https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=162.158.155.146&feedformat=atomexplain xkcd - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T08:56:52ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.30.0https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:311:_Action_Movies&diff=167155Talk:311: Action Movies2018-12-19T19:21:42Z<p>162.158.155.146: </p>
<hr />
<div>Dangit, I want to see this. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.148|199.27.130.148]] 04:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)<br />
<br />
He used Papyrus. :| [[Special:Contributions/108.162.225.57|108.162.225.57]] 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Madness combat minus hank plus river tam? 08:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Could this comic be the inspiration for John Wick? {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.155}}<br />
<br />
This movie actually exists and it's called Chocolate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_(2008_film)] {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.202}}<br />
<br />
<br />
'Beats up everyone', to me it seems a reference to video game of type 'Beat them all' which match with the image of the movie. {{unsigned ip|108.162.229.112}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There is an error in the explanation. Crank is listed as being in the Die Hard series. This is incorrect, Crank did have a sequel (High voltage) but neither had anything to do with Die Hard franchise. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.100}}<br />
<br />
And now, 8 years later, we have Mad Max: Fury Road. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.212|162.158.38.212]] 07:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)<br />
:And on top of that, John Wick and Hardcore Henry. Nonstop action movies are becoming a thing. --[[User:Zazathebot|Zazathebot]] ([[User talk:Zazathebot|talk]]) 19:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Y'all're forgetting [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1899353/ ''The Raid''] and [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265171/ ''The Raid 2'']. Perfect answers to this complaint.<br />
—[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 21:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:But all of the above selections are ''still'' lacking in Summer Glau! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 19:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2068:_Election_Night&diff=1656522068: Election Night2018-11-07T15:10:16Z<p>162.158.155.146: /* Explanation */ "news" is singular in this sense</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2068<br />
| date = November 5, 2018<br />
| title = Election Night<br />
| image = election_night.png<br />
| titletext = "Even the blind—those who are anxious to hear, but are not able to see—will be taken care of. Immense megaphones have been constructed and will be in use at The Tribune office and in the Coliseum. The one at the Coliseum will be operated by a gentleman who draws $60 a week from Barnum & Bailey's circus for the use of his voice."<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Please only mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
This comic compares media coverage on election results in 1896 and 2018.<br />
<br />
This is the third comic in a row that deals with elections in the United States; the trio has been published in the week before the {{w|United States elections, 2018}}.<br />
<br />
While elections and voting have been a public staple for generations, election coverage by the media can result in {{w|voter fatigue}}. While voter fatigue is considered a major criticism of things like {{w|First-past-the-post_voting|first past the post}} voting systems, media outlets will also contribute. <br />
<br />
Here, [[Randall]] is taking a unique opportunity to point out that unlike our recollection of history (which is usually modified by the {{w|misinformation effect}}, where we perceive the past as being easier and find a source to blame for the election night jitters) that in fact, in the past, a bombardment of fireworks every hour was used to convey the hour-by-hour play of the election night, a significantly more jarring effect that couldn't even be turned off. We have progressed, in some ways, to a more opt-in system, rather than the {{w|opt-out}} system of the past, where you had to leave Chicago to avoid the news.<br />
<br />
The time traveler from 1896, wearing a {{w|top hat}} (the typical hat used at that time), presents [[Megan]] and [[Cueball]] a method how the latest news --over the night-- is published to the public. No broadcasting television or even radio existed then and most newspapers, reaching the readers on the next morning, were printed in the evening before the election results were certain. For the [https://www.270towin.com/1896_Election/ election referenced in this clipping], Republican candidate {{w|William McKinley}} (assigned the color Blue) won in a close race against Democrat-Populist candidate {{w|William J. Bryan}} (assigned the color Red).<br />
<br />
The part about the "jiggling needle" may be a reference to the [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/the-new-york-times-election-needle-is-back-with-a-few-new-safety-features New York Times' 2016 presidential election results] webpage, which displayed a "needle" it used to forecast the results of the presidential election between then-candidate Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The position of the needle was initially set based on pre-election polls, pointing heavily toward Hillary Clinton, but as election results from around the country -- and from individual counties within states -- started coming in it changed to reflect those results. Especially near the beginning, before a lot of real election data had come in, results reported from small counties could dramatically swing the needle to one side or the other when coming from heavily Democratic or Republican districts, then swing again when another county reported. Only when a significant amount of data had come in did the needle settle down and move more incrementally.<br />
<br />
The title text explains that in 1896 even blind people were taken care of, as enormous megaphones were installed to convey the news equally unavoidably to those who couldn't (or didn't want to) see the color bombs.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball face each other while talking on the left of the panel]<br />
:Megan: Ugh, I'm just going to hide out for election night. We'll know the results the next day anyway. The drama is so unnecessary.<br />
:Cueball: Yeah. The internet and the 24-hour news have turned elections into a continuous, inescapable media onslaught.<br />
:[A man in a top hat appears on the right side of the panel with a "Poof"]<br />
<br />
:[Panel with just the man in a top hat, holding a newspaper]<br />
:Man in a top hat: Hi! I'm a time traveler from 1896. Let me tell you about '''''our''''' election night coverage.<br />
:Man in a top hat: *Ahem*<br />
:Man in a top hat: From the ''Chicago Tribune''<br />
<br />
:[Zoom in on head of the man in a top hat]<br />
:Man in a top hat: "Once every hour from the roof of the Great Northern Hotel a series of bombs, which will ascend for several thousand feet, will be fired. Two colors will be used, blue and red."<br />
:Man in a top hat: "Blue to indicate McKinley's election, red to indicate Bryan's election."<br />
:Man in a top hat: "The bombardment of the skies will commence at 7 o'clock and will be repeated hourly."<br />
:[Grey citation]: Chicago Tribune, Oct 30th & Nov 1st, 1896<br />
<br />
:[Megan and Cueball on the left looking at the man in the top hat on the right]<br />
:Megan: Yeah, well, we have a ''needle,'' though.<br />
:Man in a top hat: A needle.<br />
:Megan: It jiggles!<br />
:Man in a top hat: Sounds awful.<br />
:Cueball: Listen, you had to be there.<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
The character with the large black top hat is wearing a typical hat worn by wealthy men at the late 19th and early 20th century and should not be mixed up with [[Black Hat]]. . . though the fact that he appears from nowhere just to tell total strangers why they're wrong IS somewhat suspect - he could be one of [[Black Hat]]'s ancestors.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Characters with Hats]]<br />
[[Category:Elections]]<br />
[[Category:Time travel]]</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2052:_Stanislav_Petrov_Day&diff=1634872052: Stanislav Petrov Day2018-10-01T14:21:14Z<p>162.158.155.146: edited text about the ground based detection systems</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2052<br />
| date = September 28, 2018<br />
| title = Stanislav Petrov Day<br />
| image = stanislav_petrov_day.png<br />
| titletext = I was going to get you an alarm clock that occasionally goes off randomly in the middle of the night, but you can ignore it and go back to sleep and it's fine.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
{{w|Stanislav Petrov|Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov}} was a lieutenant colonel of the {{w|Soviet Air Defence Forces}} who became known as "the man who single-handedly saved the world from nuclear war" for his role in the {{w|1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident}}. The incident was unknown to the public until it was revealed shortly before the {{w|Dissolution of the Soviet Union|dissolution of the Soviet Union}} in 1991.<br />
<br />
On 26 September 1983, during the {{w|Cold War}}, the satellite-based early-warning system of the {{w|Soviet Union}} reported the launch of multiple {{w|Intercontinental ballistic missile|intercontinental ballistic missiles}} from the {{w|United States}}. At the time, tensions with the U.S. were on edge, and high officials of the Soviet Union, including General Secretary {{w|Yuri Andropov}}, were thought to be highly suspicious of a U.S. attack.<br />
<br />
Petrov checked ground-based radars which had not detected a launch, noted that the warning system had detected only 1-5 missiles instead of the hundreds that would have been expected in the event of a {{w|pre-emptive nuclear strike|first strike}}, and chose to mark the system alert as a false alarm. This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack, which would have probably resulted in immediate escalation of the Cold War stalemate to a full-scale nuclear war and the deaths of tens to hundreds of millions of people. Investigation of the satellite warning system later confirmed that the system had indeed malfunctioned.<br />
<br />
While it is highly probable that if Petrov had reported this incident to his superiors they would have come to the same conclusion, it was a point in time when many people feared that the Cold War might become hot. Andropov, the new Soviet leader, was considered weak by the US president {{w|Ronald Reagan}}, and the western countries were deploying new missile installation in Europe to counter existing missiles in the Eastern Bloc. This fear of nuclear war meant that at this time the {{w|Peace movement|peace movement}} in most western countries reached one of its highest levels.<br />
<br />
In this comic [[Cueball]] reacts on a simple alert on his phone like most other people do. Too many ''alerts'' reach everybody on their mobile devices, ignored often without deeper knowledge about the issue behind.<br />
<br />
The title text presents a much less important false alarm when Cueball made a gift to [[Megan]] in which the donated alarm clock alerts randomly in the middle of the night. After that alarm she just can breathe a sigh of relief and go back to sleep because it's still not early in the morning. Petrov may have taken also a deep breath, but like Megan nobody knows by their time.<br />
<br />
====History of Petrov Day as a holiday====<br />
On the 2007 anniversary, {{w|Eliezer Yudkowsky}} wrote a [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QtyKq4BDyuJ3tysoK/9-26-is-petrov-day blog post] for {{w|LessWrong}} suggesting that "Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, take a minute to not destroy the world." Not destroying the world has since evolved into an annual tradition. There is a [http://petrovday.com/ website] for the holiday, with several variations of a ritual involving lighting and snuffing candles. The intended mood is that of a somber holiday, somewhere between {{w|Thanksgiving}} and a funeral.<br />
<br />
However, there are also [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XJxwFMSL5TPN2usC6/modes-of-petrov-day more lighthearted takes]. A "hardcore mode" would be just like the normal holiday, but "During said ceremony, unveil a large red button. If anybody presses the button, the ceremony is over. Go home. Do not speak." Alternatively, "you use a website connected to *another* house where people are also celebrating Petrov Day. If anyone in one house presses the button, the other house receives a launch alarm. They have 60 seconds to respond. At the end of 60 seconds, their party is over, and they must go home silently. The website has some chance of giving you a false alarm." The website can be found [https://petrovday.bubbleapps.io/ here] with instructions on how to use it [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XJxwFMSL5TPN2usC6/modes-of-petrov-day#s4XtBX7Qg9btGf5Kx here]. <br />
<br />
Stanislav Petrov himself died in 2017, but in 2018 the {{w|Future of Life Institute}} decided to [https://futureoflife.org/2018/09/26/50000-award-to-stanislav-petrov-for-helping-avert-wwiii-but-us-denies-visa/ award] his surviving family a $50,000 prize for his contributions. However, in the words of MIT Professor Max Tegmark, who presented the award, the fact that Petrov's son couldn't "get a visa to visit the city his dad saved from nuclear annihilation is emblematic of how frosty US-Russian relations have gotten, which increases the risk of accidental nuclear war.”<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan is looking at her phone while Cueball stands in front of her.]<br />
:Megan: Hey, Wednesday was Stanislav Petrov Day. We missed it.<br />
:Cueball: Oh, shoot!<br />
:Cueball: I got a calendar alert for it, but I assumed it was a false alarm.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2052:_Stanislav_Petrov_Day&diff=1634832052: Stanislav Petrov Day2018-10-01T07:34:35Z<p>162.158.155.146: /* Explanation */ grammar</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2052<br />
| date = September 28, 2018<br />
| title = Stanislav Petrov Day<br />
| image = stanislav_petrov_day.png<br />
| titletext = I was going to get you an alarm clock that occasionally goes off randomly in the middle of the night, but you can ignore it and go back to sleep and it's fine.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
<br />
{{w|Stanislav Petrov|Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov}} was a lieutenant colonel of the {{w|Soviet Air Defence Forces}} who became known as "the man who single-handedly saved the world from nuclear war" for his role in the {{w|1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident}}. The incident was unknown to the public until it was revealed shortly before the {{w|Dissolution of the Soviet Union|dissolution of the Soviet Union}} in 1991.<br />
<br />
On 26 September 1983, during the {{w|Cold War}}, the satellite-based early-warning system of the {{w|Soviet Union}} reported the launch of multiple {{w|Intercontinental ballistic missile|intercontinental ballistic missiles}} from the {{w|United States}}. At the time, tensions with the U.S. were on edge, and high officials of the Soviet Union, including General Secretary {{w|Yuri Andropov}}, were thought to be highly suspicious of a U.S. attack.<br />
<br />
Petrov checked ground-based radars that indicated the report was a false alarm, noted that the warning system had detected only 1-5 missiles instead of the hundreds that would have been expected in the event of a {{w|pre-emptive nuclear strike|first strike}}, and chose to ignore it. This decision is seen as having prevented a retaliatory nuclear attack, which would have probably resulted in immediate escalation of the Cold War stalemate to a full-scale nuclear war and the deaths of tens to hundreds of millions of people. Investigation of the satellite warning system later confirmed that the system had indeed malfunctioned.<br />
<br />
While it is highly probable that if Petrov had reported this incident to his superiors they would have come to the same conclusion, it was a point in time when many people feared that the Cold War might become hot. Andropov, the new Soviet leader, was considered weak by the US president {{w|Ronald Reagan}}, and the western countries were deploying new missile installation in Europe to counter existing missiles in the Eastern Bloc. This fear of nuclear war meant that at this time the {{w|Peace movement|peace movement}} in most western countries reached one of its highest levels.<br />
<br />
In this comic [[Cueball]] reacts on a simple alert on his phone like most other people do. Too many ''alerts'' reach everybody on their mobile devices, ignored often without deeper knowledge about the issue behind.<br />
<br />
The title text presents a much less important false alarm when Cueball made a gift to [[Megan]] in which the donated alarm clock alerts randomly in the middle of the night. After that alarm she just can breathe a sigh of relief and go back to sleep because it's still not early in the morning. Petrov may have taken also a deep breath, but like Megan nobody knows by their time.<br />
<br />
====History of Petrov Day as a holiday====<br />
On the 2007 anniversary, {{w|Eliezer Yudkowsky}} wrote a [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QtyKq4BDyuJ3tysoK/9-26-is-petrov-day blog post] for {{w|LessWrong}} suggesting that "Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, take a minute to not destroy the world." Not destroying the world has since evolved into an annual tradition. There is a [http://petrovday.com/ website] for the holiday, with several variations of a ritual involving lighting and snuffing candles. The intended mood is that of a somber holiday, somewhere between {{w|Thanksgiving}} and a funeral.<br />
<br />
However, there are also [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XJxwFMSL5TPN2usC6/modes-of-petrov-day more lighthearted takes]. A "hardcore mode" would be just like the normal holiday, but "During said ceremony, unveil a large red button. If anybody presses the button, the ceremony is over. Go home. Do not speak." Alternatively, "you use a website connected to *another* house where people are also celebrating Petrov Day. If anyone in one house presses the button, the other house receives a launch alarm. They have 60 seconds to respond. At the end of 60 seconds, their party is over, and they must go home silently. The website has some chance of giving you a false alarm." The website can be found [https://petrovday.bubbleapps.io/ here] with instructions on how to use it [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XJxwFMSL5TPN2usC6/modes-of-petrov-day#s4XtBX7Qg9btGf5Kx here]. <br />
<br />
Stanislav Petrov himself died in 2017, but in 2018 the {{w|Future of Life Institute}} decided to [https://futureoflife.org/2018/09/26/50000-award-to-stanislav-petrov-for-helping-avert-wwiii-but-us-denies-visa/ award] his surviving family a $50,000 prize for his contributions. However, in the words of MIT Professor Max Tegmark, who presented the award, the fact that Petrov's son couldn't "get a visa to visit the city his dad saved from nuclear annihilation is emblematic of how frosty US-Russian relations have gotten, which increases the risk of accidental nuclear war.”<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Megan is looking at her phone while Cueball stands in front of her.]<br />
:Megan: Hey, Wednesday was Stanislav Petrov Day. We missed it.<br />
:Cueball: Oh, shoot!<br />
:Cueball: I got a calendar alert for it, but I assumed it was a false alarm.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2047:_Beverages&diff=162886Talk:2047: Beverages2018-09-19T16:31:11Z<p>162.158.155.146: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall Munroe needs to be less existential ... oh wait. {{unsigned ip|162.158.155.146|05:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
Wouldn’t it warrant being freaked out *more* if it were shaped like lungs? Now that would freak me out. <br />
(Choking on food is but one example that even nature can not get a dual function, single endpoint API perfectly right. Luckily nature was unaware of GraphQL - or we’d have one orifice, 1 endpoint for all bodily functions. {{unsigned ip|172.69.130.70|05:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)}}<br />
<br />
:(Responding to the above unsigned) Aren’t there some animals where that is the case? Jellyfish and starfish (I think) are the examples that comes to mind, but I’m sure there are others (especially among sea life). Also wow, humanity (at least the English speaking portion) really likes naming things that aren’t fish “fish” 😂 [[User:PotatoGod|PotatoGod]] ([[User talk:PotatoGod|talk]]) 07:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: But there's 'No Such Thing as a Fish' :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Such_Thing_as_a_Fish --[[User:OliReading|OliReading]] ([[User talk:OliReading|talk]]) 12:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Well you can think yourself lucky that you are not designed like a flatworm which only has one opening to its digestive cavity... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.191|162.158.166.191]] 11:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Isn't that a cloaca? <br />
:https://www.youtube.com/embed/_y4DbZivHCY<br />
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Isn't the stream of beverages interrupted in intervals by swallowing? Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.10|172.68.110.10]] 06:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
: The bulge in the middle of the vertical portion of the flow (oesophagus) is from the effects of peristalsis, which does not cut off the flow entirely in order to push stuff down, but leaves a little gap. That is part of the reason you can belch and barf. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 12:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I think what he means with "if I wait a while" the beverage at the end of digestion is then connected to the toilet, sewers and oceans... {{unsigned|Benjamin3005}}<br />
<br />
'''Similar Imagery'''<br />
<br />
:Radiotopia's recently released [https://www.everythingisalive.com/about "Everything is alive"] podcast's premiere episode, [https://www.everythingisalive.com/episodes/louis-can-of-cola Louis Can of Cola], is about this experience from the perspective of the beverage. The episode features a discussion of between the beverage and a the host who {spoiler alert} offers to drink it. The episode was featured by podcasting legend Roman Mars on his own Radiotopia show [https://99percentinvisible.org/ "99 Percent Invisible, podcast"] earlier this summer in July 2018. [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 12:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
::I've moved both to a trivia section. Doesn't explain anything. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 14:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
::Is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy acknowledged? Ford Prefect warns Arthur Dent that his first space trip by hyperspace transit will be unpleasantly like being drunk, and it is. rja.carnegie@excite.com [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.42|141.101.107.42]] 01:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''What are the two organs beneath the stomach?'''<br />
<br />
Liver makes sense because they are involved in the digesting process; but kidneys are ruled out because they filter blood where the liquid hasn't arrived yet. Any ideas? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Looks to me like that is the stomach. The "bulge" above looks like peristalsis. [[User:Baldrickk|Baldrickk]] ([[User talk:Baldrickk|talk]]) 13:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"Further two small organs with no connection to the rest are also wetted." I'm pretty sure those, "...two small organs..." are actually part of the stomach from (possibly) a previous drink of the beverage.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.107|162.158.79.107]] 15:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I am thinking that is just the fluid splashing around inside the one stomach, as opposed to anything making it to other organs yet. While still drinking, the fluid will be collecting in the stomach as it prepares to hit the contents with enzymes and acid to break it down prior to going to the intestines, a process that can take over an hour, depending on how complex the contents are. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 10:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I agree. While being poured, the liquid isn't filling all available space within the container, it will mainly coat the bottom (i.e. of the stomach) due to gravity or sides (i.e. esophagus) due to adhesion, and there will be splashing as well. I think those two disconnected blobs of liquid are just splashes that have become disconnected from the rest of the flowing liquid. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
:::I've moved this matter from the transcript to the explanation. Thanks for your suggestions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Liver isn't directly involved in digestion, which means no food passes through it, although it does absorb nutrients and is involved in bile production, which is secreted by the gallbladder in response to fats. If I had to guess, it would probably be the duodenum (first part of the small intestine). [[User:Four|Four]] ([[User talk:Four|talk]]) 23:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
:You're right. See my comment above. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Invisible Man'''<br />
<br />
The picture looks like "The Invisible Man" drinking. (Actually "Keybounce", but login is neither working nor complaining for some reason.) --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.177|173.245.48.177]] 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hmm... Thinking about it logically, the glass isn't half full. Considering it's being ''emptied'', it should be considered half empty. It's probably not an overly important distinction, but I'm pedantic, and I feel Randall would probably approve...[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=793:_Physicists&diff=162791793: Physicists2018-09-17T05:24:17Z<p>162.158.155.146: /* Transcript */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 793<br />
| date = September 15, 2010<br />
| title = Physicists<br />
| image = physicists.png<br />
| titletext = If you need some help with the math, let me know, but that should be enough to get you started! Huh? No, I don't need to read your thesis, I can imagine roughly what it says.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
This comic shows a view that many physics students, upon first encountering a well-known problem, think that it is not a difficult problem, since they think they can fix it using an extremely simplified model. The obvious problem with this is that if it was that simple to solve the problem to a useful degree, there wouldn't be an entire department studying the problem. This attitude leads to great annoyance from those who have probably spent years and years working on the problem, hence the Cueball with balled up fists, implying that he wants to punch the physics major.<br />
<br />
This argument is similar to the {{w|Spherical cow}}, an idea that basic models taught in early physics classes only work in friction-less vacuums, as shown in [[669: Experiment]]. <br />
<br />
The title text takes the dismissive attitude to its logical extreme. The comment "liberal-arts majors can be annoying sometimes" seems to be referencing the stereotype that they're all elitist know-it-alls.<br />
<br />
[[Cueball]] later behaves similarly in [[1831: Here to Help]].<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball stands at a blackboard covered in text and diagrams, an open laptop and scattered paper at his feet. His fists are balled in anger and there is a little angry squiggle over his head. A Cueball-like physicist stands behind him, arms out in a shrug.]<br />
:Physicist: You're trying to predict the behavior of <font color=gray><complicated system></font>? Just model it as a <font color=gray><simple object></font>, and then add some secondary terms to account for <font color=gray><complications I just thought of></font>.<br />
:Physicist: Easy, right?<br />
:Physicist: So, why does <font color=gray><your field></font> need a whole journal, anyway?<br />
:Liberal-arts majors may be annoying sometimes, but there's ''nothing'' more obnoxious than a physicist first encountering a new subject.<br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]<br />
[[Category:Physics]]</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2047:_Beverages&diff=162790Talk:2047: Beverages2018-09-17T05:22:47Z<p>162.158.155.146: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
Randall Munroe needs to be less existential ... oh wait.</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2046:_Trum-&diff=162719Talk:2046: Trum-2018-09-14T16:52:41Z<p>162.158.155.146: </p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
This is not that weird. If names were random then it would be a 1 in 26^4 = 456976 chance of a particular president matching another for the first 4, but this is a "Birthday Problem" with 44 presidents, so the probability of any two presidents sharing the first 4 characters is 1-(456976!/(456976^44 (456976 - 44)!)), which wolfram alpha is giving as 0.206%<br />
:Yes, but we already "fulfilled our obligation" after the sixth president :) [[User:Zachweix|Zachweix]] ([[User talk:Zachweix|talk]]) 15:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
An approximation to the correct probability would be to do 44^2/(2 x 26^4) which would give about 0.2% chance of this happening. So fairly weird, but as the comic suggests, many things about this presidency are weirder than 0.2%.<br />
:I love that we are now having a mathematical discussion about how weird things are in the presidency. [[User:Zachweix|Zachweix]] ([[User talk:Zachweix|talk]]) 15:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Should we mention Andrew Johnson and LBJ, perhaps in a "Trivia" section? Obviously Johnson is a very common surname, but they're still unrelated presidents that share the first (and only) 7 characters of their last name. (Are there other pairs of presidents that share at least the 3 first letters of their surnames besides AJ/LBJ and HST/DJT?)<br />
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.62.160|172.69.62.160]] 16:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
...And, upon reflection, I just realized Harding shares the first 3 letters with the Presidents Harrison, so that's one(?) more example.<br />
<br />
So we discount Presidents Adams, Bush, Cleveland, Harrison and Rosevelt as being related, or being the same person. <br />
We have the following common starts: Bu (3 names), Cl, Ha (3 names), Ta, Har, Trum and Johnson. Also A, B, C, F, G, H, J, M, P, R, T and W. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.241|162.158.154.241]] 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If you count Buren as opposed to Van Buren then you have 4 starting Bu and 2 starting Bur [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.146|162.158.155.146]] 16:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2028:_Complex_Numbers&diff=1625122028: Complex Numbers2018-09-09T15:44:26Z<p>162.158.155.146: As a math major I felt the existing explanation was missing the distinction that a model is not the thing being modelled itself. We can model complex numbers as vectors, but that doesn't make them just vecotrs.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2028<br />
| date = August 3, 2018<br />
| title = Complex Numbers<br />
| image = complex_numbers.png<br />
| titletext = I'm trying to prove that mathematics forms a meta-abelian group, which would finally confirm my suspicions that algebreic geometry and geometric algebra are the same thing.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
The {{w|complex number}}s can be thought of as pairs <math>(a,\ b)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}</math> of real numbers with rules for addition and multiplication.<br />
<br />
: <math>(a,\ b) + (c,\ d) = (a+c,\ b+d)</math><br />
<br />
: <math>(a,\ b) \cdot (c,\ d) = (ac - bd,\ ad + bc)</math><br />
<br />
As such, they can be modelled as two-dimensional {{w|Euclidean vector|vectors}}, with an interesting rule for multiplication. The justification for this rule is to consider a complex number as an expression of the form <math>a+bi</math>, where <math>i^2 = -1</math>, i.e. ''i'' is the square root of negative 1. Applying the common rules of algebra and the definition of ''i'' yields rules for addition and multiplication above.<br />
<br />
Regular two-dimensional vectors are pairs of values, with the same rule for addition, and no rule for multiplication. <br />
<br />
The usual way to introduce complex numbers is by starting with ''i'' and deducing the rules for addition and multiplication, but Cueball is correct to say that some uses of complex numbers could be modelled with vectors alone, without consideration of the square root of a negative number.<br />
<br />
The teacher, [[Miss Lenhart]], counters that to ignore the natural construction of the complex numbers would hide the relevance of the {{w|fundamental theorem of algebra}} (Every polynomial of degree ''n'' has exactly ''n'' roots, when counted according to multiplicity) and much of {{w|complex analysis}} (calculus with complex numbers; the study of analytic and meromorphic functions), but she also agrees that mathematicians are too cool for "regular vectors." Just because the complex numbers can be interpreted through vector space, ohwever, doesn't mean that they ''are'' just vectors, any more than being able to construct the natural numbers from set logic mean that natural numbers are ''really'' just sets.<br />
<br />
In mathematics, a {{w|group (mathematics)|group}} is the pairing of a binary operation (say, multiplication) with the set of numbers that operation can be used on (say, the real numbers), such that you can describe the properties of the operation by its corresponding group. An {{w|Abelian group}} is one where the operation is commutative, that is, where the terms of the operation can be exchanged: <math> a \cdot b = b \cdot a</math> The title text argues that the "link" between algebra and geometry in "algebreic [sic] geometry" and "geometric algebra" is the operation in an Abelian group, such that both of those fields are equivalent. Algebraic geometry and geometric algebra are mostly unrelated areas of study in mathematics. {{w|Algebraic geometry}} studies the properties of sets of zeros of polynomials. It runs relatively deep. Its tools were used for example in Andrew Wiles' celebrated proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. For its part, a {{w|geometric algebra| geometric algebra}} (a {{w|Clifford algebra| Clifford algebra}} with some specific properties) is a construct allowing one to do algebraic manipulation of geometric objects (e.g., vectors, planes, spheres, etc.) in an arbitrary space that has a resultant geometric interpretation (e.g., rotation, displacement, etc.). The algebra of quaternions, often used to handle rotations in 3D computer graphics, is an example of a geometric algebra, as is the algebra of complex numbers. {{w|Metabelian group|Meta-Abelian groups}} (often contracted to metabelian groups) is a class of groups that are not quite abelian, but close to being so. <br />
<br />
Randall's joke in the mouseover text is a wordplay combining the concepts of (meta-)abelian groups and change in the order of word orders with the general idea of "meta".<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[Cueball (the student) is raising his hand and writing with his other hand. He is sitting down at a desk, which has a piece of paper on it.]<br />
:Cueball: Does any of this really have to do with the square root of -1? Or do mathematicians just think they're too cool for regular vectors?<br />
<br />
:[Miss Lenhart (the teacher) is standing in front of a whiteboard.]<br />
:Miss Lenhart: Complex numbers aren't just vectors. They're a profound extension of real numbers, laying the foundation for the fundamental theorem of algebra and the entire field of complex analysis.<br />
<br />
:[Miss Lenhart is standing slightly to the right in a blank frame.]<br />
:Miss Lenhart: '''''And''''' we're too cool for regular vectors.<br />
:Cueball (off-screen): I '''''knew''''' it!<br />
<br />
==Trivia==<br />
This comic is similar to [[1724: Proofs]].<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]<br />
[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Analysis]]</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2042:_Rolle%27s_Theorem&diff=1624162042: Rolle's Theorem2018-09-07T08:31:12Z<p>162.158.155.146: Attempted to add an explanation of the museum visitor reference.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2042<br />
| date = September 5, 2018<br />
| title = Rolle's Theorem<br />
| image = rolles_theorem.png<br />
| titletext = I mean, if it's that easy to get a theorem named for you ... "a straight line that passes through the center of a coplanar circle always divides the circle into two equal halves." Can I have that one? Wait, can I auction off the naming rights? It can be the Red Bull Theorem or the Quicken Loans Theorem, depending who wants it more.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Go a little bit more into the explanation.Explain the museum reference. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
In mathematics, a {{w|differentiable function}} is a function that is "smooth" everywhere, without any sudden breaks or pointy "kinks" or similar. The derivative of such a function is a new function that represents the "slope" or "rate of change" of the original. The function in this comic curves up from point (a) until a point above (c), smoothly turns around, and then curves down from (c) to (b). As a result, the derivative of this function is positive from (a) to (c), and then is negative from (c) to (b). At (c) itself, the function is "flat": the more one zooms in, the more horizontal it looks. The function is moving neither up nor down, so the derivative is neither positive nor negative, but zero. This is what ''f'(c) = 0'' means, as ''f''' is a common notation for the derivative of the function ''f'' in {{w|differential calculus}}.<br />
<br />
A {{w|theorem}} in mathematics is a statement that has been ''proven'' from former accepted statements, like other theorems or {{w|axiom}}s. This comic references {{w|Rolle's theorem}}. The theorem essentially states that, if a smoothly changing function has the same output at two different inputs, then it must have one or more turning points in between, as the derivative is zero at each one. As a special case, should the function remain flat between the two inputs, then its derivative is actually zero for every point between the inputs. To [[Randall]], this is obvious. However, the proof of this theorem is not as obvious as the result.<br />
<br />
The seeming triviality of the theorem, coupled with the honour bestowed on the theorem namer, leads Randall to make a comparison to attendees of art museums who look at abstract art pieces and perceive only an apparent technical simplicity in the work. Such a visitor might exclaim "My child could paint that!". However, such works of art typically are seen as having value from attributes other than the painterly difficulty in achieving the piece. For example, an artist's work in this style may be lauded for its visionary qualities, or the emotions expressed through the choice of colours or textures. One such artist is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zqhgr82 Jackson Pollock]. The 'clueless' visitor does not see these aspects and believes their child could imitate the piece. Randall suggests he experiences a similar feeling looking at Rolle's Theorem and noting only the obvious correctness without acknowledging the complicated nature of the proof, or other hidden aspects of the theorem. <br />
<br />
In the title text, Randall mentions a line together with a ''coplanar'' circle. This simply means that both those two-dimensional objects must lay in the same plane in a higher, three-or-more-dimensional space. And by this means, every line drawn through the center of a circle is just a diameter which divides it into two equal parts. Even if this fact is trivial, {{w|Proclus}} says that the first man who proved it was {{w|Thales of Miletus|Thales}}. Auctioning of {{w|naming rights}}, also noted in the title text, refers to the practice of naming entertainment venues for companies which pay for the privilege, such as any of the three {{w|Red Bull Arena}}s or {{w|Quicken Loans Arena}}. The naming of mathematical theorems (along with lemmas, equations, laws, methods, etc.) is [http://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_09_05.html not always straightforward] and {{w|List of misnamed theorems|often results in misleading names}}.<br />
<br />
Randall implies that there are many seemingly easy theorems like this. Other theorems he's referencing could include:<br />
* The {{w|Jordan curve theorem}}, which states that every non-self-intersecting continuous loop in a plane divides that plane into an area inside and outside the loop<br />
* Dirichlet's box principle, also known as the {{w|Pigeonhole principle}}, that states that if you have more objects than containers, you're going to have to put at least two objects in one container<br />
* The {{w|Hairy ball theorem}}, which basically states "you can't comb a hairy ball flat without creating a cowlick"<br />
* That a sphere has the smallest surface-area to volume ratio possible, along with the related {{w|Isoperimetric inequality}}<br />
* The {{w|Kepler conjecture}}, which states that the tightest possible packing of spheres is hexagonal close packing<br />
* The {{w|Parallel postulate}}, which states that any two non-parallel lines crossing another line will meet on the "narrower" side of the third line<br />
* The {{w|Fundamental theorem of calculus}}, which essentially states that integration and differentiation are opposites and one undoes the other.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A single framed picture shows a colored x-y-graph with a text above:]<br />
:'''Rolle's Theorem'''<br />
:<small>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</small><br />
<br />
:Rolle's theorem states that any real, differentiable function that has the same value at two different points must have at least one "stationary point" between them where the slope is zero.<br />
<br />
:[The graph shows a sine like curve in blue intersecting the x-axis at points "a" and "b" marked in red while in the middle a point "c" has a vertical dashed green line to the apex and on top also in green f'(c)=0 is drawn with a horizontal line.]<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the frame:]<br />
:Every now and then, I feel like the math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor squinting at a painting and saying "c'mon, my kid could make that." <br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Wikipedia]]</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2042:_Rolle%27s_Theorem&diff=162414Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem2018-09-07T07:20:31Z<p>162.158.155.146: m</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
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)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:<br />
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.<br />
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.<br />
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
* 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)<br />
* 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)<br />
<br />
<br />
:''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?''<br />
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)<br />
: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)<br />
::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)<br />
:::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)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''Clueless Museum Visitor''<br />
<br />
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)<br />
: 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)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
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]]<br />
: 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)<br />
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
: 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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2042:_Rolle%27s_Theorem&diff=162413Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem2018-09-07T07:19:28Z<p>162.158.155.146: m</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
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)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:Proposed ideas for Munroe's Law:<br />
::- Any seemingly simple idea will be difficult to prove; the simpler it seems, the harder the proof.<br />
::- Any proof which is discovered by a layperson will have been previously discovered by an expert (or an "expert") in the field.<br />
:[[User:Rajakiit|Raj-a-Kiit]] ([[User talk:Rajakiit|talk]]) 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
* 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)<br />
* 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)<br />
<br />
<br />
:''Rolle's Theorem counterexample?''<br />
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)<br />
: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)<br />
::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)<br />
:::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)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
''Clueless Museum Visitor''<br />
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)<br />
: 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)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
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]]<br />
: 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)<br />
:: It could almost be called "Rolle's lemma". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.103|162.158.154.103]] 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)<br />
: 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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
"Munroe's theorem" should definitely refer to the circle thing in the alt text</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2042:_Rolle%27s_Theorem&diff=1623972042: Rolle's Theorem2018-09-06T17:13:23Z<p>162.158.155.146: /* Explanation */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{comic<br />
| number = 2042<br />
| date = September 5, 2018<br />
| title = Rolle's Theorem<br />
| image = rolles_theorem.png<br />
| titletext = I mean, if it's that easy to get a theorem named for you ... "a straight line that passes through the center of a coplanar circle always divides the circle into two equal halves." Can I have that one? Wait, can I auction off the naming rights? It can be the Red Bull Theorem or the Quicken Loans Theorem, depending who wants it more.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Explanation==<br />
{{incomplete|Go a little bit more into the explanation.Explain the museum reference. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}<br />
<br />
In mathematics, a {{w|differentiable function}} is a function that is "smooth" everywhere, without any sudden breaks or pointy "kinks" or similar. The derivative of such a function is a new function that represents the "slope" or "rate of change" of the original. The function in this comic curves up from point (a) until a point above (c), smoothly turns around, and then curves down from (c) to (b). As a result, the derivative of this function is positive from (a) to (c), and then is negative from (c) to (b). At (c) itself, the function is "flat": the more one zooms in, the more horizontal it looks. The function is moving neither up nor down, so the derivative is neither positive nor negative, but zero. This is what ''f'(c) = 0'' means, as ''f''' is a common notation for the derivative of the function ''f'' in {{w|differential calculus}}.<br />
<br />
A {{w|theorem}} in mathematics is a statement that has been ''proven'' from former accepted statements, like other theorems or {{w|axiom}}s. This comic references {{w|Rolle's theorem}}. The theorem essentially states that, if a smoothly changing function has the same output at two different inputs, then it must have one or more turning points in between, as the derivative is zero at each one. As a special case, should the function remain flat between the two inputs, then its derivative is actually zero for every point between the inputs. To [[Randall]], this is obvious. However, the proof of this theorem is not as obvious as the result.<br />
<br />
In the title text, Randall mentions a line together with a ''coplanar'' circle. This simply means that both those two-dimensional objects must lay in the same plane in a higher, three-or-more-dimensional space. And by this means, every line drawn through the center of a circle is just a diameter which divides it into two equal parts. It is interesting to note that this theorem: even if it is trivial, {{w|Proclus}} says that the first man who proved it was {{w|Thales of Miletus|Thales}}. Auctioning of {{w|naming rights}}, also noted in the title text, refers to the practice of naming entertainment venues for companies which pay for the privilege, such as any of the three {{w|Red Bull Arena}}s or {{w|Quicken Loans Arena}}. The naming of mathematical theorems (along with lemmas, equations, laws, methods, etc.) is [http://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_09_05.html not always straightforward] and {{w|List of misnamed theorems|often results in misleading names}}.<br />
<br />
==Transcript==<br />
:[A single framed picture shows a colored x-y-graph with a text above:]<br />
:'''Rolle's Theorem'''<br />
:<small>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</small><br />
<br />
:Rolle's theorem states that any real, differentiable function that has the same value at two different points must have at least one "stationary point" between them where the slope is zero.<br />
<br />
:[The graph shows a sine like curve in blue intersecting the x-axis at points "a" and "b" marked in red while in the middle a point "c" has a vertical dashed green line to the apex and on top also in green f'(c)=0 is drawn with a horizontal line.]<br />
<br />
:[Caption below the frame:]<br />
:Every now and then, I feel like the math equivalent of the clueless art museum visitor squinting at a painting and saying "c'mon, my kid could make that." <br />
<br />
{{comic discussion}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Comics with color]]<br />
[[Category:Line graphs]]<br />
[[Category:Math]]<br />
[[Category:Wikipedia]]</div>162.158.155.146https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2042:_Rolle%27s_Theorem&diff=162342Talk:2042: Rolle's Theorem2018-09-05T16:54:50Z<p>162.158.155.146: Euclid done good.</p>
<hr />
<div><!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--><br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
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)</div>162.158.155.146