0816: "Applied Math"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
LucasBrown
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:57 am UTC
Location: Poway, CA

0816: "Applied Math"

Postby LucasBrown » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:01 am UTC

Image
Alt text: "Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninety-eight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you requested."

The principle of explosion returns.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:03 am UTC

A logical proof that disproves logic? How interesting!

HI JOEE!
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby black_hat_guy » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:04 am UTC

Only 1,317,408 errors?
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

User avatar
Ghavrel
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:51 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Ghavrel » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:04 am UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:A logical proof that disproves logic? How interesting!

HI JOEE!


Today, mes amis, I've ordered the metaphysics special with a side of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. I expect our discussion will be as lively as ever.
"Si ad naturam vives, numquam eris pauper; si ad opiniones, numquam eris dives."
Live rightly and you shall never be poor; live for fame and you shall never have wealth.
~Epicurus, via Seneca

Uninfinity
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:25 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Uninfinity » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:04 am UTC

I'll bet she divided by zero somewhere in there... -_-

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby black_hat_guy » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:05 am UTC

Randall hasn't updated the >| button yet.
Edit: Now he has.
Last edited by black_hat_guy on Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:06 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

bytbox
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:43 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby bytbox » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:05 am UTC

A flowchart? Seriously? Real mathematicians use 4pt serif font when writing on the blackboard. Because secretly, it's all done with tex. (Insert comment about knuth here.)

mikebolt
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:53 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby mikebolt » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:05 am UTC

Alright, I need an explanation. Did the book author promise to send someone money if they found errors in his/her book?

User avatar
glasnt
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby glasnt » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:06 am UTC

HI JOEE x INFINITY


Also, the pricely sum of 2^8 x 10-2 per error is nice.

edit: wow, I only just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_reward_check from the link below.. that man is awesome.
Last edited by glasnt on Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:26 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

bytbox
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:43 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby bytbox » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:06 am UTC

black_hat_guy wrote:Randall hasn't updated the >| button yet.

He has not changed it. And he will not. It points to xkcd.com/, not any specific number. So it is /always/ up-to-date.

bytbox
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:43 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby bytbox » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:08 am UTC

mikebolt wrote:Alright, I need an explanation. Did the book author promise to send someone money if they found errors in his/her book?

Yup. Donald Knuth's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Computer_Programming

User avatar
Ghavrel
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:51 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Ghavrel » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:08 am UTC

mikebolt wrote:Alright, I need an explanation. Did the book author promise to send someone money if they found errors in his/her book?


This isn't restricted to mathematics; my classics professors will send in grammar errors and assorted typos that they catch in our references.
"Si ad naturam vives, numquam eris pauper; si ad opiniones, numquam eris dives."
Live rightly and you shall never be poor; live for fame and you shall never have wealth.
~Epicurus, via Seneca

calico
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:09 am UTC
Location: The Lappy
Contact:

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby calico » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:09 am UTC

Of course, since we all know $0.98 is the same thing as $0.098, that check's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Oh no, I've said too much; I haven't said enough

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby black_hat_guy » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:09 am UTC

bytbox wrote:
black_hat_guy wrote:Randall hasn't updated the >| button yet.

He has not changed it. And he will not. It points to xkcd.com/, not any specific number. So it is /always/ up-to-date.

That's a good point. I've come to expect that xkcd.com has the latest comic on it.
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

Turing Machine
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 5:48 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Turing Machine » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:13 am UTC

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

seriously not terribly high-level logic here, guy

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:14 am UTC

Inb4 .02 cents!
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

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

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:15 am UTC

Turing Machine wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

seriously not terribly high-level logic here, guy


The point is that it could be derived from an arbitrary P with the bare minimum of assumptions used in most useful problems, thus proving any P impossible.

Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?

Finally, keep in mind that the Incompleteness Theorem, as the name suggests, showed only that a system cannot be both complete and consistent, that is to say, it can't precisely address every question that could possibly be posed to it (which would have to include "will this system answer 'no' to this question?") without running into an inconsistency.

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby black_hat_guy » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:21 am UTC

Apparent inconsistency of logic arises from assuming logic is complete. Logic is not complete since it's consistent.
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

memcginn
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Orbiting this neat-o star called "Sol"

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby memcginn » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:25 am UTC

Man, I walked in to say that Knuth proved that the reader requested an amount of money equal to 98 cents by the reason of that other comic where assuming contradictory premises led to any true conclusion the thinker liked.

Um...oh dear, how to contribute now...? I've got it! Poorly-executed computer science joke!

So, I notice that the conclusion here is P and not-P. Now, we have a pretty good guess that P != NP, but does not-P = NP?
while (!spoon) {
fork();
}

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Arancaytar » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:27 am UTC

This just made me realize that there should be a Knuth Facts website to accompany the Schneier one. :P

The man's a legend.
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby black_hat_guy » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:29 am UTC

memcginn wrote:Man, I walked in to say that Knuth proved that the reader requested an amount of money equal to 98 cents by the reason of that other comic where assuming contradictory premises led to any true conclusion the thinker liked.

Um...oh dear, how to contribute now...? I've got it! Poorly-executed computer science joke!

So, I notice that the conclusion here is P and not-P. Now, we have a pretty good guess that P != NP, but does not-P = NP?

If P!=NP, then that must mean P=NP!
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby StClair » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:30 am UTC

I expect she'll be killed at a zebra crossing.

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby black_hat_guy » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:34 am UTC

StClair wrote:I expect she'll be killed at a zebra crossing.

Yes. And Donald Knuth will disappear in a puff of logic. :-(
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

DanielLC
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:30 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby DanielLC » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:56 am UTC

I notice she would have gotten nearly twice as much money by pointing out that she proved all of the Millennium Prize Problems. In any case, I'm sure they'd consider that more important than any of them, and the should at least give her one million-dollar prize.

Shouldn't she use a proof checker? I wouldn't trust a human with something like that. Or just one proof checker for that matter.

User avatar
rhhardin
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:11 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby rhhardin » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:00 am UTC

Women start from the conclusion and work backwards.

User avatar
sugarhyped
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC
Location: california

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby sugarhyped » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:02 am UTC

black_hat_guy wrote:
StClair wrote:I expect she'll be killed at a zebra crossing.

Yes. And Donald Knuth will disappear in a puff of logic. :-(


that makes little sense if you're american and dont know that zebra crossing is crosswalk.
Thats what I have taken away from this topic...
I wanted a signature. I don't know what to put here yet.

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

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby RebeccaRGB » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:04 am UTC

The title text burnt my cheese.
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!

User avatar
exploto
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:21 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby exploto » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:11 am UTC

Godel's theorem comes in two parts: one implies that predicate logic is incomplete. It's actually the second part that's weirder, it says that any sufficiently powerful axiom system CANNOT prove itself to be CONSISTENT! Yes I'm serious. It's really weird. But let's say even if a system COULD prove itself consistent: this wouldn't actually mean anything, because it might still be an inconsistent system, since inconsistent systems CAN prove themselves to be consistent, it's just that they can also prove themselves to be inconsistent, and all sorts of other contradictions. There IS no proof, and cannot be, that second order predicate logic will never prove 1 = 0 and A = not A, although (hopefully?) it is true. Weird. http://everything2.com/title/Godel%2527 ... e+syllable you might want to check out the wikipdedia page also. And here's a talk I just found going into what it would actually mean if the current foundations of mathematics were to be found inconsistent! (Which actually happened once before when it was attempted to build up mathematics from naive set theory which lead to russel's paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_paradox)

poizan42
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:32 am UTC
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby poizan42 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:40 am UTC

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?

So tell me, what would you actually use to make such a proof?

mafaraxas
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:23 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby mafaraxas » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:13 am UTC

To be a small sticker on notation:

where it says [imath]P \Lambda \bar{P}[/imath], what you probably meant, the adjoint (conjugate transpose for finite-dimensional spaces), is usually written [imath]P^*[/imath] rather than [imath]\bar{P}[/imath] to distinguish it from only doing complex conjugate (without doing transpose) of all the elements in the matrix. So [imath]P \Lambda P^*[/imath] is how you usually see it. Unless this was the hidden joke and Randall was trying to troll mathematicians or something.

Also I don't really see what the comic has to do with applied math at all. Consistency of logic systems is about as far from applied math as you can get (restricting yourself to the realm of math). Unless this is part of the joke too? I don't know.

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

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby RebeccaRGB » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:30 am UTC

mafaraxas wrote:Also I don't really see what the comic has to do with applied math at all.

The application is getting the $3,372,564.48.
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!

DT_
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:41 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby DT_ » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:37 am UTC

mafaraxas wrote:To be a small sticker on notation:

where it says [imath]P \Lambda \bar{P}[/imath], what you probably meant, the adjoint (conjugate transpose for finite-dimensional spaces), is usually written [imath]P^*[/imath] rather than [imath]\bar{P}[/imath] to distinguish it from only doing complex conjugate (without doing transpose) of all the elements in the matrix. So [imath]P \Lambda P^*[/imath] is how you usually see it. Unless this was the hidden joke and Randall was trying to troll mathematicians or something.

Also I don't really see what the comic has to do with applied math at all. Consistency of logic systems is about as far from applied math as you can get (restricting yourself to the realm of math). Unless this is part of the joke too? I don't know.


P is a proposition, not a matrix. The girl has proved "P and not P."

User avatar
SW15243
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:56 am UTC
Location: The Frozen White North
Contact:

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby SW15243 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:04 am UTC

I was under the impression that The Art of Computer Programming was in italics because the writer was referring to the very foundations of computer programming, and thus, based on the gravity of this revelation, was using italics for emphasis!

I see now that it's a book. Also, I know what the deal is with the cheque. Much funnier now.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 0816: "Applied Math"

Postby Yakk » Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:40 am UTC

I had a burning cheese problem with this one.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
NumberFourtyThree
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:00 am UTC
Location: Too many to list here, due to a cloning accident.

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby NumberFourtyThree » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:04 am UTC

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?

You forget the subject. If logic itself is inconsistent, then an apparently solid proof that something can't be proven might be also provably false, as you could prove contradictory and false things. By the very nature of the question to prove that such a proof is impossible would be irrelevant as the production of such a proof would show that the proof of its inability to be proved was invalid.

A more troubling objection is that all proofs rely on basic logic, so such a proof of logic's invalidity would thus prove itself to be invalid and unable to be relied on to prove anything, including logic being invalid.
The world is imperfect because it has to be. If everything were perfectly fair and without problems we would all live the exact same pointless life, with no possible meaning to it.

BioTronic
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:44 pm UTC

Re: 0816: "Applied Math"

Postby BioTronic » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:30 am UTC

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?

Of course. But it's also been proven that such a proof is possible.

Waylah
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 1:01 pm UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Waylah » Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:21 pm UTC

Turing Machine wrote:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

seriously not terribly high-level logic here, guy


I was reading that link, and I got down to

(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or the fourth thing.

And that's still supposed to be paradoxical, but I don't see how. Why can't 'the fourth thing' be a true thing? In which case, (5) is the fourth thing, and true. Which is not paradoxical.

Surely it would only be paradoxical if it was
(5) (5) is false, AND neither true nor false, or the fourth thing
or any other arrangement that says it can't be the fourth thing and true. Hahaha, what about
(5) (5) is false, or neither true nor false, or a paradox

Ezbez
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:25 am UTC

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby Ezbez » Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:48 pm UTC

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?


Assume such a proof exists. Then P and not P. Contradiction. Therefore, no such proof exists.

fvieira
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 0816: "Applied Math"

Postby fvieira » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Assume such a proof exists. Then P and not P. Contradiction. Therefore, no such proof exists.


If you assume such a proof exists, that is, that logic is invalid, then you can't use logic to make the rest of your proof, can you?

ihope127
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:59 am UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: 0816: Applied Math

Postby ihope127 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:05 pm UTC

Ezbez wrote:
SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Of course, hasn't it been proven that such a proof is impossible?


Assume such a proof exists. Then P and not P. Contradiction. Therefore, no such proof exists.


It happens that "P is provable; therefore, P is true" is not valid mathematical reasoning. In fact, adding this as an axiom to our systems of logic would make them inconsistent.
There is a significant chance that an artificial intelligence created within the next few decades will not value humanity and therefore will treat us as we treat animals. It would be awesome if xkcd mentioned this.
----
Find me on freenode as uorygl.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 25 guests