0055: "Useless"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
pinkgothic
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:47 pm UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby pinkgothic » Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:44 pm UTC

tradiuz wrote:Image


I tend to look at ASK and think... yes, of course you should ask, that's always the best way to find a possible mate. ;)
Stuff: own scribblings; favourite mewsic: luxuria & @440; underrated game

User avatar
tradiuz
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:19 am UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby tradiuz » Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:07 am UTC

I only get an ASK of 1.2 (out of ten) with the girl I'm currently kissing (we're not dating, but that's because of distance). Also, the numbers seem to leave a small window for people to actually ask, they're either astronomically high, or sub 1. Also, what if she's in no relationship, and actively looking for a potential partner; would that make her R = 0 istead of 1?
All My Mushrooms wrote:I'm practicing abstinence until someone offers me sex.

AvalonXQ
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:45 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby AvalonXQ » Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:28 am UTC

pinkgothic wrote:
tradiuz wrote:Image


I tend to look at ASK and think... yes, of course you should ask, that's always the best way to find a possible mate. ;)


Precisely. When dealing with the possibility of a relationship, you're talking about ONE human being -- not an average or representative member of a pool of human beings. Individual people are unpredictable enough that equations dealing with populations or averages are pretty much useless.
When I chose to move such that the average education of the population dropped dramatically, putting me in a situation where the population is less desirable for me in terms of finding a mate, I shared my concerns with my father. He replied, "Sure, son, there are fewer women out here that you might be compatible with. Remember, though, that you're not trying to maximize your number of hits. You don't have to have a great relationship with every woman you date. You only have to find ONE that really works."
... he's a smart man.

pwnb0t
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:46 am UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby pwnb0t » Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:56 am UTC

This is the groom's (my) cake from my wedding that was December 29, 2007

unfortunately the cake maker didn't put xkcd.com at the bottom like I had requested (but I told everyone where it was from, no I didn't pass it off as my idea)
and apparently it's difficult to make actual infinity symbols on the fourier transform
All the engineers(/math/phys/etc) that came liked it and explained it to the laypeople

I was going to email this picture to Randall Munroe but I didn't exactly find a "Hey Buddy!" email address (only "business" ones)
I imagine he's busy, but I'd like it if he got to see it (since I was honoring (and advertising!) his awesome comic in a way).

The cake was good. (And this isn't a lie)

Image

Teelabrown
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:03 am UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Teelabrown » Mon May 05, 2008 3:05 am UTC

I think you are all missing the obvious. Take the inverse of cos and you get that cos of some unknown is love. I think that's about as deep as it gets, man. :shock:

natturner
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:49 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby natturner » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:31 am UTC

anyone notice that there should actually be a negative in the exponential of the fourier transform?

User avatar
ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby ConMan » Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:32 am UTC

natturner wrote:anyone notice that there should actually be a negative in the exponential of the fourier transform?


There are several equivalent formations of the Fourier transform, each with a corresponding inverse transform. Some move negative signs around, some use a 1/sqrt(2*pi) term in both while others use a single 1/(2*pi), and so forth. They all have different "nice" properties depending on the application.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

afireinside13t
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 4:18 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby afireinside13t » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:53 pm UTC

ConMan wrote:
natturner wrote:anyone notice that there should actually be a negative in the exponential of the fourier transform?


There are several equivalent formations of the Fourier transform, each with a corresponding inverse transform. Some move negative signs around, some use a 1/sqrt(2*pi) term in both while others use a single 1/(2*pi), and so forth. They all have different "nice" properties depending on the application.


This has always bothered me. Can't we all just say that the Fourier transform has a negative exponent and that the 2 Pi is in the exponent? I'm studying for my qualifying exam, and every professor uses a different convention.

TheNige
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

"Useless" Discussion

Postby TheNige » Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:37 pm UTC

In the spirit of the "Useless" comic, I offer the following:

∫ex = f (u)n

which, of course, reads that sex ... is fun. I hope I haven't violated any rules here with my first posting.

User avatar
Fledermen64
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:29 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Fledermen64 » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:11 pm UTC

Men its just a cardioid how hard could it be to solve for.
"I just want to say before I do this that I have no idea what I'm doing and I love you all very dearly. Ok lets light this bitch and hope for the best"
-Myself before a homemade 4th of July fireworks extravaganza

bluegenetic
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:46 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby bluegenetic » Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:58 am UTC

Love is blind. So if you perform any operations on it the operator can't see it...

User avatar
joedaka
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:10 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby joedaka » Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:46 pm UTC

Hey all,

here comes a complete and well structured solution by my friend and me. As it's a quite mathematical answer - and we felt forced to make it a nice LaTeX-made paper.
Have fun reading it :D
Attachments
xkcd55-2.pdf
Complete solution for XKCD 55
(61.64 KiB) Downloaded 406 times

ejleon
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:24 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby ejleon » Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:10 am UTC

joedaka wrote:Hey all,

here comes a complete and well structured solution by my friend and me. As it's a quite mathematical answer - and we felt forced to make it a nice LaTeX-made paper.
Have fun reading it :D


Could you possibly post the LaTeX source?

User avatar
joedaka
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:10 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby joedaka » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:43 pm UTC

ejleon wrote:Could you possibly post the LaTeX source?


Yea ... well - why soever - for what do you need it?

Here it is (made with LaTeX again ... :mrgreen: )
Attachments
xkcd55-2_print.pdf
source code of xkcd55-2.pdf
(34.09 KiB) Downloaded 177 times

chesterbr
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:49 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby chesterbr » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:54 pm UTC

Well, here is my take on the problem - if I didn't screw up with the calculations (which I typically do). Adapting the cardioid formula to a more heart-like shape led to a weird, but credible result. Tried the cosine, but I guess it could be done for the other formulas:

http://chester.blog.br/archives/2009/04 ... heart.html

NCY.Jay
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:05 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby NCY.Jay » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:54 am UTC

Hehe
I say:

Sin <3= ostensible/happenstance
Cos <3 = angler/hopeless
Tan <3 = officially/aerate

let me explain
sin= stated to be true when it may not be the case/ chance esp. when it results in something good.
cos= angler: a person who catches fish => poor hopeless fish
tan= officially/ make it possible to mix air with soil or water

xyko
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 9:18 pm UTC
Location: Curitiba, Brazil
Contact:

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby xyko » Tue May 26, 2009 11:17 pm UTC

Hum, the Fourier transform of love seams to be wrong.

If heart is

[math]\text{heart}(t)[/math]

so:

[math]\mathcal{F}\left\{\text{heart}(t)\right\} = \text{HEART}(\omega) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty} \! \text{Heart}(t) e^{i \omega t} dt[/math]

And the plus infinity formally should be placed with the plus signal.

Anyway, did you find some differential equation of love on "t" that you want to solve by using Fourier? Could you share it with us? Isn't a numerical method applicable? Or another kind of computer-based brute force solution? We may setup a cluster to work on it. The project may be called love@home.

Anyway[2], this topic name is denigrating the serious discussions we're trying to have here.

Cheese!
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:01 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Cheese! » Thu May 28, 2009 12:17 am UTC

tradiuz wrote:Here is an article that might propose the equation for finding a mate. It's not the equation for love, but it is a good step in the right direction.

Image


I don't like this equation at all, because it implies that the effect of being witty diminishes when the girl is hotter. I think it should be more like
W+(G+2.5Ay)/Ah - R^2/20=Ask
This would make more sense, though the limits of the function would have to be moved. (You would need an even higher number.)

xyko
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 9:18 pm UTC
Location: Curitiba, Brazil
Contact:

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby xyko » Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:43 pm UTC

So, the Fourier transform is wrong. You guys are ok with that?

Algrokoz
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:36 am UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Algrokoz » Sun May 02, 2010 2:15 am UTC

Lol you are all wrong. cosine <3 = sine <3 + pi. =)

xyko
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 9:18 pm UTC
Location: Curitiba, Brazil
Contact:

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby xyko » Sun May 02, 2010 9:31 pm UTC

Kinda... nope. [imath]cos \left( Love \right) = sin \left( Love - \frac{\pi}{2} \right)[/imath].

I was thinking about the discrete transform of the heart... I think there's a hope, if the we respect the Nyquist sampling principia of for love.

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby scarletmanuka » Fri May 07, 2010 8:45 am UTC

xyko wrote:Kinda... nope. [imath]cos \left( Love \right) = sin \left( Love - \frac{\pi}{2} \right)[/imath].


Another fail; you're out by a minus sign. [imath]cos \left(x\right) = sin \left(\frac{\pi}{2}-x\right)= -sin \left(x-\frac{\pi}{2}\right).[/imath]

xyko
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 9:18 pm UTC
Location: Curitiba, Brazil
Contact:

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby xyko » Fri May 07, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

You're quite right. Sorry.

User avatar
callili
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:45 pm UTC
Location: germany

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby callili » Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:17 am UTC


User avatar
RebeccaRGB
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:36 am UTC
Location: Lesbians Love Bluetooth
Contact:

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby RebeccaRGB » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:17 am UTC

When I learned about the equations for gravity (F_g = G m_1 m_2 / r^2) and electromagnetism (F_em = K q_1 q_2 / r^2) in AP Physics in high school, I came up with one for love: F_love = A ♥_1 ♥_2 / r^2.

Soon after, I found this quote from Albert Einstein: "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love."
Stephen Hawking: Great. The entire universe was destroyed.
Fry: Destroyed? Then where are we now?
Al Gore: I don't know. But I can darn well tell you where we're not—the universe!

sirKris
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:10 pm UTC

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby sirKris » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:17 pm UTC

What about using a cardoid function, a set of parametric functions, or an implicit curve to represent the heart? :D

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby scarletmanuka » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:33 pm UTC

sirKris wrote:What about using a cardoid function, a set of parametric functions, or an implicit curve to represent the heart? :D

Congratulations on totally missing the point.

RoeCocoa
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:39 pm UTC

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby RoeCocoa » Sun Jun 26, 2011 3:10 pm UTC

That wedding cake callili linked last September showed up on Cake Wrecks today: http://cakewrecks.blogspot.com/2011/06/sunday-sweets-geek-wedding-cakes.html

Here's the bakery's official page for the cake (with commentary and a two-tier version): http://blog.pinkcakebox.com/xkcd-comic-wedding-cake-2010-09-05.htm

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby SirMustapha » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:15 pm UTC

Fortunately they chose a good xkcd comic to make a cake about. Imagine a cake referencing the "you can't milk me right now. I'd have to be lactating" one.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: lets give this a go...

Postby addams » Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:13 am UTC

chiggs wrote:We start by noting that hollywood would teach us that love is the only true constant in the Universe (hey - a thousand heroes can' be wrong!). Using this we get immediately:

d/dx (love) = 0, and

[ [ 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ](love) = [ [ love 0 ] [ 0 love ] ]

Next, my mother always told me that "friendship is the root of love" and who am I to argue with my mother? So, although I can't pretend to understand how she derived it, I do know that:

sqrt(love) = friendship

For cos(love) I think we have to start with that old "sine" of love "it's in his kiss" as expounded by Cher. Next we note that to us men, women seem to go off on a tangent at random, while I'm sure women think the same of us. Using

cos(love) = sin(love)/tan(love) we get

cos(love) = kiss/women if you're a man and,

cos(love) = kiss/men if you're a woman

Which leaves is with the Fourier transform of a function f(t) into the love domain (which I won't try to write mathematically here). Clearly we can't really answer this unless given a particular function to transform, but whatever the answer is, being "transformed into the love domain" sounds like it must be good.

Colin.


Your work is good. I do not have the skill to do an assessment on the Math that got you there; But, I recognize the right answer when I see it.
You got the right answer.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

cdstelly
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:45 pm UTC

I've figured it out.

Postby cdstelly » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:47 pm UTC

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28x^2+%2B+y^2+-+1%29^3+-+%28x^2+*+y^3%29

[math](x^2 + y^2 - 1)^3 - (x^2 * y^3)[/math]

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby UniqueScreenname » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:58 am UTC

Well, everyone knows cos = acute/hypotenuse. So you need to divide a cute guy by bondage (hypote-noose).

Spoiler:
This is not my personal theory, just so you know. I have this shirt. That is my personal theory. No answer.
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

Monox D. I-Fly
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:49 am UTC
Location: Indonesia

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby Monox D. I-Fly » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:19 am UTC

Shouldn't the derivative equal zero?
Finally found one comic mentioning a Trading Card Game:
https://xkcd.com/696/

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:43 am UTC

It's really sweet that you think love is a constant, but I also kinda feel bad.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 753
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 0055: "Useless"

Postby somitomi » Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:14 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:It's really sweet that you think love is a constant, but I also kinda feel bad.

Wait, so love is a function of location? That's odd.
Avatar from Freddino
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord◯‐◯―


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests