Editing Talk:1052: Every Major's Terrible

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

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 49: Line 49:
 
:Are you sure it is not just an illustration of Banach-Tarski, arguably the most  famous example where mathematical reality and (physical) intuition diverge? Why would the verse be illustrated by a bifurcation diagram (which I think, and I might be a bit ignorant here, is a concept pretty much only found in the "applied side" of mathematics, which ''is'' constrained by precepts of reality)? And even if it were a bifurcation diagram, why would the mass of the balls change? (again, I am perhaps showcasing my ignorance; if so, please be gentle) Finally, i would deem the bifurcation explanation a bit too obscure to be the real deal - a panel which is only understood by somewhat specialized mathematicians seems strange to me, especially given that all other frames contain understandable references. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.183|108.162.229.183]] 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 
:Are you sure it is not just an illustration of Banach-Tarski, arguably the most  famous example where mathematical reality and (physical) intuition diverge? Why would the verse be illustrated by a bifurcation diagram (which I think, and I might be a bit ignorant here, is a concept pretty much only found in the "applied side" of mathematics, which ''is'' constrained by precepts of reality)? And even if it were a bifurcation diagram, why would the mass of the balls change? (again, I am perhaps showcasing my ignorance; if so, please be gentle) Finally, i would deem the bifurcation explanation a bit too obscure to be the real deal - a panel which is only understood by somewhat specialized mathematicians seems strange to me, especially given that all other frames contain understandable references. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.183|108.162.229.183]] 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRexBMPeRTo[[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRexBMPeRTo[[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:That is distinctly a bifurcation diagram. Banach Tarski doesn't factor into this at all. Disagree-P 15:39, 20 Nov, 2020
 
  
  

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)

Template used on this page: