Code: Select all
public function getRandomComment() {
return 'Congrat\' from France for this 3E8 th comic !'; // Yeah, I had luck getting my comment on a fair dice roll ;)
}
Wish you all the best for this new year.
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
Code: Select all
public function getRandomComment() {
return 'Congrat\' from France for this 3E8 th comic !'; // Yeah, I had luck getting my comment on a fair dice roll ;)
}
GenericAnimeBoy wrote:What, no red spiders?
neoliminal wrote:I wonder if he could have done this if he was drawing in a more traditional comic style rather than in stick figures.
shpoffo wrote:ohh Randal.........
..It'll be a big square-number milestone.......
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.
Keybounce wrote: Are there any numbers between 1001 and 1024 that have rational square roots?
JamusPsi wrote:Honestly?
Xkcd makes ME feel less alone.
http://xkcd.com/245/
It's good to know there's at least one other person like me.
keithl wrote:The uniformity of the placement of the characters, and the uniform line widths, is remarkable. Far too uniform for this to be a pure "imagine and start drawing" comic. I hypothesize that Randall developed some analysis methods and perhaps wrote some code to help him prepare "Radiation" and "Money", and perhaps size and shade the continents in the two "Online Communities" cartoons. He may have re-purposed some of that code for "1000 Comics".
SirMustapha wrote:keithl wrote:The uniformity of the placement of the characters, and the uniform line widths, is remarkable. Far too uniform for this to be a pure "imagine and start drawing" comic. I hypothesize that Randall developed some analysis methods and perhaps wrote some code to help him prepare "Radiation" and "Money", and perhaps size and shade the continents in the two "Online Communities" cartoons. He may have re-purposed some of that code for "1000 Comics".
Or... maybe he just made a big, soft "1000" outline on paper, manually drew the stick figures inside it, and erased the outline afterwards? Like most normal human being would do?
He could also have simply made the 1000 outline on the computer and drag-and-dropped the stick figures into it, like the other normal human beings would do.
Splarka wrote:Keybounce wrote: Are there any numbers between 1001 and 1024 that have rational square roots?
1004.89?
PolakoVoador wrote:Ok, and since when is Randall a normal human being?
Keybounce wrote:Splarka wrote:Keybounce wrote: Are there any numbers between 1001 and 1024 that have rational square roots?
1004.89?
Ok, any integers?
Pick an integer between 31 and 32Keybounce wrote:31 * 31 = 961
32 * 32 = 1024
markfiend wrote:Keybounce wrote:Splarka wrote:Keybounce wrote: Are there any numbers between 1001 and 1024 that have rational square roots?
1004.89?
Ok, any integers?
You answered your own question.Pick an integer between 31 and 32Keybounce wrote:31 * 31 = 961
32 * 32 = 1024
Pfhorrest wrote:markfiend wrote:Keybounce wrote:Splarka wrote:Keybounce wrote: Are there any numbers between 1001 and 1024 that have rational square roots?
1004.89?
Ok, any integers?
You answered your own question.Pick an integer between 31 and 32Keybounce wrote:31 * 31 = 961
32 * 32 = 1024
Wrong question.
All questions involve whether there are any x and y in certain sets satisfying both x^2 = y and 1001 < y < 1024.
He already answered that there is no pair of integers x and y satisfying those conditions.
Then he asked if (under those conditions) there is any (unrestricted) y such that x is rational, and was given an affirmative example: 1004.89 (for which x is 31.7, a rational number).
Now he is asking if (under those conditions) there is any integer y such that x is rational. 1004.89 doesn't work a y here because it is not an integer, and there are no integers to work as x whose squares fall between 1001 and 1024, but there might (as far as has been stated so far) be a rational number with an integer square between 1001 and 1024.
Except there's not, because there are no proper (i.e. non-integer) rational numbers with integer squares at all. Proof:
Any proper rational number r is equivalent to the sum of an integer, m, and a proper fraction, n (the remainder). For example, 33/2 is equal to 16 + 1/2.
r^2 is thus equal to (m+n)^2 which is equal to (m+n)(m+n) which is equal to m^2 + 2mn + n^2.
n^2 will never be an integer, as any proper fraction squared is still a proper fraction. For example, 1/3 squared is 1/9; 5/7 squared is 25/49, etc. So the sum of the three terms will always include a proper fraction and thus never be an integer.
deadmazter wrote:But can't 2mn + n^2 = an integer?
and end up with an integer 'n' (which isn't necessarily the case - you only know that the fractional part is a rational number, not that it's specifically 1 on an integer).but let's rewrite the fractional part n as 1/n,
Code: Select all
enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
AvatarIII wrote:thesingingaccountant wrote:alun009 wrote:There is a comic 404! It might be the best one of the lot
HULK SUCH a dork... Somehow, it never occurred to me that there was a gaping hole between #403 and #405 (I've only been reading for about a year and a half, though I've read every single one). I "found" #404 today... The result generated a sigh-facepalm-headshake combo. I feel like a lonely, angsty fish in a barrel who just got shot.
[*url=http://comicjk.com/comic.php/404]http://www.xkcd.com/404/[/url]
Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”
Users browsing this forum: Eoink and 165 guests