0263: "Certainty"
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
0263: "Certainty"
http://xkcd.com/c263.html
Title text: "a(bc)=(ab)+(ac). Politicize that, bitches."
Note: Am Imissing something, or is he missing a "+"?
Edit: title text now reads: "a(b+c)=(ab)+(ac). Politicize that, bitches."
Heh, very cool, very true. That's why I love software. And also why I love politics.
Last edited by Iluvatar on Fri May 18, 2007 12:20 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Title: a(bc)=(ab)+(ac). Politicize that, bitches.
That's wrong. It should be a(b+c)=(ab)+(ac)
EDIT: Ok, I should assume that others will always find the errors before I do..
That's wrong. It should be a(b+c)=(ab)+(ac)
EDIT: Ok, I should assume that others will always find the errors before I do..
Last edited by Sgeo on Fri May 18, 2007 4:07 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
 crazyjimbo
 Posts: 887
 Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:45 pm UTC
 Location: Durham, England
 Contact:
 Drake Zure
 Posts: 163
 Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:57 am UTC
 Location: Everywhere, nowhere, it's all very abstract...
wrongness=funny.
what's lesson number two?
anyways, this is very funny. i've known a few smart people who use their brains only for rationalizing.
i myself use mine only for making excuses, creating mix CD's, and writing bad love poems.
some people find it charming. my girlfriend thinks the CD's are fun to blast through her house so as to annoy others.
i'm always happy to supply her with ammunition it's 'cause i'm evil.
what's lesson number two?
anyways, this is very funny. i've known a few smart people who use their brains only for rationalizing.
i myself use mine only for making excuses, creating mix CD's, and writing bad love poems.
some people find it charming. my girlfriend thinks the CD's are fun to blast through her house so as to annoy others.
i'm always happy to supply her with ammunition it's 'cause i'm evil.
And then she left. I wonder why...benjhuey wrote:IceMod wrote:The fingers did surprise me though.
That's what SHE said.
Re: "Certainty" Discussion
Perhaps our esteemed comic writer has not read enough postmodernist and associated material? He would then know that math is in fact a patriarchal social construct...
TO be honest, that almost illustrates the point more. We could have a debate right now about whether a(bc) = (ab) + (bc), but it would be a simple debate, since a(b+c) = (ab) + (bc) is a simple universal truth. I gotta say, this comic hits me; this is the reason I'm fond of math. It's akin to why I love coding (no debate, and it's always my fault). Rock on.
Last edited by Iluvatar on Fri May 18, 2007 12:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
 Velociraptor4life
 Posts: 45
 Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 10:30 pm UTC
 Location: Virginia, USA
 Contact:
 Drake Zure
 Posts: 163
 Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:57 am UTC
 Location: Everywhere, nowhere, it's all very abstract...
 archgoon
 Posts: 62
 Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:08 am UTC
 Location: Large (But Finite) Dimensional Hilbert Space
a(bc)=ab+ac
Well, for all values of b,c where a is zero, or all values of a where b and c are zero. Any nontrivial solutions? So, not exactly a universal truth, though sometimes true.
Though I would like to cheerfully point out without clear definitions and defined spaces, its very hard to come up with 'universally' true statements.
Bob is Bob, except when Bob simply isn't himself.
Well, for all values of b,c where a is zero, or all values of a where b and c are zero. Any nontrivial solutions? So, not exactly a universal truth, though sometimes true.
Though I would like to cheerfully point out without clear definitions and defined spaces, its very hard to come up with 'universally' true statements.
Bob is Bob, except when Bob simply isn't himself.
 The LuigiManiac
 Posts: 695
 Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:09 am UTC
 Location: Trapped in a hypothetical situation somewhere in Ontario...help?
Iluvatar wrote:TO be honest, that almost illustrates the point more. We could have a debate right now about whether a(bc) = (ab) + (bc), but it would be a simple debate, since it is a simple universal truth.
I reject that formula, and substitute my own
...
I just mentioned the unmentionable there, didn't I?
Anyways, I say it isn't a universal truth. A universal truth is something like, say, a(b+c) = (ab) + (ac).
Last edited by The LuigiManiac on Fri May 18, 2007 4:29 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Spoiler:
Iluvatar wrote:TO be honest, that almost illustrates the point more. We could have a debate right now about whether a(bc) = (ab) + (bc), but it would be a simple debate, since it is a simple universal truth. I gotta say, this comic hits me; this is the reason I'm fond of math. It's akin to why I love coding (no debate, and it's always my fault). Rock on.
"no debate, and it's always my fault" unless you're coding in Flash, in which case it is occasionally ActionScript's fault :)
Luke

 Posts: 1
 Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:02 am UTC
 Location: Fresno, CA
im a math teacher
I'm a math teacher and love that comic.
 UmbrageOfSnow
 Not Fully Human
 Posts: 354
 Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:06 am UTC
 Location: Insomnia Island
 Contact:
This is great timing. I'm homehome (as opposed to schoolhome) for one of the very few weeks that I am all year. I was planning to go visit my high school math teacher tomorrow, who was sort of my mentor and easily the best teacher I ever had, a shame she retired. Anyway, I'm going to print this out in the morning and bring it to her. Maybe I should frame it...
And my guess to the book is "An Imaginary Tale: The story of (1)^1/2 ."
That or "Asimov on Numbers".
And my guess to the book is "An Imaginary Tale: The story of (1)^1/2 ."
That or "Asimov on Numbers".
yellie wrote:Confession: I just had to look up the word ubiquitous because I kept seeing it all over the place and had no idea what it meant.
 3.14159265...
 Irrational (?)
 Posts: 2413
 Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
 Location: Ajax, Canada
 Cameron Walsh
 Posts: 7
 Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 5:17 am UTC
a(bc) = (ab) + (ac)
a(bc) = a(b+c)
bc = b + c
works if:
a=0, b and c are anything (in which case we cannot divide by a).
b and c are zero, a is anything.
b and c are 2, a is anything.
EDIT:
Whoops, missed the post where Archgoon shows how it works for noninteger values of b and c.
bc = b + c
works if:
a=0, b and c are anything (in which case we cannot divide by a).
b and c are zero, a is anything.
b and c are 2, a is anything.
EDIT:
Whoops, missed the post where Archgoon shows how it works for noninteger values of b and c.
Last edited by Cameron Walsh on Fri May 18, 2007 5:29 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Egg on my face! At least it was just the alttext this time.
Come to think of it, I should do a comic with a similar error within the strip now  it'd be a good way to gauge how many people read the alttext, something I've always been curious about. It'd be a bit skewed because people computery enough to know to look for alttext (instead of just finding by accident) might tend to also be mathy enough to notice the error.
YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
Come to think of it, I should do a comic with a similar error within the strip now  it'd be a good way to gauge how many people read the alttext, something I've always been curious about. It'd be a bit skewed because people computery enough to know to look for alttext (instead of just finding by accident) might tend to also be mathy enough to notice the error.
YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
 The LuigiManiac
 Posts: 695
 Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:09 am UTC
 Location: Trapped in a hypothetical situation somewhere in Ontario...help?
xkcd wrote:YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
The distributive property forces an ostensibly even distribution across any sum, which does not account for the needs of a given element, nor does it reward the elements that generate larger objects, thus creating no incentive for expansion. Furthermore, it promotes the agenda of an oppressive multiplicative dominance over addition.
 archgoon
 Posts: 62
 Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:08 am UTC
 Location: Large (But Finite) Dimensional Hilbert Space
xkcd wrote:Egg on my face! At least it was just the alttext this time.
YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
As I already pointed out <b>YOU</b> have clearly demonstrated the overwhelming bias in our society towards commutative algebras. I stand by tall and firm for the recognition that a*(b+c)=a*b+a*c is NOT always true! And I gave an example that is for sure to be recognized by oppressed pythonistas!
 The LuigiManiac
 Posts: 695
 Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:09 am UTC
 Location: Trapped in a hypothetical situation somewhere in Ontario...help?
 Gelsamel
 Lame and emo
 Posts: 8237
 Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Nothing can be proven universal, even math has it's axioms.
Sure, a(b+c) = (ab)+(ac) in our math systems, but it's based on axioms about multiplication and addition.
You could, in fact, set up a mathematical system where the above equation DOESN'T hold.
Sure, a(b+c) = (ab)+(ac) in our math systems, but it's based on axioms about multiplication and addition.
You could, in fact, set up a mathematical system where the above equation DOESN'T hold.
"Give up here?"
 > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
 > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
 > No
"Is it all pointless?"
 > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
 > No
 > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
 > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
 > No
"Is it all pointless?"
 > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
 > No
 UmbrageOfSnow
 Not Fully Human
 Posts: 354
 Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:06 am UTC
 Location: Insomnia Island
 Contact:
Gelsamel wrote:Nothing can be proven universal, even math has it's axioms.
Sure, a(b+c) = (ab)+(ac) in our math systems, but it's based on axioms about multiplication and addition.
You could, in fact, set up a mathematical system where the above equation DOESN'T hold.
Yes Sir, Captain Godel.
yellie wrote:Confession: I just had to look up the word ubiquitous because I kept seeing it all over the place and had no idea what it meant.
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
I this comic.
Hah! I am teh winnar!
This reads like something from timecube. They definitely like calling mathematical truths "evil wordgod allah worshipping lies propagated by educated stupid academian evildoers".
SpitValve wrote:This comic reminds me that maths is awesome.
Or math, whatever.
Hah! I am teh winnar!
Woxor wrote:xkcd wrote:YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
The distributive property forces an ostensibly even distribution across any sum, which does not account for the needs of a given element, nor does it reward the elements that generate larger objects, thus creating no incentive for expansion. Furthermore, it promotes the agenda of an oppressive multiplicative dominance over addition.
This reads like something from timecube. They definitely like calling mathematical truths "evil wordgod allah worshipping lies propagated by educated stupid academian evildoers".
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
 EradicateIV
 Posts: 361
 Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:33 pm UTC
 Location: Brownsville, PA
 Contact:
xkcd wrote:YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
It's obviously a concerted attempt by liberal elitist mathematicians to foist communist rhetoric upon the masses. They'd rather children learn that numbers can be rearranged through distribution of multiplication than embrace the reality that it works much better when you let the invisible hand of the market arrange the operations!
Exactly fifty muahaha!
UmbrageOfSnow wrote:Gelsamel wrote:Nothing can be proven universal, even math has it's axioms.
Sure, a(b+c) = (ab)+(ac) in our math systems, but it's based on axioms about multiplication and addition.
You could, in fact, set up a mathematical system where the above equation DOESN'T hold.
Yes Sir, Captain Godel.
This has nothing to do with Godel's theorem at all. The issue here is more philosophical in nature. If one is a formalist one would agree with the claim whereas if one is an intuitionist or some form of neoplatonist one would not. Part of the issue is whether addition and multiplication exist in any way part from and thus whether those renamed things can be legtimately called addition and multiplication. Incidentally, the typoed version of a(bc)=ab+ac is true iff a=0 or c=b/(b1). It reminds of a nice short problem: when does addition distribute over multiplication?
 EradicateIV
 Posts: 361
 Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:33 pm UTC
 Location: Brownsville, PA
 Contact: