1208: Footnote Labyrinths - Revision history

172.70.90.221: It's officially identified as Title Text, around here. If you change this, you'd need to change almost every Explanation page, and possibly one or more templates. (And the device I'm on, here, has no mouse.)

2023-09-20T03:57:49Z

It's officially identified as Title Text, around here. If you change this, you'd need to change almost *every* Explanation page, and possibly one or more templates. (And the device I'm on, here, has no mouse.)

172.71.146.198 at 19:21, 19 September 2023

2023-09-19T19:21:54Z

172.71.146.199 at 19:21, 19 September 2023

2023-09-19T19:21:31Z

172.71.146.213: /* Explanation */ correct tense

2023-08-13T05:34:59Z

‎Explanation: correct tense

172.70.211.92: /The last explanation implied going from the bottom up, which was confusing. I expanded the interpretation which verifies the "no solution" answer via supertask. I know it's long, but I can't shorten it. I hope it's an interesting contribution! Tysm!/

2023-02-21T06:41:22Z

‎The last explanation implied going from the bottom up, which was confusing. I expanded the interpretation which verifies the "no solution" answer via supertask. I know it's long, but I can't shorten it. I hope it's an interesting contribution! Tysm!

172.71.158.216: Footnote category

2022-12-09T21:47:14Z

Footnote category

Jacky720: Reverted edits by Xray Kilo Charlie Delta (talk) to last revision by Vandalbane

2022-05-23T18:39:30Z

Reverted edits by Xray Kilo Charlie Delta (talk) to last revision by Vandalbane

Show changes

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

2022-05-23T18:26:51Z

Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Show changes

Vandalbane: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

2022-05-23T18:12:31Z

Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Show changes

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: haha your js cant stop my js

2022-05-23T18:10:03Z

haha your js cant stop my js

Show changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, 20 September 2023
Line 25:		Line 25:


−	The ~~mouse-over~~ suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w\|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".	+	The title text suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w\|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".

	The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] also plays on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.		The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] also plays on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 19 September 2023
Line 25:		Line 25:


−	The mouse over suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w\|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".	+	The mouse-over suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w\|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".

	The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] also plays on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.		The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] also plays on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 19 September 2023
Line 25:		Line 25:


−	The ~~title text~~ suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w\|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".	+	The mouse over suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w\|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".

	The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] also plays on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.		The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] also plays on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 The title text suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".
-The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] is also playing on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.
+The comic [[1184: Circumference Formula]] also plays on the typographical similarity between footnotes and exponents, as well as adding even more ridiculous rules.
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ;Interpreting nested footnotes as footnotes on footnotes, right-associative
 :"no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1 + 2</sup>" = "no<sup>3</sup>". We turn to the definition of <sup>3</sup>, which is "not true<sup>3<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "not true<sup>3 + 2</sup>" = "not true<sup>5</sup>".
-:Now <sup>5</sup> is "true<sup>2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup></sup>". The 6 says that the 2 footnote is really 1<sup>2<sup>2</sup></sup> = 1<sup>(4. ibid.)</sup> = 1<sup>3</sup>, but the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true<sup>5</sup>", getting us into an infinite loop, meaning there is no solution.
+:Now <sup>5</sup> is "true<sup>2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup></sup>". Going from top down accordingly, the 3 tells us that the 6 is "not true<sup>5</sup>", getting us into an infinite loop, and if we are restricted to only following the footnotes step-by-step, then we will never reach a solution.
 The title text suggests interpreting footnotes as exponents (minus one, modulo 6, plus 1). Because applying the operations "minus one, modulo 6, plus 1" to an integer always results in an integer between one and six (inclusive), no sequence of integer exponents will ever end up referencing a footnote that does not exist. In mathematics, nested exponents are exclusively right-associative. "no<sup>1<sup>2</sup></sup>" = "no<sup>1</sup>", so we ignore the "no" and the correct statement is "we found evidence for the data." Meanwhile, <sup>3</sup> becomes "not true<sup>3</sup>", an {{w|infinite recursion}}, and since 2<sup>6<sup>3</sup></sup> mod 6 = 4, we just get "ibid" and the 5 refers back to the 3. Footnote 6 is equivalent to 1<sup>4</sup> = 1 = "ignore this".

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 9 December 2022
Line 38:		Line 38:
	{{comic discussion}}		{{comic discussion}}
	[[Category:My Hobby]]		[[Category:My Hobby]]
		+	[[Category:Footnotes]]

1208: Footnote Labyrinths - Revision history

172.70.90.221: It's officially identified as Title Text, around here. If you change this, you'd need to change almost *every* Explanation page, and possibly one or more templates. (And the device I'm on, here, has no mouse.)

172.71.146.198 at 19:21, 19 September 2023

172.71.146.199 at 19:21, 19 September 2023

172.71.146.213: /* Explanation */ correct tense

172.70.211.92: /*The last explanation implied going from the bottom up, which was confusing. I expanded the interpretation which verifies the "no solution" answer via supertask. I know it's long, but I can't shorten it. I hope it's an interesting contribution! Tysm!*/

172.71.158.216: Footnote category

Jacky720: Reverted edits by Xray Kilo Charlie Delta (talk) to last revision by Vandalbane

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Vandalbane: Reverted vandalism with User:CRLF/OneClickUndo.js

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: haha your js cant stop my js

172.70.90.221: It's officially identified as Title Text, around here. If you change this, you'd need to change almost every Explanation page, and possibly one or more templates. (And the device I'm on, here, has no mouse.)

172.70.211.92: /The last explanation implied going from the bottom up, which was confusing. I expanded the interpretation which verifies the "no solution" answer via supertask. I know it's long, but I can't shorten it. I hope it's an interesting contribution! Tysm!/