2031: "Pie Charts"
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

 Posts: 113
 Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:36 am UTC
2031: "Pie Charts"
Title text: If you can't get your graphing tool to do the shading, just add some clip art of cosmologists discussing the unusual curvature of space in the area.
I'm trying to imagine what would it look like when the percentage doesn't add up to 100.
lexicum.net  my vocabulary learning platform
 Soupspoon
 You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
 Posts: 3882
 Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
 Location: 531
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
That'd be a PacMan Chart...
(Glad somebody else jumped on this,.Was worried I'd look like I was trying to hog the OPs this week!)
(Glad somebody else jumped on this,.Was worried I'd look like I was trying to hog the OPs this week!)

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:12 pm UTC
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
It seems like Randall put in his full 130% effort on this one.

 Posts: 391
 Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
If the numbers don't add up to 100, say the difference is the "margin of error".
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
A rising pie lifts all boats.
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
I think it's like with triangles; pie charts add up to more than 100% on positively curved surfaces, exactly 100% on flat ones, and less than 100% on negatively curved surfaces.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:
Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.
BoomFrog wrote:I still have no idea what town moody really looks like.
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
moody7277 wrote:I think it's like with triangles; pie charts add up to more than 100% on positively curved surfaces, exactly 100% on flat ones, and less than 100% on negatively curved surfaces.
That was my first thought too ... graph it on a sphere if they add up to more than 100%. Hadn't considered the geometry if they add up to less than 100%, but yeah, a negatively curved surface would do it. In fact, with sufficient negative curvature you could graph any nonzero positive sum without "wrinkling" the chart out of the surface.
What I'm not clear on is what the maximum sum could be on a positively curved surface. My intuition tells me it would depend the radius of the sphere. Like, if the chart spanned an entire hemisphere, you could do a pie chart with percentages that sum to 2πR, no? It gets kinda fuzzy if you go past one hemisphere. There probably some topology theorem that answers this question, but I try to avoid that branch of math.
 Soupspoon
 You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
 Posts: 3882
 Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
 Location: 531
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
FTFY Sum of internal boundary angles add up to>180° (or pi rads), but length of boundary (tending to circumference) is shorter than the 2.pi.r of a flat plan and areas likewise lower (whichever is the surrogate to percentage). Each centrepoint still has a full 360° around it, but have only five 60°worth elements and insist on making them adjoin around, you're starting to construct a dodecahedral corner.Heimhenge wrote:That was my first thought too ... graph it on a sphere if they add up tomoreless than 100%.
The other curvature handles more, 'rucking up' as per the comic, until you stretch it out into a hyperbolic plane of some kind.
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
What's This Foolishness? Reca!culate the percentages.
 MartianInvader
 Posts: 804
 Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
I always knew Randall could get hyperbolic at times, but this is getting ridiculous.
Other way around. Negatively curved surfaces grow faster, positively curved surfaces grow slower.
moody7277 wrote:I think it's like with triangles; pie charts add up to more than 100% on positively curved surfaces, exactly 100% on flat ones, and less than 100% on negatively curved surfaces.
Other way around. Negatively curved surfaces grow faster, positively curved surfaces grow slower.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!
 heuristically_alone
 Posts: 280
 Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
 Location: 37.2368078 and 115.80341870000001
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
I am just in awe at the beauty of the shadings in the right graph.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.
You can learn to levitate with just a little help.
:idea: = Surprised Cyclops
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
Soupspoon wrote:FTFY Sum of internal boundary angles add up to>180° (or pi rads), but length of boundary (tending to circumference) is shorter than the 2.pi.r of a flat plan and areas likewise lower (whichever is the surrogate to percentage). Each centrepoint still has a full 360° around it, but have only five 60°worth elements and insist on making them adjoin around, you're starting to construct a dodecahedral corner.Heimhenge wrote:That was my first thought too ... graph it on a sphere if they add up tomoreless than 100%.
The other curvature handles more, 'rucking up' as per the comic, until you stretch it out into a hyperbolic plane of some kind.
Now that you mention it, yeah I guess it depends on what geometric entity represents percentage. I was thinking "area" since circumference arc lengths and vertex angles would be meaningless. There might be some other measure that works ... maybe sum of the interior angles, or something like the Gaussian curvature. But I think area is the most intuitive, since on a normal flat pie chart area maps to percentage.
 Soupspoon
 You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
 Posts: 3882
 Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
 Location: 531
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
The area of a circle sector (the area bounded by two radii and a suitable perimeter arc between them) on flat space is proportional to the arclength (is proportional to the angle between the two radii at the centre).
You'd not be wrong in perceiving either area or thickness of angle as reflecting the relative values of two 'slices' (unless it's a deliberately informationadded variable radius version, of course).
For all practical purposes, though, percentages that don't add up to 100% are likely represented by either <2.pi.r of circumference or <pi.r² of area in equal measure of summed sectors, and those should lay down on a sphere if you're determined to make the sum of the 'pointy angles' add up to a full circle, rather than a PacMan.
You'd not be wrong in perceiving either area or thickness of angle as reflecting the relative values of two 'slices' (unless it's a deliberately informationadded variable radius version, of course).
Spoiler:
For all practical purposes, though, percentages that don't add up to 100% are likely represented by either <2.pi.r of circumference or <pi.r² of area in equal measure of summed sectors, and those should lay down on a sphere if you're determined to make the sum of the 'pointy angles' add up to a full circle, rather than a PacMan.
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/1448/
If your chart generates more confusion than clarity, consider including some sort of label.
"上下文很重要." is true, and relevant. However a viewer expecting English on this board would probably rather I type out "Context is very important." A chart showing a percent of some unindicated amount, rather than any of the indicated amounts, makes the same mistake.
Any of these as a title could provide enough context to a viewer that the percent is of some amount, perhaps indicated elsewhere but still it exists:
If your chart generates more confusion than clarity, consider including some sort of label.
"上下文很重要." is true, and relevant. However a viewer expecting English on this board would probably rather I type out "Context is very important." A chart showing a percent of some unindicated amount, rather than any of the indicated amounts, makes the same mistake.
Any of these as a title could provide enough context to a viewer that the percent is of some amount, perhaps indicated elsewhere but still it exists:
 "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Vendor"
 "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Event"
 "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Grade"
 "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Year"
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
Mix and match:
15% of charts ...
30% of charts ...
40% of charts ...
45% of charts ...
are deliberately misleading.
are utterly useless.
are of the wrong sort.
accurately depict useless information.
are designed to obfuscate.
15% of charts ...
30% of charts ...
40% of charts ...
45% of charts ...
are deliberately misleading.
are utterly useless.
are of the wrong sort.
accurately depict useless information.
are designed to obfuscate.
 Soupspoon
 You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
 Posts: 3882
 Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
 Location: 531
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
give an inappropriate number of data.
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
From the secret vaults,
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e33 picas."  keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters"  whatif #146, note 7
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e33 picas."  keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters"  whatif #146, note 7
 MartianInvader
 Posts: 804
 Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
Heimhenge wrote:
Now that you mention it, yeah I guess it depends on what geometric entity represents percentage. I was thinking "area" since circumference arc lengths and vertex angles would be meaningless. There might be some other measure that works ... maybe sum of the interior angles, or something like the Gaussian curvature. But I think area is the most intuitive, since on a normal flat pie chart area maps to percentage.
It doesn't matter. The area of a circle on the surface of a sphere is also less than its flat counterpart.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!
 SuicideJunkie
 Posts: 361
 Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
Area applies more to absolute values, while the angles indicate the fractions of the total.
This is apparent when you consider a big slice of a small pie and a small slice of a big pie in the same presentation.
In this case, the angles are still normal fractions of the total (15/130 for example), and the area of the implied 3d surface is 130 units. The area of the 2d projection should be 100 units, but isn't quite right in the example due to the handdrawn nature and the comic exaggeration.
For OCD health and safety reasons, the shading should be changed to be symmetrical and smooth as like a deployed parachute rather than a rumpled sheet.
This is apparent when you consider a big slice of a small pie and a small slice of a big pie in the same presentation.
In this case, the angles are still normal fractions of the total (15/130 for example), and the area of the implied 3d surface is 130 units. The area of the 2d projection should be 100 units, but isn't quite right in the example due to the handdrawn nature and the comic exaggeration.
For OCD health and safety reasons, the shading should be changed to be symmetrical and smooth as like a deployed parachute rather than a rumpled sheet.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26577
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"
It has to come to a point in the middle to be able to consistently represent the required quantities, though. If it were smooth, then the represented fractions would vary with the radius of the pie (relative to the radius of curvature).
The shape in the comic is actually flat (as in Euclidean) except for at the one point of discontinuity in the center. It's basically a cone, but with extra surface around it instead of missing surface.
The shape in the comic is actually flat (as in Euclidean) except for at the one point of discontinuity in the center. It's basically a cone, but with extra surface around it instead of missing surface.
Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: speising and 69 guests