Difference between revisions of "Talk:2541: Occam"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Female barber)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
This comic really reminds me of [[1505: Ontological Argument]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.70|172.70.35.70]] 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Bumpf
 
This comic really reminds me of [[1505: Ontological Argument]]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.70|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? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 17:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 
: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? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk: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. <Br />
 +
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:30, 14 November 2021


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)