1381: Margin - Revision history

2001:14BA:A070:6700:DBA:3E5B:A7A8:17BF: /* Explanation */

2025-08-01T17:59:12Z

‎Explanation

2001:14BA:A070:6700:DBA:3E5B:A7A8:17BF: No reason to assume the author is male

2025-08-01T17:52:37Z

No reason to assume the author is male

ThatGuyDavid09: /* Explanation */ Modified link for non-constructive proof to link to correct wikipedia page

2022-10-25T18:08:33Z

‎Explanation: Modified link for non-constructive proof to link to correct wikipedia page

Jacky720: rv

2022-05-04T23:43:56Z

Show changes

Ex Kay Cee Dee at 23:43, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T23:43:53Z

Show changes

Jacky720: rv

2022-05-04T21:10:09Z

Show changes

Ex Kay Cee Dee at 20:16, 4 May 2022

2022-05-04T20:16:06Z

Show changes

172.70.130.161: Undo revision 234033 by X. K. C. D. (talk)

2022-05-04T02:13:09Z

Undo revision 234033 by X. K. C. D. (talk)

Show changes

X. K. C. D. at 22:55, 3 May 2022

2022-05-03T22:55:22Z

Show changes

172.69.216.135: add to "comics with lowercase text" category

2021-11-27T23:28:37Z

add to "comics with lowercase text" category

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 What it seems they did not realize, is that it would be impossible to read the proof if the writer actually was able to compress their proof to fit in the margin. This is because you would need to know the algorithm described in the proof before you could decompress the proof text so you can read it. So they could actually have used this trick instead, writing that they had compressed it into - say a dot "'''.'''" - and then people would have to find his proof to read it. And since they cannot find such a proof - they could not check their dot. Unfortunately this would also have backfired - because there is already a {{w|Pigeonhole principle#Uses and applications|proof that this is not possible}}!
-Another thing that he probably didn't realize, is that finding a proof for something being possible does not necessarily mean inventing an actual algorithm to do that particular thing. If the person claimed having found a {{w|Existence theorem|non-constructive proof}} for such an algorithm, his statement at least wouldn't contradict itself.
+Another thing that they probably didn't realize, is that finding a proof for something being possible does not necessarily mean inventing an actual algorithm to do that particular thing. If the person claimed having found a {{w|Existence theorem|non-constructive proof}} for such an algorithm, their statement at least wouldn't contradict itself.
 The title text, yet another [[:Category:Protip|protip]], makes a reference to the {{w|Shannon–Hartley theorem}}, which limits the maximum rate at which information can be transmitted. Setting the font size of text only changes its ''representation'' on the screen, and not the actual characters themselves. Trying to decrease the amount of space needed to store or transmit it like advised would be nonsensical. Another possible interpretation is that if you set the font size to 0, the text cannot be seen, and therefore, nothing is being transmitted period.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 This is a reference to {{w|Fermat's Last Theorem}}, of which {{w|Pierre de Fermat}} claimed he had a proof that was too large to fit in the margin of a copy of ''{{w|Arithmetica}}''. Despite its simple formulation, the problem remained unsolved for three centuries; it was cracked only with advanced techniques developed in the 20th century, leading many to believe that Fermat didn't actually possess {{w|Fermat's Last Theorem#Fermat's conjecture|a (correct) proof}} (see [[#trivia|trivia]]).
-In the comic, the person writing in the margin attempts to pull a similar trick, without actually having any proof, by claiming that he has found a proof that information is infinitely compressible, but pretending not to be able to show it due to lack of space in the margin. In this particular case, however, this approach backfires, precisely because if information was actually infinitely compressible, the writer ''would'' be able to fit the proof in the margin (due to his own proof). The writer realizes that if he had a proof he should be able to fit it into the margin, and thus he realizes that he cannot pull this trick. Or perhaps the writer really thought he had a proof, but then realized that his statement was a counterexample, and was disappointed that his idea for a proof was wrong.
+In the comic, the person writing in the margin attempts to pull a similar trick, without actually having any proof, by claiming that they have found a proof that information is infinitely compressible, but pretending not to be able to show it due to lack of space in the margin. In this particular case, however, this approach backfires, precisely because if information was actually infinitely compressible, the writer ''would'' be able to fit the proof in the margin (due to his own proof). The writer realizes that if they had a proof, they should be able to fit it into the margin, and thus they realize that they cannot pull this trick. Or perhaps the writer really thought they had a proof, but then realized that their statement was a counterexample, and was disappointed that their idea for a proof was wrong.
-What it seems he did not realize, is that it would be impossible to read the proof if the writer actually was able to compress his proof to fit in the margin. This is because you would need to know the algorithm described in the proof before you could decompress the proof text so you can read it. So he could actually have used this trick instead, writing that he had compressed it into - say a dot "'''.'''" - and then people would have to find his proof to read it. And since they cannot find such a proof - they could not check his dot. Unfortunately this would also have backfired - because there is already a {{w|Pigeonhole principle#Uses and applications|proof that this is not possible}}!
+What it seems they did not realize, is that it would be impossible to read the proof if the writer actually was able to compress their proof to fit in the margin. This is because you would need to know the algorithm described in the proof before you could decompress the proof text so you can read it. So they could actually have used this trick instead, writing that they had compressed it into - say a dot "'''.'''" - and then people would have to find his proof to read it. And since they cannot find such a proof - they could not check their dot. Unfortunately this would also have backfired - because there is already a {{w|Pigeonhole principle#Uses and applications|proof that this is not possible}}!
 Another thing that he probably didn't realize, is that finding a proof for something being possible does not necessarily mean inventing an actual algorithm to do that particular thing. If the person claimed having found a {{w|Existence theorem|non-constructive proof}} for such an algorithm, his statement at least wouldn't contradict itself.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 What it seems he did not realize, is that it would be impossible to read the proof if the writer actually was able to compress his proof to fit in the margin. This is because you would need to know the algorithm described in the proof before you could decompress the proof text so you can read it. So he could actually have used this trick instead, writing that he had compressed it into - say a dot "'''.'''" - and then people would have to find his proof to read it. And since they cannot find such a proof - they could not check his dot. Unfortunately this would also have backfired - because there is already a {{w|Pigeonhole principle#Uses and applications|proof that this is not possible}}!
-Another thing that he probably didn't realize, is that finding a proof for something being possible does not necessarily mean inventing an actual algorithm to do that particular thing. If the person claimed having found a {{w|Constructive proof|non-constructive proof}} for such an algorithm, his statement at least wouldn't contradict itself.
+Another thing that he probably didn't realize, is that finding a proof for something being possible does not necessarily mean inventing an actual algorithm to do that particular thing. If the person claimed having found a {{w|Existence theorem|non-constructive proof}} for such an algorithm, his statement at least wouldn't contradict itself.
 The title text, yet another [[:Category:Protip|protip]], makes a reference to the {{w|Shannon–Hartley theorem}}, which limits the maximum rate at which information can be transmitted. Setting the font size of text only changes its ''representation'' on the screen, and not the actual characters themselves. Trying to decrease the amount of space needed to store or transmit it like advised would be nonsensical. Another possible interpretation is that if you set the font size to 0, the text cannot be seen, and therefore, nothing is being transmitted period.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, 27 November 2021
Line 53:		Line 53:
	[[Category:Protip]]		[[Category:Protip]]
	[[Category:Math]]		[[Category:Math]]
		+	[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]]