes to mind is the infamous 300-page Russell/Whitehead proof of 1+1=2. If anything, the more axiomatically complex but intuitively, even stupidly obvious something is, the BETTER it fits. My original point was that the Kepler Conjecture felt like a "which one of these things is not like the others" situation in the original list, as it was not at all easily proven, nor is it intuitively obvious. Some of these were actually pretty useful examples and should have been left, no matter how foundational they are to calculus ;) [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 06:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus be removed from this list. Firstly, the beginner student, just introduced to derivatives and antiderivatives, will not easily see that antiderivatives are the same as finding areas under curves. Instead, it is only obvious upon hindsight, after instruction. More importantly, a restriction of the FTC to better-behaved spaces shows a far greater insanity: the restricted FTC is a consequence of generalised Stokes's theorem '''applied twice'''. This operation is so highly unintuitive, that one simply cannot claim that this is in any way, shape, or form, trivial. I think that trying to pretend that anything in beginning calculus is obvious to students is just going to alienate them rather than soothe their worries. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:Ehh what? No, FTC restricted to smooth functions is simply a special-case of Stokes' Theorem. This is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem#Introduction here]. I don't even know what you could possibly mean by applying Stokes' theorem twice, in any context. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:: ``FTC restricted to smooth function is simply a special case of Stokes's theorem"" is basically what I said, although FTC proper applies to a wider range of functions. As to applying Stokes's theorem twice, remember that the differential form for areas is A = iint dw, where dw = dx ^ dy. You apply once to get that A = oint w, where oint runs around the entire boundary of the area to be considered. Then you have to use some smarts to zero the contributions from 3 of the 4 sides, leaving just the contribution from the x-axis. Then the boundary, which is supposed to have no boundary itself, gets two new boundaries, of which then you can apply another Stokes's theorem to get the F(b)-F(a) result. Again, this process is highly non-trivial, as evidenced by your failure to see what I meant from the first time talking about it. Pardon if the IP changed, it is me. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.60|162.158.167.60]] 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

::: No it isn't "basically" what you said. I know FTC applies to a wider range of functions, that's why I said "restricted to smooth functions". I have not even the slightest idea what process you're trying to explain or why you're talking about 2D integrals. FTC restricted to smooth functions ''is exactly'' Stokes restricted to a line-segment, there is no "process". Again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem#Introduction this wikipedia section] explains this quite well, albeit informally. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 11:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.57}}

Since I'm half a mathematician, I did the math. I looked up Rolle's theorem and it uses the theorem of Weierstraß. I looked up the theorem of Weierstraß (better known as extreme value theorem) and it uses the theorem of Bolzano-Weierstraß. I looked up...why am I suddenly reminded of https://xkcd.com/609 ? :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

What goes up must come down. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.64|198.41.238.64]] 05:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem

2018-09-07T13:23:09Z

Zmatt:

Now we wait for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroes_theorem. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.54.165|172.69.54.165]] 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:Can't wait to see how long it takes to remove the article. [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 17:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:I do not have the time to do it good, so here a suggestion: Would someone go to the wikipedia page of Rolle's theorem and add a "in popular culture" section? may be a first? Not even "Nash equilibrum" has that :-) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.16|162.158.234.16]] 08:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::Speaking of popular culture, there's a (moderately) well known Ballad of Rolle's theorem [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0BXv90MlhA Balada o vete Rolleovej] ("moderately" meaning some people who studied at Faculty of mathematics in Bratislava might have heard (of) it) --[[User:Kventin|Kventin]] ([[User talk:Kventin|talk]]) 07:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel like Euclid beat Randall to the punch here, a couple millennia. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that Thales has proven Randall's theorem. Do not to be confused with {{w|Thales's theorem}}, that's about right angles. Maybe I'm blind or just dumb, but if so it has to be explained with more traceable background. I just believe that this diagonal is so trivial that even the ancient Greeks weren't engaged on a proof. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
* From {{w|Thales|Wikipedia}}: Other quotes from Proclus list more of Thales' mathematical achievements: "They say that Thales was the first to demonstrate that the circle is bisected by the diameter, the cause of the bisection being the unimpeded passage of the straight line through the centre." [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
* On the other hand not all historian believe Proclus. But van der Waerden does: [https://books.google.com/books?id=HK3vCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false]. [[User:Alexei Kopylov|Alexei Kopylov]] ([[User talk:Alexei Kopylov|talk]]) 05:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?'''

Isn't the TAN(x) function a counterexample to this? Starting at a given point, it rises to infinity, then returns from negative infinity to the same point without ever having a slope of zero. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.89|172.68.58.89]] 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:TAN(x) isn't differentiable at pi/2, hence the theorem doesn't apply--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.40|162.158.92.40]] 07:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
::And tan(x) has a slope of 0 at pi, so even if it applied, it wouldn't prove it wrong. A better example would be 1/x, but still invalid. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:::Nope: tan(x) has a slope of 1 at pi, and its slope is never less than 1. Of course, that doesn't make it a counterexample. Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

'''Clueless Museum Visitor'''

The math in the comic is well explained, but shouldn't there be something about the "math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor..." part? Zetfr 09:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: Seconded, all the argument here is about math that isn't even *in* the comic, whereas the bit that confuses me is the cultural metaphor... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.235|162.158.154.235]] 07:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
: I had a go.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 08:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, while the proof of Rolle's theorem is not completely trivial, neither is it difficult by any means. Proving it seems to be a pretty common homework assignment in undergrad math classes, for example, so one might legitimately ask why it deserved to be named. Perhaps it's simply that it's old enough that the methods at the time were crappy, and so modern proofs are much easier. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.140|172.69.22.140]]
: It is named because it's a very important theorem in calculus, used to prove many other theorems or results. So when you need to prove something using this property, instead of re-demonstrating it or merely saying "it is well known that..." (which often raises alarm bells in the mind of the reader/corrector), all you have to do is reference Rolle's theorem.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.158|162.158.155.158]] 11:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
: When I am teaching Rolle's theorem, I always make it a point to draw the link to reals. Rolle's theorem fails when the output is complex valued. Then you can see for yourself how non-trivial this is. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone else noted the irony of having a wiki page to explain a comic whose subject is how some things are self-evident? [[User:JamesCurran|JamesCurran]] ([[User talk:JamesCurran|talk]]) 20:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the Kepler Conjecture actually belong on that list at the end? Most of the others are "derp" level intuitively obvious and/or essentially tautological on a very basic level, but the Kepler Conjecture couldn't actually be exhaustively proven until machine computation, nor is it intuitively definitive--if you've ever stacked round things into a box you've noticed that it feels like you're wasting a lot of space at the edges. So...? [[User:AtrumMessor|AtrumMessor]] ([[User talk:AtrumMessor|talk]]) 21:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
:I would also argue against most of the other examples. Neither the isoperimetric inequality nor the hairy ball theorem are obviously true and their proof is quite a bit more involved than the one of Rolle's theorem. The Jordan curve theorem sounds obvious but then the proof definitely isn't. The parallel postulate isn't even a theorem. The only real good example in the list is the pigeonhole principle.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.155|162.158.91.155]] 12:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus be removed from this list. Firstly, the beginner student, just introduced to derivatives and antiderivatives, will not easily see that antiderivatives are the same as finding areas under curves. Instead, it is only obvious upon hindsight, after instruction. More importantly, a restriction of the FTC to better-behaved spaces shows a far greater insanity: the restricted FTC is a consequence of generalised Stokes's theorem '''applied twice'''. This operation is so highly unintuitive, that one simply cannot claim that this is in any way, shape, or form, trivial. I think that trying to pretend that anything in beginning calculus is obvious to students is just going to alienate them rather than soothe their worries. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.165.124|162.158.165.124]] 04:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

:Ehh what? No, FTC restricted to smooth functions is simply a special-case of Stokes' Theorem. This is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem#Introduction here]. I don't even know what you could possibly mean by applying Stokes' theorem twice, in any context. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 13:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text {{unsigned ip|162.158.62.57}}

Since I'm half a mathematician, I did the math. I looked up Rolle's theorem and it uses the theorem of Weierstraß. I looked up the theorem of Weierstraß (better known as extreme value theorem) and it uses the theorem of Bolzano-Weierstraß. I looked up...why am I suddenly reminded of https://xkcd.com/609 ? :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.71|141.101.104.71]] 08:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2028: Complex Numbers

2018-08-03T20:53:23Z

Zmatt:

I assume this is strictly a coincidence, but in reference to the title-text, I'll just mention that Caucher Birkar [the mathematician whose Fields Medal was stolen minutes after he received it in Rio de Janeiro on Weds (1Aug2018)] received the award for work in algebraic geometry. [[User:Arcanechili|Arcanechili]] ([[User talk:Arcanechili|talk]]) 16:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added a basic description of Abelian groups in the title text, and that's about as much as I know about such topics. I'm not sure what a "meta-Abelian group" is, is that an Abelian group of other groups? Also, could someone add basic descriptions of algebreic geometry and geometrical algebra? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.94.40|172.68.94.40]] 18:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In the title text, since groups are a concept within mathematics, it seems odd to consider mathematics as a whole forming any sort of group within itself, which I suspect is the first part of the pun. Secondly, since groups involve the commutative property, I think the last part is a pun about the order of the words algebra and geometry, as if they're commutative themselves! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 19:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
: I meant to say 'abelian' groups involve the commutative property, and the meta prefix is referring to the fact that it's about the names rather than the mathematical details - i.e. commutative in metadata only. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 19:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a false dilemma. Complex numbers ''are'' vectors (<math>\mathbb{C}</math> is a two-dimensional <math>\mathbb{R}</math>-vector space, and more generally every field is a vector space over any subfield), but that doesn't change anything about the fact that <math>i</math> is by definition a square root of -1. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fun factoid: not only is <math>\mathbb{C}</math> the unique proper field extension of finite degree over <math>\mathbb{R}</math> (since <math>\mathbb{C}</math> is algebraically closed), but the converse is true as well: <math>\mathbb{R}</math> is the only proper subfield of finite index in <math>\mathbb{C}</math>. They're like a weird married couple. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2028: Complex Numbers

2018-08-03T20:38:08Z

Zmatt:

Talk:2010: Update Notes

2018-06-25T10:35:36Z

Zmatt:

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 16:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel like this might be aimed at Google Hangouts. We started using it for our business several years ago, and every year it gets HARDER to use. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.90.22|172.68.90.22]] 16:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC) SiliconWolf

I wonder if this was inspired by [https://www.wsj.com/articles/foldering-in-the-manafort-case-an-old-spy-trick-enters-the-digital-age-1529678377 recent allegations about Paul Manafort using "foldering" for under-the-radar communication].
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.97|173.245.52.97]] 18:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness they have lots of battery, because if they were low I wouldn't be able to concentrate on the comic. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.70|108.162.215.70]] 02:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

;Mouseover

"Trunk should be unlocked" is a software development reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(software) {{unsigned|162.158.134.214}}

:I'm not so sure. That is an entirely different sense of the word Trunk (car trunk vs tree trunk), and it doesn't have any real connection to the topic of the comic. It's most likely just a coincidence. [[User:HisHighestMinion|HisHighestMinion]] ([[User talk:HisHighestMinion|talk]]) 20:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This makes me think of bad git commit names. As if they're updating the app and not bothering to actually describe what the update is, the modern git complaint.(Similar to https://xkcd.com/1296/). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.111|162.158.93.111]] 00:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

:Haaaaaaaaaaaands [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 10:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A stands for Apple while the 3 stars stand for Samsung. Samsung means "3 stars" in Korean. Just a bit of fun fact.

1934: Phone Security

2017-12-27T17:06:15Z

Zmatt: /* Transcript */ more minor punctuation fixes

{{comic
| number = 1934
| date = December 27, 2017
| title = Phone Security
| image = phone_security.png
| titletext = ...wait until they type in payment information, then use it to order yourself a replacement phone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at various phone security measures. At first, it covers some real measures, and then continues on to measures that are clearly somewhat overzealous or otherwise humorous. It is worth noting that all of the options are turned ON in the screen shown, so apparently the owner must be very afraid that their phone is going to be stolen, or just wants to see what will happen.
These may be options that would appear on the [[:Category:xkcd Phones|XKCD Phone]], but that is not mentioned specifically, and this comic does not appear to be directly linked.

The first two options: Set Passcode to Unlock, and Erase phone after 10 failed unlock attempts are both real security measures found on most phones.
The additional options:

If phone is stolen it may be:
* Tracked: This would be reasonable, as it would allow the police to catch the perpetrator and return your phone.
* Erased: This would also be reasonable, as it would prevent any sensitive data from being taken by a thief.
* Detonated: This would be less reasonable, as it would likely harm the thief, possibly severely depending on how the phone was detonated.

If the phone is stolen, play an earsplitting siren until the battery dies or is removed: This would be to draw attention to the thief, and discourage them from stealing future phones.

If the phone is stolen, do a fake factory reset. Then, in the background... :This series of options is all humorous, indicating that the phone would allow the thief to think that it had factory reset, but the phone would, in fact, not do so, and would instead foil the thief by doing various horrible things to them.

* Constantly Request Dozens of Simultaneous Rideshares to the Phone's Location: This would cause tons of "rides" to show up at the stolen phone, leaving a lot of annoyed ridesharers, and possibly alerting the police to the thief's location.
* Automatically order food to the Phone's location from every delivery place within 20 miles: This would be similar to the ridesharing issue, except it would be implied that the thief would be on the hook to pay for all of that delivered food. This could also lead the police to the thief.
* If the thief logs into Facebook, send hostile messages to all their family members: This has now deviated from things that could even possibly be useful, and is now just getting revenge on the thief, or potentially the person that the thief sells the phone to.
*Automatically direct self driving car to drive toward the phone's location at 5mph: This would cause a self driving car to slowly follow the thief. This could absolutely catch the thief, but would also just be really, really creepy. This is similar to the plot of the movie "{{w|It Follows}}".
*Take photos of random objects at the thief's address and post them as "Free" on Craigslist or NextDoor: Craigslist and NextDoor are sites that allow people to post advertisements for various things. Posting a large number of things for free would cause a lot of people to show up at the thief's residence (though it is not noted how the phone would know where the thief resides) requesting the free things, or, more humorously, if the thief was not home, people may just come by and take things, causing them to steal from the thief. This would be a humorous form of poetic justice.

The title text extends the last category with: Wait until they type in payment information, then use it to order yourself a new phone. This would be the ultimate in poetic justice, as it would basically say that the user does not care if their phone gets stolen, because the thief will end up unintentionally buying them a new one. If the thief were to complain about this, they would have to admit that they had stolen the first phone in order to do so, which they would be disinclined to do.

All these options are toggled on.

==Transcript==

Security Options

* Passcode to unlock [Set Code]
* Erase phone after ten failed unlock attepts

If stolen, phone can be remotely

* Tracked
* Erased
* Detonated

* If phone is stolen, erase data and play an earsplitting siren until the battery dies or is removed

If phone is stolen, do a fake factory reset. Then, in the background...

* ...constantly request dozens of simultaneous rideshares to the phone's location
* ...automatically order food to phone's location from every delivery place within 20 miles
* ...if thief logs in to Facebook, send hostile messages to all their family members
* ...automatically direct self-driving car to drive toward phone's location at 5 mph
* ...take photos of random objects at the thief's address and post them as "free" on Craigslist and Nextdoor

Title Text: ...wait until they type in payment information, then use it to order yourself a replacement phone.

{{comic discussion}}

1934: Phone Security

2017-12-27T17:04:35Z

Zmatt: /* Transcript */ fix typos

{{comic
| number = 1934
| date = December 27, 2017
| title = Phone Security
| image = phone_security.png
| titletext = ...wait until they type in payment information, then use it to order yourself a replacement phone.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic pokes fun at various phone security measures. At first, it covers some real measures, and then continues on to measures that are clearly somewhat overzealous or otherwise humorous. It is worth noting that all of the options are turned ON in the screen shown, so apparently the owner must be very afraid that their phone is going to be stolen, or just wants to see what will happen.
These may be options that would appear on the [[:Category:xkcd Phones|XKCD Phone]], but that is not mentioned specifically, and this comic does not appear to be directly linked.

The first two options: Set Passcode to Unlock, and Erase phone after 10 failed unlock attempts are both real security measures found on most phones.
The additional options:

If phone is stolen it may be:
* Tracked: This would be reasonable, as it would allow the police to catch the perpetrator and return your phone.
* Erased: This would also be reasonable, as it would prevent any sensitive data from being taken by a thief.
* Detonated: This would be less reasonable, as it would likely harm the thief, possibly severely depending on how the phone was detonated.

If the phone is stolen, play an earsplitting siren until the battery dies or is removed: This would be to draw attention to the thief, and discourage them from stealing future phones.

If the phone is stolen, do a fake factory reset. Then, in the background... :This series of options is all humorous, indicating that the phone would allow the thief to think that it had factory reset, but the phone would, in fact, not do so, and would instead foil the thief by doing various horrible things to them.

* Constantly Request Dozens of Simultaneous Rideshares to the Phone's Location: This would cause tons of "rides" to show up at the stolen phone, leaving a lot of annoyed ridesharers, and possibly alerting the police to the thief's location.
* Automatically order food to the Phone's location from every delivery place within 20 miles: This would be similar to the ridesharing issue, except it would be implied that the thief would be on the hook to pay for all of that delivered food. This could also lead the police to the thief.
* If the thief logs into Facebook, send hostile messages to all their family members: This has now deviated from things that could even possibly be useful, and is now just getting revenge on the thief, or potentially the person that the thief sells the phone to.
*Automatically direct self driving car to drive toward the phone's location at 5mph: This would cause a self driving car to slowly follow the thief. This could absolutely catch the thief, but would also just be really, really creepy. This is similar to the plot of the movie "{{w|It Follows}}".
*Take photos of random objects at the thief's address and post them as "Free" on Craigslist or NextDoor: Craigslist and NextDoor are sites that allow people to post advertisements for various things. Posting a large number of things for free would cause a lot of people to show up at the thief's residence (though it is not noted how the phone would know where the thief resides) requesting the free things, or, more humorously, if the thief was not home, people may just come by and take things, causing them to steal from the thief. This would be a humorous form of poetic justice.

The title text extends the last category with: Wait until they type in payment information, then use it to order yourself a new phone. This would be the ultimate in poetic justice, as it would basically say that the user does not care if their phone gets stolen, because the thief will end up unintentionally buying them a new one. If the thief were to complain about this, they would have to admit that they had stolen the first phone in order to do so, which they would be disinclined to do.

All these options are toggled on.

==Transcript==

Security Options

* Passcode to unlock [Set Code]
* Erase phone after ten failed unlock attepts

If stolen, phone can be remotely

* Tracked
* Erased
* Detonated

* If phone is stolen, erase data and play an earsplitting siren until the battery dies or is removed.

If phone is stolen do a fake factory reset. Then, in the background...

* ...constantly request dozens of simultaneous rideshares to the phone's location
* ...automatically order food to phone's location from every delivery place within 20 miles
* ...if thief logs in to Facebook, send hostile messages to all their family members
* ...automatically direct self-driving car to drive toward phone's location at 5 mph
* ...take photos of random objects at the thief's address and post them as "free" on Craigslist and Nextdoor

Title Text: ...wait until they type in payment information, then use it to order yourself a replacement phone.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1882: Color Models

2017-08-28T15:08:56Z

Zmatt:

For those who want to know a bit more about color, [https://www.handprint.com/LS/CVS/color.html this site] is a good start. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 15:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1877: Eclipse Science

2017-08-17T11:51:43Z

Zmatt:

I'm pretty sure his point was actually that in the modern day eclipses are pretty well understood, easy enough to travel to, and provide very little actually unique circumstances, so in reality there is very little scientific value at all. Just a really cool thing to see

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.10|162.158.75.10]] 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
:Yet still there are some aspects of eclipses such as shadow bands which are unexplained. There are some theories, but eclipses are rare enough, plus shadow bands don't occur with every one, so there is no definitive explanation yet.
:[[User:RChandra|RChandra]] ([[User talk:RChandra|talk]]) 18:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
::The explanation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_bands shadow bands] on wikipedia seems pretty solid to me. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 11:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

To me the comic is poking fun at the idea the media (and by extension laypeople in general) perceive eclipses to be of great scientific importance and that scientists are excited about it for that reason. Note how his almost every utterance contains "science". Megan deftly deflects his attempts to put words in her mouth and remains resolute in her stance that eclipses are interesting to everyone on their face value but not necessarily more so to scientists that others. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.160|108.162.216.160]] 19:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Pat

I guess Randall is sad that people outside the band seem to have less interest in the eclipse, like shown in the previous comic, and that they might not wish to travel a few hours to see a once in a life time spectacle, or as he also feared in the last comic, try too late to get there and get stuck in the trafic jam outside the totality zone. Being in the 99.9999% dark part is nothing compared to being inside the zone being able to see the corona (the ring in the sky). Go and see it if you have any chance of doing so! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1858: 4th of July

2017-07-05T08:11:19Z

Zmatt:

Hmm. I would personally switch 2017 goal with 2018. But in the meantime, I'm going to practice my armor-polishing skills so that my future master will treat me well. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.33|162.158.74.33]] 15:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC) SiliconWolf

Added an initial description, definitely needs work though. Hopefully it covers the bases for readers not aware of Independence day celebration in the US [[User:Bpendragon|Bpendragon]] ([[User talk:Bpendragon|talk]]) 17:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

A far as hitting drones with fireworks, fireworks cannot be controlled once launched and air currents (especially if there are drones in the vicinity) would make the fireworks' trajectories unpredictable.

Intercepting fireworks with drones would require precise control of the drone.
[[User:The Dining Logician|The Dining Logician]] ([[User talk:The Dining Logician|talk]]) 17:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
: "''fireworks cannot be controlled once launched''" .. I think people can fix that if sufficiently motivated ;-) [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 08:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the title text, I understand the first part, but the second part had me confused.[[User:Xkcdreader52|Xkcdreader52]] ([[User talk:Xkcdreader52|talk]]) 06:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T19:08:10Z

Zmatt: Replace irrelevant stuff about condorcet's paradox by wikipedia link

{{comic
| number = 1844
| date = May 31, 2017
| title = Voting Systems
| image = voting_systems.png
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting '''Approval Voting''']: Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting '''Instant-Runoff Voting''']: In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters.

3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method '''Condorcet Method''']: A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox Condorcet Paradox], there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem '''Arrow's impossibility theorem'''] gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.

The primary joke in the comic is the premise that people who are pedantic or knowledgeable enough to find Arrow's theorem to be relevant will self-fulfill the theorem by being inclined to disagree on any effort to produce a community-wide ranking. This is illustrated by Cueball's voting system preference that is contingent on essentially disagreeing with the preferences of other people, which defeats any effort to produce a community-wide ranking.

A secondary joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting strategically for a less favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate.

A third joke is the idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox, particularly given that one of the candidates (Condorcet method) would itself stipulate that it may not (logically consistently) win in the situation that it is being proposed in (3 or more candidates).

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.]
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:47:28Z

Zmatt:

Looks like 2 of us added explanations at the same time. Someone else want to consolidate them and produce a concise explanation?
~blackhat {{unsigned ip|162.158.69.75}}

I tried merging our explanations, so there is a small improvement, but there is still some duplicated information. Plus I'm not a native english speaker, so a consolidation by a third editor would be welcome. {{unsigned ip|141.101.69.165}}

Something I don't understand about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem: In the example given, the result of the election is obviously a 3-way tie, where each candidate got exactly equal support. Surely the Arrow Impossibility Theorem doesn't complain about voting system's inability to intuitively break an exact tie? {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.58}}
:I think there is another layer of explanation here. When Cueball is discussing this - he's talking about voting for which voting system is to be chosen. The choice is Approval versus Instant Runoff - but isn't Cueball arguing about using a Condorcet method to decide WHICH voting method to choose? This is emphasised by the mouse-over text which talks about him dynamically changing his choice of ultimate candidate based on the election system chosen - which is exactly the Condorset paradox, but when applied to the selection of which voting system you want rather than the choice of candidate. Again reinforced by the discussion of "Strong Arrows theorem" which at that same meta-voting level. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.39|162.158.69.39]] 15:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally the idea behind Arrow's Theorem is that you would get different results if you did a vote where the choices were just A or B, B or C, C or A, thus no option wins head to head against the others (Condorset Paradox). An example I recently read was economic policy, and how the options being presented can cause policy to fluctuate wildly in a democracy as the outcome depends on the options compared. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.10|108.162.249.10]] 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:Neither Arrow's Theorem nor the joke makes any reference to Condorcet's paradox. Rather, the joke is that it shows an individual voter who apparently fails to satisfy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives independence of irrelevant alternatives]. This is one of the criteria in Arrow's theorem, and it is normally always regarded as being true of any individual's opinions, just not necessarily of the outcome of an election. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

:For reference: both instant run-off voting (IRV) and every concorcet method fail independence of irrelevant alternatives. Some (most?) condorcet systems satisfy all other criteria of Arrow's theorem, while IRV also fails monotonicity. Approval voting satisfies both, but it is outside the scope of Arrow's theorem as it is not a ranked voting system. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Arrow's impossibility theorem states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking." Arrow's theorem does not say that. Arrow's impossibility theorem says "When voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking that is complete, transitive, Pareto efficient, have universal domain, has no dictator, and independent of irrelevant alternatives." The conditions matter, and the non-dictatorship condition in particular is horrible misnamed.

"The theorem may be interpreted in a way suggesting that no matter what voting electoral system is implemented in a democracy, the resulting democratic choices are equally imperfect". No. Perfection is an absolute so things are either perfect or they are not. "Equally imperfect" is a tautology. If you are going to throw in "equally" some voting methods are manifestly closer to perfection than others, some voting methods satisfy all but one of Arrow's conditions, while others satisfy none of them.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to the discussion, but interesting that Cueball has moved from being between a black hat and a black haired women in [[1842: Anti-Drone Eagles]] to being between a White Hat and a white haired woman, two comics later, where he starts speaking in both comics. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For deep (but simply explained) insight into voting systems, (and why the American first past the pole system sucks), see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLej2SlXPEd37YwwEY7mm0WyZ8cfB1TxXa playlist of youtube videos] by CGP Grey --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:38:33Z

Zmatt:

Looks like 2 of us added explanations at the same time. Someone else want to consolidate them and produce a concise explanation?
~blackhat {{unsigned ip|162.158.69.75}}

I tried merging our explanations, so there is a small improvement, but there is still some duplicated information. Plus I'm not a native english speaker, so a consolidation by a third editor would be welcome. {{unsigned ip|141.101.69.165}}

Something I don't understand about the Arrow Impossibility Theorem: In the example given, the result of the election is obviously a 3-way tie, where each candidate got exactly equal support. Surely the Arrow Impossibility Theorem doesn't complain about voting system's inability to intuitively break an exact tie? {{unsigned ip|172.68.34.58}}
:I think there is another layer of explanation here. When Cueball is discussing this - he's talking about voting for which voting system is to be chosen. The choice is Approval versus Instant Runoff - but isn't Cueball arguing about using a Condorcet method to decide WHICH voting method to choose? This is emphasised by the mouse-over text which talks about him dynamically changing his choice of ultimate candidate based on the election system chosen - which is exactly the Condorset paradox, but when applied to the selection of which voting system you want rather than the choice of candidate. Again reinforced by the discussion of "Strong Arrows theorem" which at that same meta-voting level. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.39|162.158.69.39]] 15:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally the idea behind Arrow's Theorem is that you would get different results if you did a vote where the choices were just A or B, B or C, C or A, thus no option wins head to head against the others (Condorset Paradox). An example I recently read was economic policy, and how the options being presented can cause policy to fluctuate wildly in a democracy as the outcome depends on the options compared. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.10|108.162.249.10]] 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
:Neither Arrow's Theorem nor the joke makes any reference to Condorcet's paradox. Rather, the joke is that it shows an individual voter who apparently fails to satisfy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives independence of irrelevant alternatives]. This is one of the criteria in Arrow's theorem, and it is normally always regarded as being true of any individual's opinions, just not necessarily of the outcome of an election. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Arrow's impossibility theorem states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking." Arrow's theorem does not say that. Arrow's impossibility theorem says "When voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking that is complete, transitive, Pareto efficient, have universal domain, has no dictator, and independent of irrelevant alternatives." The conditions matter, and the non-dictatorship condition in particular is horrible misnamed.

"The theorem may be interpreted in a way suggesting that no matter what voting electoral system is implemented in a democracy, the resulting democratic choices are equally imperfect". No. Perfection is an absolute so things are either perfect or they are not. "Equally imperfect" is a tautology. If you are going to throw in "equally" some voting methods are manifestly closer to perfection than others, some voting methods satisfy all but one of Arrow's conditions, while others satisfy none of them.

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.21|162.158.62.21]] 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to the discussion, but interesting that Cueball has moved from being between a black hat and a black haired women in [[1842: Anti-Drone Eagles]] to being between a White Hat and a white haired woman, two comics later, where he starts speaking in both comics. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For deep (but simply explained) insight into voting systems, (and why the American first past the pole system sucks), see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLej2SlXPEd37YwwEY7mm0WyZ8cfB1TxXa playlist of youtube videos] by CGP Grey --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 18:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:32:34Z

Zmatt:

{{comic
| number = 1844
| date = May 31, 2017
| title = Voting Systems
| image = voting_systems.png
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting '''Approval Voting''']: Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting '''Instant-Runoff Voting''']: In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters.

3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method '''Condorcet Method''']: A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the Condorcet Paradox, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem '''Arrow's impossibility theorem'''] gives a list of criteria for ranked voting electoral systems and states that no system can satisfy all of them at once, despite that for each of them it may seem "obvious" that an electoral system ought to satisfy it.

'''Condorcet's Paradox'''

As a simple illustration, suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference):

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Voter !! First preference !! Second preference !! Third preference
|-
! Voter 1
| A || B || C
|-
! Voter 2
| B || C || A
|-
! Voter 3
| C || A || B
|}

If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the choice between A and C would not be the same whether the B choice is present or not. This example is referred to as '''Condorcet paradox'''.

The joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting for their second or third favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate. The idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.]
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]

1844: Voting Systems

2017-05-31T18:10:55Z

Zmatt:

{{comic
| number = 1844
| date = May 31, 2017
| title = Voting Systems
| image = voting_systems.png
| titletext = Kenneth Arrow hated me because the ordering of my preferences changes based on which voting systems have what level of support. But it tells me a lot about the people I'm going to be voting with!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Here we have basically two explanations which have to be merged.}}

This comic references three types of voting systems:

1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting '''Approval Voting''']: Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system. Each voter may "approve" of (i.e., select) any number of candidates. The winner is the most-approved candidate.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting '''Instant-Runoff Voting''']: In Instant-Runoff Voting (also known as Ranked Choice or Preferential Voting) voters in elections can rank the candidates in order of preference. Ballots are initially counted for each elector's top choice. If a candidate secures more than half of these votes, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the candidate in last place is eliminated and removed from consideration. The top remaining choices on all the ballots are then counted again. This process repeats until one candidate is the top remaining choice of a majority of the voters.

3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method '''Condorcet Method''']: A '''Condorcet method''' is any single-winner electoral system that elects the candidate that would win a majority of the vote in all of the head-to-head elections against each of the other candidates, whenever there is such a candidate. A candidate with this property is called the Condorcet winner. Due to the Condorcet Paradox, there may not be a Condorcet winner in an election with 3 or more candidates.

'''Arrow's impossibility theorem''' states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking.
The theorem may be interpreted in a way suggesting that no matter what voting electoral system is implemented in a democracy, the resulting democratic choices are equally imperfect.

'''Condorcet's Paradox'''

As a simple illustration, suppose we have three candidates, A, B, and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed left-to-right for each voter in decreasing order of preference):

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
! Voter !! First preference !! Second preference !! Third preference
|-
! Voter 1
| A || B || C
|-
! Voter 2
| B || C || A
|-
! Voter 3
| C || A || B
|}

If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. Thus the choice between A and C would not be the same whether the B choice is present or not. This example is referred to as '''Condorcet paradox'''.

The joke in the comic is that often voters don't pick their favorite choice in a vote, because voting for their second or third favorite choice may prevent their least favorite choice from being selected. This is the kind of situation these voting systems are designed to eliminate, as a traditional "first past the pole" voting system creates situations where people do not vote for their first-choice candidate. The idea of having to vote for a voting system creates its own paradox.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat and Ponytail are standing on either side of Cueball who is talking while lifting one hand.]
:Cueball: I prefer approval voting, but if we're seriously considering instant runoff, then I'll argue for a Condorcet method instead.

:[Caption beneath the panel:]
:Strong Arrow's theorem: The people who find Arrow's theorem significant will never agree on anything anyway.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:963: X11

2016-09-12T04:27:10Z

Zmatt:

Come on Randall, it's not ''that'' hard, it's only 273 flags that you have to memorize. A child could do that. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|purple|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 09:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
:I think the comics might be about the fact that modern-day X.Org doesn't need <nowiki>xorg.conf</nowiki> at all... well, usually (i.e. almost always you can get with autodetection and without xorg.conf at all) --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
::Oh, ''<nowiki>xorg.conf</nowiki>'' was fun for me the last twenty years. I miss it...LOL--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Good grief finding the actual Jefferson quote was hard. So many people saying things about the quotation without actually linking to the quotation. It took a bit of digging, [http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#1780s Wikiquote] has [http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1340.htm a link] to what I think would have been the full text of the letter, but [http://virginia.edu UVa] must have switched CMS' so now all their links are different and you just get redirected to the front page of University of Virginia's Library. So much for permalinks. With a little bit more digging I found the full text published online by the [http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.html University of Chicago]. The text is thick, as should be expected of 18th century writing, but if you squint hard enough at a particular paragraph and twist the words a little you can come up with the sentiment that Randall refers to in the title text. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
:Did you not think of using the [http://web.archive.org Wayback Machine]? The UVa page you were looking for is [http://web.archive.org/web/20101205225845/http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1340.htm here]. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 02:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally I like having the options [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.158|173.245.54.158]] 00:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the explanation about how X works is wrong. But because of the unfortunate choices of the original X designers, I do not think it can become more accurate without also becoming more confusing. In particular, when dealing with X, ''server'' and ''client'' always mean the opposite of what you would expect. [[User:Pesthouse|Pesthouse]] ([[User talk:Pesthouse|talk]]) 21:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Time IS on the x axis. Why does it claim it not to be? {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.50}}

Quite probably my favorite part of the xorg.conf manpage:
VIDEOADAPTOR SECTION
Nobody wants to say how this works. Maybe nobody knows ...
[[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 04:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1724: Proofs

2016-08-24T19:13:41Z

Zmatt:

Judging from my experience when I first encountered proofs in math classes (or my general experience from math classes), the teacher is going to write down a "proof" which makes absolutely no sense to students and is also never explained in a way that actually makes them understand. Instead, they are just going to use "dark magic" and write what seems to be completely senseless to students.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.223|141.101.91.223]] 04:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Transcript generated by the BOT was murdering me, had to change it. Proposing miss Lenhart is party 1. [[User:EppOch|EppOch]] ([[User talk:EppOch|talk]]) 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: I support that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.223|141.101.91.223]] 06:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: Me to, but I am on mobile, so editing is a pain [[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.71|162.158.86.71]] 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: Done [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Note that the BOT doesn't create any text - [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1724:_Proofs&oldid=125654 see here]. The transcript was made by several people. Agree completely that this is Miss Lenhart, but even if it was not "[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1724:_Proofs&direction=next&oldid=125660 party 1 and party 2]" is not the way to describe a woman with long blonde hair and Cueball ;-) There is at the moment [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#New_character_category_for_blonde_woman_news_reporter_.28from_1699.29|a discussion]] what to call other women looking like this (i.e. those that are not clearly Miss Lenhart, [[Mrs. Roberts]] or her daughter [[Elaine Roberts]]). Chip in there if you have any opinions on that regard... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Irrationality proof isn't really a proof by contradiction (it doesn't use double negation elimination). You're showing (exists a,b. ...) -> False by assuming (exists a, b. ...) and showing False, which is implication introduction --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.105|162.158.85.105]] 07:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking she's doing one of those proof that write down a formula or function out of nowhere, and proceeds to proof everything with it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.125|108.162.222.125]] 08:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of "divination" rituals, where a magical spirit is summoned to write out an answer. Usually not something as complex as here, but hey, XKCD! --[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Man, Reductio ad absurdum never made any logic. If we could assume any thing, why use logic?
Oh wait, it has already been covered in XKCD {{unsigned ip|162.158.49.12}}

"Dark magic" proofs are centered around properties of functions, and abstract concepts, rather than manipulating the functions themselves?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My assumptions is that the "Dark Magic" being referred to here is more "A technique that works, though nobody really understands why." [see http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/black-magic.html] In this case, the teacher is setting up a proof in an manner which will lead to the desired goal, but to the student it is exceedingly unobvious as to why one would do it this way, other than "it works" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that a "dark magic proof" referred to those ridiculous "party trick" proofs like 'proving' that 1 = 0 via some confusing train of logic, and mathematical sleight of hand. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.213}}

Maybe he meant "dark patterns"? {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.139}}

It seems pretty obvious to me that by "weird, dark magic proofs", the student is talking about proofs that drag in far-flung reaches of mathematics so distant that they no longer appear to be mathematics, especially ones that involve meta-reasoning. Gödel's proof of the incompleteness of Peano arithmetic is the archetypical example, but others include Lob's theorem and any proof by contradiction involving the halting problem. Ms Lenhart's proof starts out by setting up a proof-by-contradiction, already a warning sign, and she then escalates it at the end by implying that this proof will somehow involve the actual physics of where the solution can and cannot be written. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 17:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

:: Agreed, although I think starting out with a proof by contradiction setup is by itself not that much of a warning sign. However it heads straight into meta-space by making the assumption of the existence of a function that produces a solution of something. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

:: The fact that the proof mentions the actual blackboard on which it is written is of course problematic in numerous ways, as is predicating on whether something "will eventually" happen. This is well outside the scope of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory usual mathematical foundations]. Since careless use of meta-recursion is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry's_paradox trap], such a proof would have to very very carefully consider foundational issues and cannot handwave over them. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

----
"''In the title text the decision of whether to take the axiom of choice is made by a deterministic process. The axiom of determinacy is incompatible with the axiom of choice...''" The axiom of determinacy is not really relevant to deterministic processes - it is about (certain types of two-players-) games and says that any such game is determined (that is, some player has a winning strategy). So this axiom is not relevant to the title text --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.66|162.158.83.66]] 17:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1724: Proofs

2016-08-24T18:52:00Z

Zmatt:

Judging from my experience when I first encountered proofs in math classes (or my general experience from math classes), the teacher is going to write down a "proof" which makes absolutely no sense to students and is also never explained in a way that actually makes them understand. Instead, they are just going to use "dark magic" and write what seems to be completely senseless to students.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.223|141.101.91.223]] 04:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Transcript generated by the BOT was murdering me, had to change it. Proposing miss Lenhart is party 1. [[User:EppOch|EppOch]] ([[User talk:EppOch|talk]]) 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: I support that. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.91.223|141.101.91.223]] 06:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: Me to, but I am on mobile, so editing is a pain [[Special:Contributions/162.158.86.71|162.158.86.71]] 06:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:: Done [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
:::Note that the BOT doesn't create any text - [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1724:_Proofs&oldid=125654 see here]. The transcript was made by several people. Agree completely that this is Miss Lenhart, but even if it was not "[http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1724:_Proofs&direction=next&oldid=125660 party 1 and party 2]" is not the way to describe a woman with long blonde hair and Cueball ;-) There is at the moment [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#New_character_category_for_blonde_woman_news_reporter_.28from_1699.29|a discussion]] what to call other women looking like this (i.e. those that are not clearly Miss Lenhart, [[Mrs. Roberts]] or her daughter [[Elaine Roberts]]). Chip in there if you have any opinions on that regard... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Irrationality proof isn't really a proof by contradiction (it doesn't use double negation elimination). You're showing (exists a,b. ...) -> False by assuming (exists a, b. ...) and showing False, which is implication introduction --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.105|162.158.85.105]] 07:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking she's doing one of those proof that write down a formula or function out of nowhere, and proceeds to proof everything with it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.125|108.162.222.125]] 08:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This comic reminds me of "divination" rituals, where a magical spirit is summoned to write out an answer. Usually not something as complex as here, but hey, XKCD! --[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Man, Reductio ad absurdum never made any logic. If we could assume any thing, why use logic?
Oh wait, it has already been covered in XKCD {{unsigned ip|162.158.49.12}}

"Dark magic" proofs are centered around properties of functions, and abstract concepts, rather than manipulating the functions themselves?? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.113|108.162.246.113]] 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My assumptions is that the "Dark Magic" being referred to here is more "A technique that works, though nobody really understands why." [see http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/black-magic.html] In this case, the teacher is setting up a proof in an manner which will lead to the desired goal, but to the student it is exceedingly unobvious as to why one would do it this way, other than "it works" [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.52|108.162.219.52]] 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking that a "dark magic proof" referred to those ridiculous "party trick" proofs like 'proving' that 1 = 0 via some confusing train of logic, and mathematical sleight of hand. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.213}}

Maybe he meant "dark patterns"? {{unsigned ip|162.158.126.139}}

It seems pretty obvious to me that by "weird, dark magic proofs", the student is talking about proofs that drag in far-flung reaches of mathematics so distant that they no longer appear to be mathematics, especially ones that involve meta-reasoning. Gödel's proof of the incompleteness of Peano arithmetic is the archetypical example, but others include Lob's theorem and any proof by contradiction involving the halting problem. Ms Lenhart's proof starts out by setting up a proof-by-contradiction, already a warning sign, and she then escalates it at the end by implying that this proof will somehow involve the actual physics of where the solution can and cannot be written. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.123|108.162.241.123]] 17:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

:: Agreed, although I think starting out with a proof by contradiction setup is by itself not that much of a warning sign. However it heads straight into meta-space by making the assumption of the existence of a function that produces a solution of something. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 18:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

----
"''In the title text the decision of whether to take the axiom of choice is made by a deterministic process. The axiom of determinacy is incompatible with the axiom of choice...''" The axiom of determinacy is not really relevant to deterministic processes - it is about (certain types of two-players-) games and says that any such game is determined (that is, some player has a winning strategy). So this axiom is not relevant to the title text --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.66|162.158.83.66]] 17:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)