Difference between revisions of "Talk:2903: Earth/Venus Venn Diagram"
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
- But a Venn diagram is about logical relations, so the shapes and sizes of the areas are irrelevant. To me, that's the whole point of the joke, that it's really hard to see a drawing of round planets when your mind is trained to see a drawing of abstract logical relations under the title "Earth/Venus Venn Diagram". (Like, I stared at the comic blankly for minutes, thinking, why the heck should Earth and Venus only have shock waves and impact ejecta in common...) [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 16:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC) | - But a Venn diagram is about logical relations, so the shapes and sizes of the areas are irrelevant. To me, that's the whole point of the joke, that it's really hard to see a drawing of round planets when your mind is trained to see a drawing of abstract logical relations under the title "Earth/Venus Venn Diagram". (Like, I stared at the comic blankly for minutes, thinking, why the heck should Earth and Venus only have shock waves and impact ejecta in common...) [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 16:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
:The fact that Venus and Earth have, in a fact-only reading, potentially more things in common isn't really an issue. That would presuppose that Venn and/or Euler diagrams must show everything possible in any given (possibly composite) region. Although the Venn must have a sub-region for every possible combination of possibilities (or none), and the Euler must have one for every combination (of featured sets) that has an item requiring placing, you don't need to place every possible entity anywhere it can be. (You ''can'', by logic, e.g. the subsets A-and-not-B, B-and-not-A, A-and-B and neither-A-nor-B in an A+B diagram, but even then you don't need to give C and not-C additional). Something that might feature in both Earth and Venus (logically, like... solar neutrinos? the remains of some of earth's spacecraft?) could be placed there, but we also don't list all the things in neither (ice volcanos, the Greater Magellanic Cloud, colourless green ideas sleeping furiously) in the surrounding not-either space. | :The fact that Venus and Earth have, in a fact-only reading, potentially more things in common isn't really an issue. That would presuppose that Venn and/or Euler diagrams must show everything possible in any given (possibly composite) region. Although the Venn must have a sub-region for every possible combination of possibilities (or none), and the Euler must have one for every combination (of featured sets) that has an item requiring placing, you don't need to place every possible entity anywhere it can be. (You ''can'', by logic, e.g. the subsets A-and-not-B, B-and-not-A, A-and-B and neither-A-nor-B in an A+B diagram, but even then you don't need to give C and not-C additional). Something that might feature in both Earth and Venus (logically, like... solar neutrinos? the remains of some of earth's spacecraft?) could be placed there, but we also don't list all the things in neither (ice volcanos, the Greater Magellanic Cloud, colourless green ideas sleeping furiously) in the surrounding not-either space. | ||
| + | ::ok, I get it, I should have written, "why should Earth and Venus' ''most relevant'' commonalities be shock waves etc." [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
:Anyway, this is more a case of the joke. You see a diagram, perhaps others see a representation of a collision (and argue that the shockwave is probably not confined to the combined "volume that was" of both bodies, and impact ejecta is probably jetting out of the collision zone (well into space, and some is probably raining down on the 'safe' edges of the respective planets - all in all just adding to the current problems, though it's doubtful that it changes the ultimate fate of everyone, or not, if they have sturdy enough umbrellas). And it works (FCVO 'work') for both viewpoints. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.220|172.70.90.220]] 19:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) | :Anyway, this is more a case of the joke. You see a diagram, perhaps others see a representation of a collision (and argue that the shockwave is probably not confined to the combined "volume that was" of both bodies, and impact ejecta is probably jetting out of the collision zone (well into space, and some is probably raining down on the 'safe' edges of the respective planets - all in all just adding to the current problems, though it's doubtful that it changes the ultimate fate of everyone, or not, if they have sturdy enough umbrellas). And it works (FCVO 'work') for both viewpoints. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.220|172.70.90.220]] 19:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I don't see how this answers my point, so I edited the explanation to clarify the difference between the illustration of an Earth/Venus collision and the representation of Earth/Venus logical relations. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 15:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:00, 13 March 2024
See also 2721: Euler Diagrams 108.162.245.49 07:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this also a sexual innuendo? I mean... shock waves producing ejecta? Venus? anyone? 162.158.189.33 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Sure, as always it is only mentioned, whenever there is not a sexual innuendo by scientists, as collisions and planets and diagrams turn them on. Sebastian --172.68.110.65 11:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is really funny. But no there is no sexual reference in a collision between planets. What is in the middle is what would happen in the collision zone. Venus is the name of a planet here... --Kynde (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- All a matter of perspective - depends how Earthy your interpretation is.172.71.242.176 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is really funny. But no there is no sexual reference in a collision between planets. What is in the middle is what would happen in the collision zone. Venus is the name of a planet here... --Kynde (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Rename the "Venus" circle to "Theia" and you get The Giant-impact hypothesis for the creation of the Moon. Meteo (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't get this at first, but I broke down laughing once I did, I can't quite pinpoint why but this is top tier xkcd right here. Terdragontra (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The "Citation Needed" on "This Would Be Dangerous" is killing me. OmniDoom (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Minor update, just read 285: Wikipedian Protester and that just makes everything even better. OmniDoom (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
who tf keeps vandalising this place--162.158.74.24 11:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- idk, but it's not funny. --1234231587678 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- fr. like, JUST STOP IT ITS USELESS AND ANNOYING 42.book.addict (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The Venn diagram explanation sounds flawed: "As a Venn diagram, it shows that there is a region of one sphere that is still recognizably Earth, a region of the other that is still recognizably Venus, and a region common to both that consists of "shockwaves and production of impact ejecta," and that this area of overlap is now neither Earth nor Venus, but an intermingled combination of the two."
- But a Venn diagram is about logical relations, so the shapes and sizes of the areas are irrelevant. To me, that's the whole point of the joke, that it's really hard to see a drawing of round planets when your mind is trained to see a drawing of abstract logical relations under the title "Earth/Venus Venn Diagram". (Like, I stared at the comic blankly for minutes, thinking, why the heck should Earth and Venus only have shock waves and impact ejecta in common...) Transgalactic (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that Venus and Earth have, in a fact-only reading, potentially more things in common isn't really an issue. That would presuppose that Venn and/or Euler diagrams must show everything possible in any given (possibly composite) region. Although the Venn must have a sub-region for every possible combination of possibilities (or none), and the Euler must have one for every combination (of featured sets) that has an item requiring placing, you don't need to place every possible entity anywhere it can be. (You can, by logic, e.g. the subsets A-and-not-B, B-and-not-A, A-and-B and neither-A-nor-B in an A+B diagram, but even then you don't need to give C and not-C additional). Something that might feature in both Earth and Venus (logically, like... solar neutrinos? the remains of some of earth's spacecraft?) could be placed there, but we also don't list all the things in neither (ice volcanos, the Greater Magellanic Cloud, colourless green ideas sleeping furiously) in the surrounding not-either space.
- ok, I get it, I should have written, "why should Earth and Venus' most relevant commonalities be shock waves etc." Transgalactic (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Anyway, this is more a case of the joke. You see a diagram, perhaps others see a representation of a collision (and argue that the shockwave is probably not confined to the combined "volume that was" of both bodies, and impact ejecta is probably jetting out of the collision zone (well into space, and some is probably raining down on the 'safe' edges of the respective planets - all in all just adding to the current problems, though it's doubtful that it changes the ultimate fate of everyone, or not, if they have sturdy enough umbrellas). And it works (FCVO 'work') for both viewpoints. 172.70.90.220 19:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how this answers my point, so I edited the explanation to clarify the difference between the illustration of an Earth/Venus collision and the representation of Earth/Venus logical relations. Transgalactic (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
