Editing Talk:363: Reset

I thought this was mostly referencing the impracticality of a sign like this. It is only correct for one day for each reset, meaning you would have to reset it daily back to zero, but then you could just leave it zero without resetting it.  However, then since you didn't actually reset it, it would actually be wrong. My brain hurts. Edit: I guess the assumption is that it is an electronic sign where the numbers change themselves, and that "reset" means only back to zero, but to me it looks like a manual sign which must be "reset" to change the numbers even upward.--[[User:JSekula71|JSekula71]] ([[User talk:JSekula71|talk]]) 14:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

:I know what you mean, but it's resolved if daily you ''set'' it to n=n+1, until you arbitrarily decide to ''reset'' it to zero on a whim at any time you wish to.
:And no explanation regarding the title text?  Looks to me like an overhead-gantry style signage, which indicates what height of vehicle (or person, but it would have to be Robert Wadlow-type people that are affected) can pass beneath it.  Normally it'd be a sign indicating the clearance of a bridge ahead, but the only thing restricting tall passers-by ''is'' the sign.  Similarly positively-reinforcing but otherwise useless. [[Special:Contributions/178.98.31.27|178.98.31.27]] 02:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
:If the title text is referring to the sign on-screen, then that's one tall Cue-Ball.[[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 00:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
An alternate definition of 'reset' is 'to change the reading of', via dictionary.com. If the comic opts to use this definition, the sign becomes paradoxical. The sign couldn't have been reset 38 days ago, without someone resetting it each day. Which isn't possible, due to the instructions on the sign, which would make the sign read zero.  It's a logical paradox. [[User:Lyusternik|Lyusternik]] ([[User talk:Lyusternik|talk]]) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

:I think it would be truer to xkcd if it was a paradox.  However, in computing, 'reset' always means to go back to the initial state, which is zero days in this case.  So that's all it is.  Every day, you have to increment the number, or reset it back to zero.  The beauty of it is that you don't also then have to update the sign. Because of the self-referential nature, the event we are monitoring ("reset") has itself set the sign to the correct number of days.  Almost genius!   [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 :I think it would be truer to xkcd if it was a paradox.  However, in computing, 'reset' always means to go back to the initial state, which is zero days in this case.  So that's all it is.  Every day, you have to increment the number, or reset it back to zero.  The beauty of it is that you don't also then have to update the sign. Because of the self-referential nature, the event we are monitoring ("reset") has itself set the sign to the correct number of days.  Almost genius!   [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
-Even with "days since reset" meaning "days since last change", it's technically possible to have the sign be correct for two consecutive days, but no more than that. Set the sign to 1 and wait a day, then set it back to 0.
-we call those signs "calendars" {{unsigned|Gigahertz}}
-I'm still sad that they've raised the height of the 6' 8" bridge... [[User:The Cat Lady|--The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 13:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)