Difference between revisions of "2541: Occam"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Link fix)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
This comic conflates three conceptual approaches. {{w|Occam's Razor}}, the {{w|Barber paradox}} and {{w|Murphy's Law}}.
 
This comic conflates three conceptual approaches. {{w|Occam's Razor}}, the {{w|Barber paradox}} and {{w|Murphy's Law}}.
  
Occam suggests that explanations should not add unnecessary entities (but be the 'simplest'). The '{{w|Philosophical razor|razor}}' is a principal that conceptually cuts away alternative explanations.
+
Occam's Razor suggests that explanations should not postulate more entities than necessary. It is often phrased as "the simplest explanation is usually correct". In philosophy a '{{w|Philosophical razor|razor}}' is a principle that conceptually cuts away alternative explanations.
  
The Barber Paradox is a puzzle, derived from {{w|Russell's paradox}}, in which a barber is expected to shave (with an in-universe razor) all men in his town who do not shave themselves. The question is whether he must/must not thus shave himself.
+
The Barber Paradox is a paradox, derived from {{w|Russell's paradox}}, in which a barber is known to shave (presumably with a physical razor) all men in his town who do not shave themselves, and none of the men who shave themselves. The paradox is whether the barber does or does not shave himself. One solution is for the barber not to be a man.
  
In the titletext, Murphy is invoked with the expectation that if anything can go wrong it will. Shaving with a {{w|Straight razor|cut-throat razor}} has failure modes including one explained by this name.
+
Megan invokes Occam's Razor with the words "the simplest explanation" as well as Occam's name, and goes on to propose a solution to who shaves the barber. (Her proposal does not resolve the paradox, as someone other than the barber would shave someone who doesn't shave himself.)
 +
 
 +
The titletext invokes Murphy's Law: the expectation that if anything can go wrong it will. Shaving with a {{w|Straight razor|cut-throat razor}} has failure modes including one explained by this name.
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==

Revision as of 21:23, 12 November 2021

Occam
Oh no, Murphy just picked up the razor.
Title text: Oh no, Murphy just picked up the razor.

Explanation

Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a BOT THAT ONLY CREATES ALL PAGES NOT MENTIONING ITSELF - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

This comic conflates three conceptual approaches. Occam's Razor, the Barber paradox and Murphy's Law.

Occam's Razor suggests that explanations should not postulate more entities than necessary. It is often phrased as "the simplest explanation is usually correct". In philosophy a 'razor' is a principle that conceptually cuts away alternative explanations.

The Barber Paradox is a paradox, derived from Russell's paradox, in which a barber is known to shave (presumably with a physical razor) all men in his town who do not shave themselves, and none of the men who shave themselves. The paradox is whether the barber does or does not shave himself. One solution is for the barber not to be a man.

Megan invokes Occam's Razor with the words "the simplest explanation" as well as Occam's name, and goes on to propose a solution to who shaves the barber. (Her proposal does not resolve the paradox, as someone other than the barber would shave someone who doesn't shave himself.)

The titletext invokes Murphy's Law: the expectation that if anything can go wrong it will. Shaving with a cut-throat razor has failure modes including one explained by this name.

Transcript

Ambox notice.png This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

[One panel. Megan and Cueball walking.]

Megan: The simplest explanation is that Occam shaves the barber.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

The minimalist nature of the cartoon seems appropriate to the subject. I think keeping the explanation simple would also be appropriate. My attempt was:

Combines  Occam's razor with the  barber paradox.  
The title text refers to  Murphy's law.

Which promptly was greatly expanded. 162.158.106.131 20:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Aye, sorry about that. I also thought I was minimalist (except for the different Incomplete-BOT-thing submitted, probably) and consciously overwrote you by my own 'from scratch' one after I got the inevitable edit-conflict. I might not have done, but I believe your explanation would have suffered later hyperverbiation by others, anyway, but mine covered at least one extra issue (the continuity of the razor throughout it all) that could postpone this. 172.70.162.57 20:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
No worries. "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" - Thoreau
"Why didn't he just say Simplify" - One of the panelists on Says You 162.158.106.131 20:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of the comic be "Razor", since that's the common concept? Barmar (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The highest likelihood (and funnier line) is that Peter (referring to The Peter Principle) grabs the razor. -- [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Benford may have something to say about the number of injuries he subsequently observes needing treatment, on any given day... 172.70.86.12 04:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This comic really reminds me of 1505: Ontological Argument. 172.70.35.70 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Bumpf

Megan and Cueball are walking similarly as that comic and 1315: Questions for God. But Megan's hair seemed to have thinned out in 1505. Was Randall's pen running low that day? Barmar (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I always thought that the simplest explanation for the Barber paradox, is that the barber is female, so she is not one of the men who does not shave themselves & there is no paradox.
ProphetZarquon (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we really needed to double the length of the Barber section, to mention it, though? I'm not sure the current phrasing is even precisely accurate to the classical phrasing of the paradox, yet... With precise phrasing, we presumably wouldn't need to specify that the Barber is not female?
ProphetZarquon (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think most people would know what “bad failure modes” are. (I certainly don’t.) Szeth Pancakes (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Rather than to fail-safe, it will fail-dangerous. A razor that fails-safe will just not shave as desired. One that fails-dangerous will perhaps cut more than the (un)desired beard and/or stubble. And now you know what "bad failure modes" means, do feel free to use as concise a phrasing as you think will suffice in its place.172.70.162.47 00:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There's another solution to the barber paradox - what if there are two barbers? Then they can shave each other. 172.70.85.155 14:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Then the barber still wouldn't be shaving himself, so according to the rules of the paradox, he would have to be shaving himself. Szeth Pancakes (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
And the second barber only shaves those who do shave themselves, then he'll in turn have a limited (or at least ad-hoc) clientelle, that validly could or could not include himself (but if it does, then that firmly disqualifies him from Barber 1's attentions).
Though the age-old aphorism is that in visiting a town with just two barbers, if you know nothing else it's best to try to use the one with the less neat haircut, overall, as they should have been the one who more skillfully cut the hair of their better-looking compatriot. 172.70.91.36 00:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)