Editing 1162: Log Scale

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 21: Line 21:
 
The log scale can also be abused to make data look more uniform than it really is. On a log scale the energy density of uranium looks larger than that of the other materials, but not dramatically so. The joke is that if one wanted to make their point "properly," they would go ahead and use ridiculous amounts of paper to show the difference between bars using a linear scale; this method would focus more on the shock factor of the differences in question, and less on actual communication/representation of data. Cueball seems to be passionate about the MJ/kg of uranium, so he would rather demonstrate the grandeur of the data than use a more efficient scale.
 
The log scale can also be abused to make data look more uniform than it really is. On a log scale the energy density of uranium looks larger than that of the other materials, but not dramatically so. The joke is that if one wanted to make their point "properly," they would go ahead and use ridiculous amounts of paper to show the difference between bars using a linear scale; this method would focus more on the shock factor of the differences in question, and less on actual communication/representation of data. Cueball seems to be passionate about the MJ/kg of uranium, so he would rather demonstrate the grandeur of the data than use a more efficient scale.
  
See {{w|Logarithmic scale#Common uses|these examples}} for well known day-to-day measurements which are measured on a log-scale.
+
See {{w|Logarithmic scale#Common usages|these examples}} for well known day-to-day measurements which are measured on a log-scale.
  
 
The title text mentions computer scientist {{w|Donald Knuth}}; the fictional notation is a parody of {{w|Knuth's up-arrow notation}}. Using paper thickness as the basis for a log scale would probably give the exponential function a very large base. However, it can be noted that Knuth's up-arrow notation can handle numbers far, far larger than this paper stack notation; for example the number 3↑↑↑3, also known as Tritri<ref>https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Tritri</ref>, very compact in up-arrow notation, would require a number of iterations pinned to the stack on the order of several trillion. 3↑↑↑↑3 , also known as Grahal<ref> https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Grahal </ref>, would require a number of iterations that is not only too large to write down, but attempting to write that number using the same paper stack notation would require printing off a ''second'' stack of several trillion iterations just to hold the ''number'' pinned to the first stack. By repeating this multi-stack repetition, you reach the limit of up-arrow notation.
 
The title text mentions computer scientist {{w|Donald Knuth}}; the fictional notation is a parody of {{w|Knuth's up-arrow notation}}. Using paper thickness as the basis for a log scale would probably give the exponential function a very large base. However, it can be noted that Knuth's up-arrow notation can handle numbers far, far larger than this paper stack notation; for example the number 3↑↑↑3, also known as Tritri<ref>https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Tritri</ref>, very compact in up-arrow notation, would require a number of iterations pinned to the stack on the order of several trillion. 3↑↑↑↑3 , also known as Grahal<ref> https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Grahal </ref>, would require a number of iterations that is not only too large to write down, but attempting to write that number using the same paper stack notation would require printing off a ''second'' stack of several trillion iterations just to hold the ''number'' pinned to the first stack. By repeating this multi-stack repetition, you reach the limit of up-arrow notation.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)