Difference between revisions of "3213: Dental Formulas"
(transcript) |
m (The news company fired me, so…) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
| − | {{incomplete|This page was created | + | {{incomplete|This page was created by your new dentist, who has a pure math background. Don't remove this notice too soon.}} |
| − | A {{w|dental formula}} specifies the number of teeth of each type on each side of the jaw, with dots separating the numbers. There are two rows, representing the upper and lower jaw, separated by a horizontal line. The number of incisors is indicated first, canines second, premolars third, and finally molars, so the formula in the comic would represent 3 incisors, 1 canine, 3 premolars, and 1 molar on each side of the upper jaw, and equal numbers in the lower jaw except only 2 premolars. | + | A {{w|dental formula}} specifies the number of teeth of each type on each side of the jaw, with dots separating the numbers. There are two rows, representing the upper and lower jaw, separated by a horizontal line. The number of incisors is indicated first, canines second, premolars third, and finally molars, so the formula in the comic would represent 3 incisors, 1 canine, 3 premolars, and 1 molar on each side of the upper jaw, and equal numbers in the lower jaw except only 2 premolars. This is the dental formula for the {{w|Felidae|cat family}}. The adult human dental formula is 2.1.2.3 for both the upper and lower jaw. |
| − | Cueball is (wrongly) treating a dental formula as an arithmetic expression, with the line indicating division and the dots indicating multiplication. In the title text | + | Cueball is (wrongly) treating a dental formula as an arithmetic expression, with the line indicating division and the dots indicating multiplication. In the title text his statement that half the formulae are undefined refers to animals that lack one of the four types of teeth in the lower jaw, leading to a zero in the "denominator" of the dental formula and an undefined division expression. He also notes that the "dots are too low", as in fact the dots in a dental formula are {{w|Full stop|period characters}} and aren't meant to imply multiplication, which uses {{w|Interpunct#In_mathematics_and_science|middle dot}} characters. |
| + | |||
| + | 'Mammologists' is also misused; the correct term is mamm''a''logists. Mammologists study human breasts specifically, usually in a medical context. This may be a deliberate nod towards Cueball not understanding what he's looking at, or may simply be a mistake. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}} | {{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}} | ||
| − | :[Cueball and Megan are standing in front of a whiteboard, on which is written | + | :[ [[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] are standing in front of a whiteboard, on which is written |
::<u>3.1.3.1</u><br>3.1.2.1 | ::<u>3.1.3.1</u><br>3.1.2.1 | ||
:along with some other scribbles. | :along with some other scribbles. | ||
:Underneath the panel is the caption, "Mathematicians encounter dental formulas".] | :Underneath the panel is the caption, "Mathematicians encounter dental formulas".] | ||
| − | Cueball: Do | + | Cueball: Do mammologists think these are hard? |
Cueball: I mean this one just evaluates to 3/2. | Cueball: I mean this one just evaluates to 3/2. | ||
{{comic discussion}}<noinclude> | {{comic discussion}}<noinclude> | ||
Revision as of 00:51, 28 February 2026
| Dental Formulas |
 Title text: I mean, half of these are undefined. And your multiplication dots are too low; they look like decimal points. |
Explanation
|
This is one of 70 incomplete explanations: This page was created by your new dentist, who has a pure math background. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page! |
A dental formula specifies the number of teeth of each type on each side of the jaw, with dots separating the numbers. There are two rows, representing the upper and lower jaw, separated by a horizontal line. The number of incisors is indicated first, canines second, premolars third, and finally molars, so the formula in the comic would represent 3 incisors, 1 canine, 3 premolars, and 1 molar on each side of the upper jaw, and equal numbers in the lower jaw except only 2 premolars. This is the dental formula for the cat family. The adult human dental formula is 2.1.2.3 for both the upper and lower jaw.
Cueball is (wrongly) treating a dental formula as an arithmetic expression, with the line indicating division and the dots indicating multiplication. In the title text his statement that half the formulae are undefined refers to animals that lack one of the four types of teeth in the lower jaw, leading to a zero in the "denominator" of the dental formula and an undefined division expression. He also notes that the "dots are too low", as in fact the dots in a dental formula are period characters and aren't meant to imply multiplication, which uses middle dot characters.
'Mammologists' is also misused; the correct term is mammalogists. Mammologists study human breasts specifically, usually in a medical context. This may be a deliberate nod towards Cueball not understanding what he's looking at, or may simply be a mistake.
Transcript
|
This is one of 46 incomplete transcripts: Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page! |
- [ Cueball and Megan are standing in front of a whiteboard, on which is written
- 3.1.3.1
3.1.2.1
- 3.1.3.1
- along with some other scribbles.
- Underneath the panel is the caption, "Mathematicians encounter dental formulas".]
Cueball: Do mammologists think these are hard?
Cueball: I mean this one just evaluates to 3/2.
Add comment 
Create topic (use sparingly) 
Refresh Discussion
First!AmethystSky14 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
The top left drawing is a tooth. Xkdvd (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
This confused me for a long time (partly due to the mammal/mammol thing) - I took them to be dentists. I'm now inferring that the counts are typical of a species rather than descriptive of an individual patient. Maybe the write up could make that more clear in case someone else as dumb as me passes by 2A00:23EE:10C8:110F:D992:D45:1C7A:DF02 guest
- "in case someone as dumb as me passes by" - that would be everyone, see Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb. 64.201.132.210 22:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Add comment
