Talk:2646: Minkowski Space

I still don't get it. 172.69.33.163 03:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely not in the top ten all-time funniest ever, but there are probably more than a few academic physicists it got a grin out of. 172.70.210.233 03:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I had any sort of dealing with Minkowski diagrams, but it definitely got me chuckling... I suppose you just have to appreciate Randall's particular slant. 172.70.86.10 04:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think checking in to Hilbert's Hotel provides any comfort at all. After all you are required to pack up your belongings and move to a new room a possibly infinite number of times, thus leaving you no chance to get any sleep. MAP (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and removed "The fugitives of the first ship may enjoy a more comfortable getaway if they check into Hilbert's Hotel." because the hotel paradox has nothing to do with Hilbert space or anything else in the comic. I also think the subsection should be removed as misleading, but I'm waiting on someone to perhaps proofread it as maybe it's just poorly drafted. 172.70.210.233 06:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If the pursuer knows what the prefered "move and insert" algorithm is (and 'arrival number(s)' used in that), then they can go immediately to the pursued's room, without bothering to book in themselves. So maybe that's a danger. But I'd rather be in a hotel room (that is an unknown one amongst a countably infinite whole) than in a quite obvious maybe-reachable tin can in the openness of space.

(And any given insertion of new residents needs only a single move at a time, no matter how many nested infinities of arrivals/transports/etc. So moving every now and then isn't so onerous, so long as housekeeping has an infinite number of staff to clean and prepare each new room each time, which they probably can with evenly distributed live-in staff alone.)

That said, it seems to be more the ubiquity of Hilbert in mathematical constructs than a direct link, him seemingly having an infinite number of fingers in an infinite number of infinite-pies. Probably no loss. 162.158.159.137 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

On position alone, "Closer?" could be Voice 1, "Reference" is Voice 2 (both from the cockpit) and "Tell" a new voice (from further behind, passenger/engineer?). Which matches (and adds to) the original dialogue, with Voice 2 being the experienced captain reacting to the more worried copilot/operator next to him, etc. Except that Voice 2 says "On my mark" but then their presumed "Mark" emits elsewhere (to leave room for the actual click, which I'd expect Voice 1 to make). I have sympathy with Randall, if he actually wanted to put this story down in accurate visuals and yet positionally keep to conventions (having a top-down reading experience) he'd need to either wrap speech-lines around the nose of the craft or (...might need some intermediate frame showing some 'acrobatic' drawing...) have the evading craft flip inverted for the current second frame. Could get more complex than 'necessary', just to leave us with less of a voice-ID mystery where it probably matters very little in the long run. 172.70.162.155 12:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)