6 ms·

Explain xkcd : It's cause you're dumb

29 points by aufreak3 16y ago

jcdreads 16y ago
There is also http://xkcdexplained.com/ http://xkcdexplained.com/
- rogerclark 16y ago
  XKCD Explained is much better -- because it has the right perspective; it's explaining the comics to people who already understand them, shitting on the author and his idiot audience. XKCD is a condescending comic whose audience revels in its own perceived superiority, while any self-respecting nerd with a real sense of humor knows that putting a science or technology reference in a cartoon is not a joke in itself.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    The main point for me, is that XKCD used to be funny, insightful and reasonably accessible. These days it rarely achieves all three. (Shame you're being down-voted, I suppose hell hath no fury like a nerd scorned ...)
  - dasil003 16y ago
    You're very wrong about XKCD. There's a whole slew of un-funny techy strips, "User Friendly" being the canonical example. XKCD by comparison is often hilarious. The fact that it requires inside knowledge and targets a specific audience does not automatically make it unfunny, nor does it make anyone who enjoys it "revel in their superiority".
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      perhaps rogerclark is referring to this comic alone; it indeed seems to offer a technical reference as the sole point of humor, at least in the final frame. Although I do enjoy frame 3 on its own merits.
      - dasil003 16y ago
        Grammatically that is clearly not what he meant unless he is not a native English speaker and thus not aware of the finer points of article usage, but I doubt that.
        lwhi 16y ago
        Oh my god. Irony is beautiful.
        dasil003 16y ago
        I don't think you know what irony means.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
xyzzyz 16y ago
I do not understand it. "If you want to be a hipster, you need to read xkcd, and if you do not get it, it is no problem, because we can explain it to you"? Come to think of it, maybe recent xkcd panels would amuse me more if I did not understand them.
dctoedt 16y ago
At the end of the post, the author says he doesn't get the King Solomon reference. It's to the story of the king's offering to resolve a dispute about which of two women was the mother of the child by cutting the baby in two. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Kings%203:16-28&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Kings%203:16-28...
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
chris_l 16y ago
From wikipedia: "Unlike most theorems in geometry, this result depends in a critical way on the axiom of choice". By "taking" the AoC the figure ended up making two pumpkins. Not really funny at all, I'm afraid.
ck2 16y ago
If you can cut something into infinite pieces and then reassemble it into two of the same object - you obviously have a rounding error where you are "rounding up" each fraction when it should not be! No?
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Banach%E2%80%... It works because, if you assume the axiom of choice, you can postulate "pathological" sets that don't have a mathematically well-defined volume. You can use this to backdoor volume changes, by cutting something with well-defined volume into a buncha pieces without a well-defined volume, then reassembling this into something with a different volume than the original. You can't get around this trick by redefining what it means to measure something: If you pick any reasonable definition, it must admit the Banach-Tarski paradox. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Non-measurable_set https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Non-measurabl... These pathological sets are too weird to exist in physical reality.
lmkg 16y ago
Here's what's going on with the Banach-Tarski paradox: First, in case this wasn't clear from the explanation, you have to carve the pumpkin into some very specific pieces in order to be able to re-assemble them into two pumpkins. In particular, you have to carve them into some pieces that are non-measurable sets, which basically means that the carving is so exotic that it is not possible to define a consistent concept of volume for these pieces. This is sort of the heart of the paradox: you get volume-preserving transformations to disobey preservation of volume by using intermediate steps with undefined volume. Non-measurable sets are not 100% legit in mathematics. Constructing them relies on the Axiom of Choice. I won't get into the debate about the Axiom of Choice, but suffice it to say that if you reject the Axiom of Choice, then the Banach-Tarski Paradox need not be true, and you can self-consistently reject the BTP if you are OK losing the AOC. The biblical reference from King Solomon is probably referring to the parable of splitting the baby. Two women came to King Solomon, each claiming to be the true mother of the baby. King Solomon suggested cutting it in half, in order to observe the claimants' reactions. The fake mother was ok with this, and the real mother would rather give up her child than see it killed, . XKCD suggests that King Solomon was actually attempting to use the Banach-Tarski paradox to create two babies.
- Dove 16y ago
  There's a bit more to the subtext than that. The Axiom of Choice sounds quite innocuous: If you have a bunch of sets, you can construct a new set by picking one element out of each of them. Turns out you can reason your way from that to "I can make any solid 3d object into any other solid 3d object just by cutting and rearranging the parts". (Banach-Tarski is often explained as the ability to turn one sphere into two, which is true, but the full implication is more along the lines of being able to rearrange a pea into the earth.) This is just one of many scary dragons that lurk in set theory. Historically speaking, Banach-Tarski is why the Axiom of Choice is controversial. The other (I forget, nine?) axioms in ZFC, garner a tepid response--along the lines of, "Hooray, someone axiomatized set theory." But AC remained controversial for a long, long time. I cannot find the quote, but there was a mathematician who refused to accept the Axiom of Choice, and when asked about it, commented, "It is because I do not believe one and one make three." He was referencing Banach-Tarski. That is the dilemma that has faced mathematicians historically: either reject something so innocuous as the Axiom of Choice or embrace something so nonsensical as the Banach-Tarski paradox. "Controversial" is putting it lightly; that's a hard decision. One still sees textbooks that flag all theorems depending on the axiom of choice, so you can reject them if you want to. I would say the field as a whole has come to embrace AC and accept Banach-Tarski; one of my professors one commented, "If we need the axiom of choice in this proof, we'll use it; why do mathematics with one arm tied behind your back?" I think this reflects the common attitude. But it wasn't an easy choice. And that's the joke. If the guy didn't want one pumpkin to equal two, he should have gone the other way and rejected AC. It is not unfair to characterize Banach-Tarski as the sorry consequence of something mathematicians really wanted to do -- collateral damage, the lesser evil. One could regret it.
bediger 16y ago
I thought the first panel was the funniest. "I carved a pumpkin" is true in at least two ways for the character, and untrue in the "This is not a pipe" Rene Magritte way.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Natsu 16y ago
I can't say that I've ever needed another website to explain this. If there's something I don't get, a quick visit to Google or Wikipedia usually fills in the rest and people in the comic thread even supply links to the relevant parts rather quickly. I have to say, though, that I'm surprised by how many people know Banach-Tarski, but who never heard the story about King Solomon threatening to cut the baby in two in order to discern who cared about its life the most (in other words, to find the real mother).

29 points by aufreak3 16y ago

jcdreads 16y ago

There is also http://xkcdexplained.com/ http://xkcdexplained.com/

rogerclark 16y ago
XKCD Explained is much better -- because it has the right perspective; it's explaining the comics to people who already understand them, shitting on the author and his idiot audience. XKCD is a condescending comic whose audience revels in its own perceived superiority, while any self-respecting nerd with a real sense of humor knows that putting a science or technology reference in a cartoon is not a joke in itself.
- lwhi 16y ago
  The main point for me, is that XKCD used to be funny, insightful and reasonably accessible. These days it rarely achieves all three. (Shame you're being down-voted, I suppose hell hath no fury like a nerd scorned ...)
- dasil003 16y ago
  You're very wrong about XKCD. There's a whole slew of un-funny techy strips, "User Friendly" being the canonical example. XKCD by comparison is often hilarious. The fact that it requires inside knowledge and targets a specific audience does not automatically make it unfunny, nor does it make anyone who enjoys it "revel in their superiority".
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    perhaps rogerclark is referring to this comic alone; it indeed seems to offer a technical reference as the sole point of humor, at least in the final frame. Although I do enjoy frame 3 on its own merits.
    - dasil003 16y ago
      Grammatically that is clearly not what he meant unless he is not a native English speaker and thus not aware of the finer points of article usage, but I doubt that.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        Oh my god. Irony is beautiful.
        dasil003 16y ago
        I don't think you know what irony means.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

xyzzyz 16y ago

I do not understand it. "If you want to be a hipster, you need to read xkcd, and if you do not get it, it is no problem, because we can explain it to you"? Come to think of it, maybe recent xkcd panels would amuse me more if I did not understand them.

dctoedt 16y ago

At the end of the post, the author says he doesn't get the King Solomon reference. It's to the story of the king's offering to resolve a dispute about which of two women was the mother of the child by cutting the baby in two. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Kings%203:16-28&version=NIV http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Kings%203:16-28...

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

chris_l 16y ago

From wikipedia: "Unlike most theorems in geometry, this result depends in a critical way on the axiom of choice". By "taking" the AoC the figure ended up making two pumpkins. Not really funny at all, I'm afraid.

ck2 16y ago

If you can cut something into infinite pieces and then reassemble it into two of the same object - you obviously have a rounding error where you are "rounding up" each fraction when it should not be! No?

cynicalkane 16y ago
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Banach%E2%80%... It works because, if you assume the axiom of choice, you can postulate "pathological" sets that don't have a mathematically well-defined volume. You can use this to backdoor volume changes, by cutting something with well-defined volume into a buncha pieces without a well-defined volume, then reassembling this into something with a different volume than the original. You can't get around this trick by redefining what it means to measure something: If you pick any reasonable definition, it must admit the Banach-Tarski paradox. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Non-measurable_set https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Non-measurabl... These pathological sets are too weird to exist in physical reality.

lmkg 16y ago

Here's what's going on with the Banach-Tarski paradox: First, in case this wasn't clear from the explanation, you have to carve the pumpkin into some very specific pieces in order to be able to re-assemble them into two pumpkins. In particular, you have to carve them into some pieces that are non-measurable sets, which basically means that the carving is so exotic that it is not possible to define a consistent concept of volume for these pieces. This is sort of the heart of the paradox: you get volume-preserving transformations to disobey preservation of volume by using intermediate steps with undefined volume. Non-measurable sets are not 100% legit in mathematics. Constructing them relies on the Axiom of Choice. I won't get into the debate about the Axiom of Choice, but suffice it to say that if you reject the Axiom of Choice, then the Banach-Tarski Paradox need not be true, and you can self-consistently reject the BTP if you are OK losing the AOC. The biblical reference from King Solomon is probably referring to the parable of splitting the baby. Two women came to King Solomon, each claiming to be the true mother of the baby. King Solomon suggested cutting it in half, in order to observe the claimants' reactions. The fake mother was ok with this, and the real mother would rather give up her child than see it killed, . XKCD suggests that King Solomon was actually attempting to use the Banach-Tarski paradox to create two babies.

Dove 16y ago
There's a bit more to the subtext than that. The Axiom of Choice sounds quite innocuous: If you have a bunch of sets, you can construct a new set by picking one element out of each of them. Turns out you can reason your way from that to "I can make any solid 3d object into any other solid 3d object just by cutting and rearranging the parts". (Banach-Tarski is often explained as the ability to turn one sphere into two, which is true, but the full implication is more along the lines of being able to rearrange a pea into the earth.) This is just one of many scary dragons that lurk in set theory. Historically speaking, Banach-Tarski is why the Axiom of Choice is controversial. The other (I forget, nine?) axioms in ZFC, garner a tepid response--along the lines of, "Hooray, someone axiomatized set theory." But AC remained controversial for a long, long time. I cannot find the quote, but there was a mathematician who refused to accept the Axiom of Choice, and when asked about it, commented, "It is because I do not believe one and one make three." He was referencing Banach-Tarski. That is the dilemma that has faced mathematicians historically: either reject something so innocuous as the Axiom of Choice or embrace something so nonsensical as the Banach-Tarski paradox. "Controversial" is putting it lightly; that's a hard decision. One still sees textbooks that flag all theorems depending on the axiom of choice, so you can reject them if you want to. I would say the field as a whole has come to embrace AC and accept Banach-Tarski; one of my professors one commented, "If we need the axiom of choice in this proof, we'll use it; why do mathematics with one arm tied behind your back?" I think this reflects the common attitude. But it wasn't an easy choice. And that's the joke. If the guy didn't want one pumpkin to equal two, he should have gone the other way and rejected AC. It is not unfair to characterize Banach-Tarski as the sorry consequence of something mathematicians really wanted to do -- collateral damage, the lesser evil. One could regret it.

bediger 16y ago

I thought the first panel was the funniest. "I carved a pumpkin" is true in at least two ways for the character, and untrue in the "This is not a pipe" Rene Magritte way.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Natsu 16y ago

I can't say that I've ever needed another website to explain this. If there's something I don't get, a quick visit to Google or Wikipedia usually fills in the rest and people in the comic thread even supply links to the relevant parts rather quickly. I have to say, though, that I'm surprised by how many people know Banach-Tarski, but who never heard the story about King Solomon threatening to cut the baby in two in order to discern who cared about its life the most (in other words, to find the real mother).