Talk:1632: Palindrome

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 17:10, 20 January 2016 by 162.158.152.65 (talk) (A god)
Jump to: navigation, search

> Megan (i.e. Randall) has created a much longer palindrome based on this original

Seems Randall didn't create the palindrome, which is also found in a forum posting on The Return of Talking Time dated May 14, 2012:

View Single Post

... unless of course that user was Randall.

141.101.64.191 08:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That does not seem likely. If the user invented the palindrome is of course also impossible to say, but it seems unlikely that Randall created it. I have corrected the explanation accordingly. --Kynde (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


I found the centre of the very long palindrome that was linked to, it's the 'e' in "Hehre" which only occurs once in that 17826 word monstrousity. Easy to control F.

Edit: first e. Not second one.

--108.162.245.149 09:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have the palindrome written forwards, without spaces, capitalised, reversed etc etc etc. --Pudder (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I deleted most useless versions. Sorry, Nick818 [1] 108.162.221.13 12:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is another method to construct palindromes of arbitrary length: If X is a palindrome, then "'X' sides reversed is 'X'" is a palindrome, too. --162.158.91.215 10:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

if 'nam is an abbreviation of Vietnam, shouldn't it be capitalised? if it isn't, what is it an abbreviation of? --141.101.106.161 12:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A god

I think it should be "a god's 'Nam tables" because "God" means "the only god" and "a god" is one of many. 108.162.221.13 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"It felt like a Napoleon's Waterloo." You'll need a high-ranking grammar nazi to explain how this works exactly, though. 162.158.114.138 16:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The (grammatical) contexts are different. "Waterloo" is the name of a city, it doesn't refer to any concept so it can never be a general noun, only ever a proper noun. God however works differently, as a general noun it refers to a deity ("Zeus is a god") but as a proper noun it refers to the Abrahamic god (diversely called in different languages and religions). This isn't to say you could never use capital God when following "a". If you are referring to a god of a Judaic religion or an interpretation of God as in "In Christianity and Judaism we find a different God", then you would be right. You might also use a capitalised plural in sentences like "Yaweh is one of many Gods" (again the meaning is "interpretation of God"), much as I could say I am one of many "Marios" on this earth, however this usage requires a bit of a grammatical juggling act, and some prescriptivists might not accept it.
This is all nice and well if you consider God a proper noun (again like Jack or Yaweh) but the reasoning may completely fall apart if you consider the capitalisation as a simple honorific form. The latter interpretation is however unlikely given the usage of God in the English language. To elaborate: if you try to replace God as used in some expressions with some general noun like "guy" as referring to a certain predetermined person, you will find that in some cases a reasonable substitution would be "the guy" rather than simply "guy": e.g.: "God is all forgiving" --> "The guy is all forgiving" ("Guy is all forgiving" seems to refer to a person named Guy, rather than to a specific guy, which corroborates the proper-noun thesis).
(Very sorry for the rant. Just a grammar Nazi sergeant, some things may be wrong or up for debate) 162.158.152.65 17:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
In the trivia it mentions that there is a comma between the nam and tables in the original(?) post, and by the way 'Nam is capitalized there. So is it then God's Vietnam? --Kynde (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)