0622: "Haiku Proof"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Technical Ben » Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:08 pm UTC

lingomaniac88 wrote:I was thinking the same thing about "Top prime's divisors" not making sense, and I tried revising it myself. It turns out that my revision was almost same as Rabscuttle's; my first line was, "Product of all primes." But I think "Multiply all primes" sounds a lot better.

Does this work? I may have got my maths wrong, but I can only make it work for some primes/products of all primes? (Or does 1 not count?)


[Edit]
cellocgw wrote:Is it just me, or did anyone else see the title and think, "Cool: a comic about how to make yourself safe from people assaulting you with (bad) Haiku"?


Yes! :lol:
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

cparker15
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:13 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby cparker15 » Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:17 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Is it just me, or did anyone else see the title and think, "Cool: a comic about how to make yourself safe from people assaulting you with (bad) Haiku"?

It's not just you. This is also what I thought at first.

To be Haiku-proof
Safe from bad syllabic verse
How I yearn for that
Peter Gibbons wrote:I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

Bobsama
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:26 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Bobsama » Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:28 pm UTC

Randall should have saved this comic for #631. That's the next prime number, after all.

Raptor Jesus wrote:This is a haiku
Just Japanese poetry
Go buy a Honda


5, 7, and 5 for a haiku.

Homncruse
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 4:06 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Homncruse » Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:54 pm UTC

ysth wrote:Pretty sleep-deprived myself, I read "number of pirates" at first.


That also makes sense. There are an infinite number of pirates too - almost as many as there are prime numbers.

Arancaytar wrote:It's just a hallucination? Aw, I'd hoped that the sheer awesomeness of haiku mathematics conferred the power of flight.


I can't find the actual comic number which proves this, but the only reason why you don't fly is because you believe the laws of physics are real.

aslovensyrup
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:58 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby aslovensyrup » Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:08 pm UTC

This is as close as I could get, but at the expense of treating Q.E.D. as an acronym and not an initialism, so anyone reading it aloud would be immediately identified as an idiot, which might rather undermine the point...

Assume finite primes.
Product of 'em all, plus one.
Factors are...? QED, slag!


I came up with a bunch that don't seem to suffer such compromises. Here's my favorite so far

Primes end? Then factor
their product's successor. Hah!
Q.E.D. Bitches

kilor
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby kilor » Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:45 pm UTC

dissonant wrote:The argument works for any finite set of primes, not necessarily the first n. It is superfluous and false to state that any prime divisor of p1p2...pn+1 must be larger than pn. It even says this on the page you linked to. For example, consider {2,7}.


I must insist that this still isn't quite right. I think a correct and more precise statement would be that it's superfluous XOR false.

If p1...pn are the first n primes, then it's correct that any prime divisor of p1p2...pn+1 must be larger than pn because there are no smaller primes. It's just unnecessary because there's no need to specify that they're the first n primes.

If p1....pn are n arbitrary primes, then it is false because a prime divisor of p1p2...pn+1 could be greater than or less than pn.

Lerkistan
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:25 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Lerkistan » Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:06 pm UTC

eds01 wrote:A syllable can be so much longer than a mora that it really makes zero sense to equivocate them for the haiku.


moras make no sense
in languages like english
so redefine it...

Really, since there can only be japanese mora-definition haikus, why wouldn't we redefine it to work with languages we can understand?

Of course, the above is still a bad haiku because line 1&2 are more like 12 syllables with a random carriage return between them.

hobs
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:40 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby hobs » Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:41 pm UTC

I figured out the issue you take out the word divisor's and move an apostrophe
This proof is correct if you interpret Top, as All the Top Primes starting at 2:

Top Primes' Product (plus one)'s Factors Are.

I guess actually, if you are charitable, you could say that it is correct as is, if you parse the sentence this way

(Top Primes' Divisors) Product (plus one)'s Factors Are.

Where a Prime's Divisor is just itself (1 normally is not counted, so Primes Divisor reduces to Primes and the proof is still correct)

Ben

--
http://www.benho.org

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby neoliminal » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:26 pm UTC

Most american's simply do not know how to make a Japanese haiku. Sat really since there's an 'AI' right in the middle of haiku.

Real haiku reference the season, for example.

But being a poet just makes me sad so I'd rather post about how all your attempts at haiku are sad too.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]

togo1960
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:44 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby togo1960 » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:37 pm UTC

disq wrote:
Deciheximal wrote:. . .

And what you wrote peters out at 13. 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 = 30030 + 1 = 30031. 30031 divides by 59 and 509.


30031 is not a prime, yes, but that's how it was instructed in the comic. (30029 is a prime, however)


The point isn't whether 30031 is prime. The point is that, if it isn't prime, it will only be divisible by larger factors than those used to calculate it, which will result in a larger set of primes than you started with. This will be true for every continuous finite set of primes p1 . . . pn with which you might start, thus ultimately the set of all primes must be infinite (though it is, of course, a subset of all real numbers, scrambling many people's concept of what it means for a set to be infinite).

kafkadog
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:42 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby kafkadog » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:50 pm UTC

aslovensyrup wrote:I came up with a bunch that don't seem to suffer such compromises. Here's my favorite so far

Primes end? Then factor
their product's successor. Hah!
Q.E.D. Bitches

That's excellent!

My first post. That was the hardest captcha I've ever had to do. And I see another first-time poster just beat me to the observation that changing "prime's" to "primes' " makes it kinda work.

Spud Dastardly
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:45 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Spud Dastardly » Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:17 pm UTC

Alright my brother dug me out of my hollow to set people straight about the proof:

We assume there are finitely many primes p1...pn. We need only conclude that there exists a prime number NOT in that list, because that would disprove our original assumption that p1 through pn are all the primes (it can irk you all you want but this is how a proof by contradiction works).

So consider a number q = p1*p2*...*pn+1 and consider its prime factorization (There is a theorem that states that every number factors UNIQUELY into a product of primes, or is a prime number itself). If q is a prime itself we are done, we found a prime not in our list and therefore we disprove the original assumption.

If q is not a prime it must contain a factor supposedly in our list, call it pi. Then q/pi must be an integer, but we clearly see that q/pi = (p1*p2*...*pn + 1)/pi = p1*p2*...*pi-1*pi+1*...*pn + (1/pi), and since (p1*p2*...*pi-1*pi+1*...*pn) is just a product of integers and therefore an integer itself, and (1/pi) clearly is not an integer, we conclude that pi must have been a prime not in our list in order to divide q (that is to say, q/pi cannot be an integer if pi is part of the list). Therefore q is either a prime itself or contains factors not in our list of "all the primes".
QED bitches
Hope that provides some clarification :)

User avatar
Josephine
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Josephine » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:02 pm UTC

eds01 wrote:A haiku isn't 5-7-5 syllables, but 5-7-5 morae. The form of a haiku doesn't translate into english.

For example, a japanese haiku:
furu ike ya
kawazu tobikomu
mizu no oto

compare that to:
Three things are certain:
Death, taxes and lost data.
Guess which has occurred.

In particular, a mora is at most 3 letters long (in English letters), but generally 1 or 2. It's either a vowel, a consonant followed by a vowel, or an n (the only consonant which can be a mora on it's own). Oto, for example, is 2 morae - o and to. Tsu is one mora, and the mora with ts as the consonant are the only reason a mora could have more than 2 characters when represented in english.

A syllable can be so much longer than a mora that it really makes zero sense to equivocate them for the haiku.


But they are equivalent in sound. And that's what really matters. Otherwise, there's no equivalent in English that is that short. A mora is basically a syllable, and japanese has more rigid rules on what a mora is than english with syllables.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.

bugstomper
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:03 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby bugstomper » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:22 pm UTC

Lectures make me sleep.
When there, sleep deprivation
can never happen

If primes are finite
Multiply all and add one
What divides that sum?

bugstomper
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:03 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby bugstomper » Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

neoliminal wrote:Real haiku reference the season, for example


If, finite, all primes
multiply like hares in Spring
Add one. What divides?

User avatar
Linux0s
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Linux0s » Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:35 pm UTC

Iluvatar wrote:(I'm fairly certain Randall just thought up that last line and built a comic around it.)


That was my thought too, like the t-shirt of the last panel was already printed.
If the male mind truly were a machine it would consist of a shaft and a bushing.

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

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby SirMustapha » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:16 am UTC

Linux0s wrote:
Iluvatar wrote:(I'm fairly certain Randall just thought up that last line and built a comic around it.)


That was my thought too, like the t-shirt of the last panel was already printed.


The possibility that Randall's modus operandi is getting so banal disturbs my status as an xkcd follower.

I could try writing this post in haiku, but I see no point in counting syllables. Besides, I think the use of metre in poetry is usually to give a musical sense of rhythm to the poem, either to be read aloud or to be followed in the head. Internet haiku often has an awful, broken rhythm; I hate seeing language so torn apart just to fit the shape of a random, pointless même.

ioctl
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:49 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby ioctl » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:56 am UTC

InsanePyros wrote: Or more accurately, an aleph-0 number of infinities.


If you mean that there are an [imath]\aleph_0[/imath] number of cardinalities, then that is not correct; there are many, many more than that. The class of cardinalities is larger than any set, and cannot itself have a cardinality.

User avatar
ethereal_fire
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:42 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby ethereal_fire » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:17 am UTC

(sleep deprivation is setting in now, it took me a good ten minutes of staring blanking at the screen before remembering how to click the "post reply" button)

sorceror, you totaly made my night. Esspecially that last story. I can't say I ever hallucinated, that I remember, while being awake, but I do has a few memories of people falling asleep is class:

1) I had this teacher in highschool that when someone fell asleep in class he got the whole class to silently sneek out so that the kid woke up in an empty room. What was funnier though is when you were walking down the hall and watched this whole class pile out of a storage closet

2) Same teacher as above, would get bored when the class was silently working on stuff, and one day the whole classroom was quiet, and he just gets up, opens the door, wheels his chair out and then from outside you hear "One, Two, Three, WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE". There was a ramp outside the door (not really a sleep story at all but an amusing break of monotony.

3) My highschool philosphy teacher would get so into what he was teaching that he'd just keep going and going and going all excitedly waving his arms around and everything and drone on, and one day I remember it was putting me to sleep and I looked around and was one of 2 people awake in the whole class. I don't think he'd even noticed...

4) I was in this lecture once, (and it was at a Bible school of sorts) and speaker is going on about something then out of nowhere screams "HALLELUJAH!!!!!!" mid sentence. About 95% of the room jumped in surprise (including the person standing beside him who was translating, they really got a shock, lol) Then he just says "it looked like some of you were falling asleep" and continues on with his lecture. It was one of those you-had-to-be-there things maybe, but it was hillarious.


They aren't that great of stories, but hey, I tried.
Be precise. Be creative. Be courageous. Be shameless. Be GISHWHES.

User avatar
arbivark
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 5:29 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby arbivark » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:25 am UTC

When the moon hits your
eye like a big pizza pie
that 's a morae.
Spoiler:
Image

mrkranky
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:38 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby mrkranky » Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:42 am UTC


hthall
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:40 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby hthall » Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:23 am UTC

nickbmx wrote:Assume finite primes.
Product of 'em all, plus one.
Factors are...? QED, slag!


How about this:

Assume finite primes.
Multiply; add one; factor.
Q.E.A., bitches!

Kisama wrote:Warui desu
Eigo no haiku
Kore mou, ne


Nice. Athough yes, frankly. But I'll grant you "haiku" itself as a summer kigo (more time to waste writing bad poetry while school's not in session, right?) and "ne" as your kireji, which mitigates its warusa.

cellocgw wrote:Is it just me, or did anyone else see the title and think, "Cool: a comic about how to make yourself safe from people assaulting you with (bad) Haiku"?


Yes.

eds01 wrote:A haiku isn't 5-7-5 syllables, but 5-7-5 morae. . . . A syllable can be so much longer than a mora that it really makes zero sense to equivocate them for the haiku.


Or to equate them, for that matter.
Look at me, still talking when there's Science to do.

pjt33
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:38 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby pjt33 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:17 am UTC

JulienW wrote:
revolutionx897 wrote:One proof that there's an infinite number of primes is to:
1- Assume a finite number of primes
2- Take the product of all primes (p1, p2,...,pn with p1 as the 1st prime and pn as the last) and add 1
3- This number cannot be divisible by any of the primes in the list, so it must either be prime or divisible by a prime larger than pn, and therefore the original assumption of a finite number of primes is invalid


In 3., isn't it "so it must either be prime or divisible by another prime" ? I can't think of a reason why the new prime would be larger, p1..pn aren't necessarely the first primes.


By definition, p1..pn are all the primes, so I'm not sure how they could fail to be the first primes.


meh1936 wrote:
dissonant wrote:
revolutionx897 wrote:One proof that there's an infinite number of primes is to:
1- Assume a finite number of primes
2- Take the product of all primes (p1, p2,...,pn with p1 as the 1st prime and pn as the last) and add 1
3- This number cannot be divisible by any of the primes in the list, so it must either be prime or divisible by a prime larger than pn, and therefore the original assumption of a finite number of primes is invalid

This seems to be the proof Randall is using, but I'm not exactly sure what the divisors part is meant to be. Bad wording?


The proof of the infinitude of the primes irks me more than any other! People always tack on a little superfluous (false) information right at the end, or even worse, just state that p1p2...pn+1 is prime.


It is necessary because it isn't superfluous/false information. p1p2...pn+1 isn't necessarily prime.

(2 × 3 × 5 × 7 × 11 × 13) + 1 = 30,031 = 59 × 509


But {2,3,5,7,11,13} isn't the set of all primes, so that isn't a counterexample.

The whole point is that p1...pn+1 doesn't exist. However, if we make our relevant assumptions then we can suppose it would exist and ask what properties it would have.

At this point, the way the contradiction is obtained depends on what theorems we can rely on. If we've already proven that all non-prime numbers greater than 1 are divisible by a prime, it is valid to say that since p1...pn+1 isn't divisible by any prime (since p1 to pn are the only primes, and none of them divide it) it is not non-prime; i.e. it is prime: contradiction.

RWW
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:11 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby RWW » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:06 pm UTC

What an epic fail this strip was. Looking forward to a better one tomorrow. :(

SocialSceneRepairman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:11 pm UTC

This reminds me of the time I went to a Sociology discussion on stimulant abuse...after sixty hours awake, having downed most of a bottle of caffeine pills.

leeping
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:36 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby leeping » Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:17 pm UTC

I enjoyed this discussion thread - I'd never thought about the infinitude of primes before. The proof is simple and sweet.

I wonder if it's possible to use pn and p1p2..pn+1 with different values of n to "bracket" prime number candidates and narrow one's search. Do the primes ever become sparse enough so that this becomes practical?

pjt33
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:38 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby pjt33 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:39 pm UTC

leeping wrote:I wonder if it's possible to use pn and p1p2..pn+1 with different values of n to "bracket" prime number candidates and narrow one's search. Do the primes ever become sparse enough so that this becomes practical?

Not by a long shot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand%27s_postulate is a simple bound, and much tighter bounds are known.

nycrdeary
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:19 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby nycrdeary » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:21 pm UTC

When I first learned this I got a bit confused when I realized that the product of primes (plus one) isn't necessarily prime.

This might make the proof simpler:

Multiply all primes
add one, then find prime factors
they aren't in the list


I wonder if anyone has a Pythagoras proof in a Haiku form?

User avatar
Simon17
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:45 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Simon17 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:14 am UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
Linux0s wrote:
Iluvatar wrote:(I'm fairly certain Randall just thought up that last line and built a comic around it.)


That was my thought too, like the t-shirt of the last panel was already printed.


The possibility that Randall's modus operandi is getting so banal disturbs my status as an xkcd follower.

Welcome to the club.
Randall, get out of my trunk!

User avatar
eds01
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:34 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby eds01 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Lerkistan wrote:
moras make no sense
in languages like english
so redefine it...

Really, since there can only be japanese mora-definition haikus, why wouldn't we redefine it to work with languages we can understand?

Of course, the above is still a bad haiku because line 1&2 are more like 12 syllables with a random carriage return between them.


You would be much, much closer to a haiku if you scrapped the mora and did something shorter than 5/7/5 syllables, but kept the traditional imagery.

For example, this translation of the Japanese haiku in my post:
An old pond;
A frog jumps in —
The sound of water.

User avatar
Pietro
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:30 pm UTC
Location: Campinas -- Brazil
Contact:

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Pietro » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:59 am UTC

This comic is painful. Last two weeks have been pretty bad, but this one is particularly awful.

It is also a bit sad that the "webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math and language" has so little math. In fact, the whole "xkcd is great at science" hype has been looking pretty silly for some time now. I'll stick to the math because it's what I know, but other areas, like physics, linguistics or whatever are even worse off.

Basically, I would like to see some actual math on the jokes, once in a while. Euclid's proof about the primes is grade-school math. I could have heard this joke from my 7th-grade teacher. What's it doing in this supposedly "high-brow" webcomic? Number 602 about summing prime reciprocals is only marginally better (again, barely undergrad math), and, like this one, the art/dialogue bears no relation to the actual proofs. One gets the feeling that Randall has forgotten most of the math he once knew.

Then again, today's comic makes me wonder if Randall's also forgotten how to be funny.
I always wondered about the meaning of life. So I looked it up in the dictionary under "L" and there it was --- the meaning of life. It was not what I expected. (Dogbert)

squig
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:32 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby squig » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:58 pm UTC

I stayed awake for 11 days (+/- 36 hours) once. I am an insomniac.

HomeTheater
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:37 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" Discussion

Postby HomeTheater » Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:44 pm UTC

I obviously need more math instruction.

The product of any number of primes is an odd number unless one of those primes is 2. Thus, eliminating 2, the product of any number of primes, plus 1, is an even number, so the proof fails on its face. Or, if you think I'm misspelling, it falls on its face.

I love clever comics. Clever comics that depend on incorrect math proofs are not clever, though.

Maximus_Light
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:56 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" Discussion

Postby Maximus_Light » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:02 pm UTC

For reference, sleep deprivation and sugar after 72 hours will cause about an hour of sugar-hi induced madness before you sleep of a day. Also you're parents are best not at home when this is done.

(I was a stupid kid and we'll leave it at that)

Maximus_Light
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:56 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby Maximus_Light » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:07 pm UTC

ethereal_fire wrote:(sleep deprivation is setting in now, it took me a good ten minutes of staring blanking at the screen before remembering how to click the "post reply" button)

sorceror, you totaly made my night. Esspecially that last story. I can't say I ever hallucinated, that I remember, while being awake, but I do has a few memories of people falling asleep is class:

1) I had this teacher in highschool that when someone fell asleep in class he got the whole class to silently sneek out so that the kid woke up in an empty room. What was funnier though is when you were walking down the hall and watched this whole class pile out of a storage closet

2) Same teacher as above, would get bored when the class was silently working on stuff, and one day the whole classroom was quiet, and he just gets up, opens the door, wheels his chair out and then from outside you hear "One, Two, Three, WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE". There was a ramp outside the door (not really a sleep story at all but an amusing break of monotony.

3) My highschool philosphy teacher would get so into what he was teaching that he'd just keep going and going and going all excitedly waving his arms around and everything and drone on, and one day I remember it was putting me to sleep and I looked around and was one of 2 people awake in the whole class. I don't think he'd even noticed...

4) I was in this lecture once, (and it was at a Bible school of sorts) and speaker is going on about something then out of nowhere screams "HALLELUJAH!!!!!!" mid sentence. About 95% of the room jumped in surprise (including the person standing beside him who was translating, they really got a shock, ¡This cheese is burning me!) Then he just says "it looked like some of you were falling asleep" and continues on with his lecture. It was one of those you-had-to-be-there things maybe, but it was hillarious.


They aren't that great of stories, but hey, I tried.


Ah!
What're you doing here?!

(also I heard about the chair one from "Darth Audia."

osj1961
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:20 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" Discussion

Postby osj1961 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:19 am UTC

Since several people have posted pretty decent haikus of this proof, I got started thinking about other forms... Limericks wouldn't really work in the comic (a hallucinatory flying prof. spouting haiku has a surreal quality that a hallucinatory flying prof. spouting limericks doesn't). I got an "okay" version in one stanza, but to make it really nice I had to go to two -- the downside is, of course, way more than 17 syllables.

If we posit a big list of primes
that is finite, complete, in this rhyme
Multiply them, add one!
But wait, we're not done
Contradictions will often take time.

The product alone is quite plain dear,
Add one though -- there'll be a remainder
So no prime goes in it,
the primes can't be finite!
Supposing they are isn't sane dear.

Cheers,
Joe

User avatar
Kisama
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:52 am UTC
Location: (0, 0, 0)

Re: "Haiku Proof" Discussion

Postby Kisama » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:26 am UTC

HomeTheater wrote:The product of any number of primes is an odd number unless one of those primes is 2. Thus, eliminating 2, the product of any number of primes, plus 1, is an even number, so the proof fails on its face. Or, if you think I'm misspelling, it falls on its face.
Why eliminate 2? Anyway that just supports the proof because once you have found your product and added 1 you will find that the result has a divisor not in your list of primes, namely 2, and so you have discovered a "new" prime number.

hthall wrote:
kisama wrote:Warui desu
Eigo no haiku
Kore mou, ne

Nice. Athough yes, frankly. But I'll grant you "haiku" itself as a summer kigo (more time to waste writing bad poetry while school's not in session, right?) and "ne" as your kireji, which mitigates its warusa.
Thank you, Sir, for correcting my punctuation as well as for your comments and criticisms. I feel more educated now :-)
cd880b726e0a0dbd4237f10d15da46f4

dragondave
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:46 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" Discussion

Postby dragondave » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:45 pm UTC

Euler on maths:
Elements, not hot but cold
like ice or reason.

Quantity, a thing
that can be lesser or more;
money, weight or length.

Magnitude: same thing;
Maths: science of quantity.
Lets just call it 'size'.

Compare two sizes
second, known, the 'unit'
measure first with it.

Number, size expressed.
Abstract maths: name, algebra.
Ignore what is real.

Letters, generic
mean any number at all
can add and subtract.

Add one to nothing
going eternally:
the natural numbers

Take one from nothing
being forever strong:
the negative numbers

Euler's zero, both
negative and natural.
This seems odd to me.

Those things that will be
natural or negative
are also integers.

A thing added thus:
to itself, n times total
has been multiplied.

Both the thing and n
are factors; and the outcome
is said 'the product'

Plus times plus gives plus
Minus and minus the same
A difference: minus.

Primes: integers not
the product of integers
(save itself and one)

The composite nums,
the other, non-prime ints
all products of primes.

The divided on,
over the divisor gives
the quotient true

Quotient and the
divisor are factors
of the dividend.

But five over four:
bigger than two, less than three.
A job for fractions.

Leaving remainders,
messiness on side of plate.
We lie to children.

cribbed from http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/C.J.Sangwin/e ... gebra.html

juliusdavies
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:59 am UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" discussion

Postby juliusdavies » Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:40 am UTC

Doodle77 wrote:It's saying something like Given prime n, what are n+1's factors?


If Given prime n > 2, then wouldn't 2 be a factor of n+1 ?

User avatar
neoliminal
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Re: "Haiku Proof" Discussion

Postby neoliminal » Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:43 pm UTC

dragondave wrote:But five over four:
bigger than two, less than three.
A job for fractions.


Um.
5/4 = 1.25
1.25 < 2
FAIL
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0073YYXRC
Read My Book. Cost less than coffee. Will probably keep you awake longer.
[hint, scary!]


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests