Difference between revisions of "3213: Dental Formulas"
(transcript) |
(→Explanation: I had a dig around, and it seems like this was not a wrong word (c.f. "vermillion"/"vermiion" from the prior comic), just a broader non-tooth (and non-breast) specialisation that just *happens* to be using teeth-data.) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 7 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. |
| + | |||
| + | The word '{{wiktionary|mammologist}}' is an alternate spelling of '{{wiktionary|mammalogist}}', for one who studies mammals. Or, in some cases, specifically studying the mammaries (i.e. breasts) which mark out mammals in general. The specific study of teeth might be termed 'odontology', so we should assume that the experts who Cueball is referencing are not specifically tooth-focussed, merely using this particular specialism to help with their own particular, arguably far wider, brief that is not so entirely fixated solely upon ''any'' particular body parts. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
| Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
:[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 a drawing of a tooth and some other scribbles.] |
| − | |||
| − | Cueball: Do | + | :Cueball: Do mammologists think these are hard? |
| + | :Cueball: I mean this one just evaluates to 3/2. | ||
| − | + | :[Caption below the panel:] | |
| + | :Mathematicians encounter dental formulas | ||
{{comic discussion}}<noinclude> | {{comic discussion}}<noinclude> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Comics featuring Megan]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Biology]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Math]] | ||
Latest revision as of 01:28, 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[edit]
|
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.
The word 'mammologist' is an alternate spelling of 'mammalogist', for one who studies mammals. Or, in some cases, specifically studying the mammaries (i.e. breasts) which mark out mammals in general. The specific study of teeth might be termed 'odontology', so we should assume that the experts who Cueball is referencing are not specifically tooth-focussed, merely using this particular specialism to help with their own particular, arguably far wider, brief that is not so entirely fixated solely upon any particular body parts.
Transcript[edit]
|
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 a drawing of a tooth and some other scribbles.]
- Cueball: Do mammologists think these are hard?
- Cueball: I mean this one just evaluates to 3/2.
- [Caption below the panel:]
- Mathematicians encounter dental formulas
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)
- Yes, dental formulas are based on typical, not individual, dentition. In cases where it frequently varies (like humans with their unreliable wisdom teeth) you sometimes see a range. 70.40.90.209 02:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Add comment
