xkcd

by **HelloThere** » Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:22 pm UTC

Okay I found a new one:

1. Swiss Super League
2. Swiss Football League
3. Swiss Super League

by **_cjw** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:03 am UTC

If you start at Monkeys, you end up in a loop that begins at Indo-European Languages and circles back around through Greek Language.

I'd hoped for a straight run through to philosophy, but alas, it was not meant to be...

by **pinochet** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 5:31 pm UTC

... yeah I just edited Reason to loop into Rationality>Reason. We'll see how long this lasts (probably seconds).

Edit: the point being that Philosophy now no longer loops into itself.

by **tomatosource** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:27 pm UTC

OK So I had some spare time and decided to knock together a program to this for me, turns out on average of 1000 pages polled it takes 15.651423 links to get to Philosophy and that one in every ~200ish pages gets itself into a loop or does not have any sufficient links. If anyone wants to see a few thousand long list of articles with their corresponding link distances / error message let me know.

by **dangermusic** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:32 pm UTC

tomatosource wrote:OK So I had some spare time and decided to knock together a program to this for me, turns out on average of 1000 pages polled it takes 15.651423 links to get to Philosophy and that one in every ~200ish pages gets itself into a loop or does not have any sufficient links. If anyone wants to see a few thousand long list of articles with their corresponding link distances / error message let me know.

What I would really like to see is a graphic representing the frequency of different articles at each of the last few steps before Philosophy. It seems like most of the time it's through Mathematics, via Information... it would be cool to see the "tree" of links leading towards Philosophy...

by **SidewinderX2** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:04 pm UTC

dangermusic wrote:
tomatosource wrote:OK So I had some spare time and decided to knock together a program to this for me, turns out on average of 1000 pages polled it takes 15.651423 links to get to Philosophy and that one in every ~200ish pages gets itself into a loop or does not have any sufficient links. If anyone wants to see a few thousand long list of articles with their corresponding link distances / error message let me know.

What I would really like to see is a graphic representing the frequency of different articles at each of the last few steps before Philosophy. It seems like most of the time it's through Mathematics, via Information... it would be cool to see the "tree" of links leading towards Philosophy...

Actually, a program i've been working on can generate a list of articles and the articles that they link to... tho i'm not quite sure how to go about graphing that... :S

by **Paulmichael** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:12 am UTC

Anyone notice how the title text was edited? Philosophy has been removed! :shock:

by **frede** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 1:06 pm UTC

What I would really like to see are some statistics showing what wiki-pages are part of the self-referencing loops and how many pages that will result in ending up in that loop.

Like for instance it might show that you'd end up in a loop containing the page "Philosophy" a certain percentage of the time.

Also the average "distance" from some random page to any one page in these loops would also be quite interesting. I think it would definitely show something interesting about the inner structure of Wikipedia and to some extend the collective human knowledge hierarchy.

One of my friends studying Philosophy likes to claim that his subject is the "highest form of knowledge", I'm not sure what exactly he means by that, but this little discovery does go a way of showing some interesting relationship between Phil. and other subjects.

by **jpk** » Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:55 pm UTC

frede wrote:What I would really like to see are some statistics showing what wiki-pages are part of the self-referencing loops and how many pages that will result in ending up in that loop.

Like for instance it might show that you'd end up in a loop containing the page "Philosophy" a certain percentage of the time.

Also the average "distance" from some random page to any one page in these loops would also be quite interesting. I think it would definitely show something interesting about the inner structure of Wikipedia and to some extend the collective human knowledge hierarchy.

One of my friends studying Philosophy likes to claim that his subject is the "highest form of knowledge", I'm not sure what exactly he means by that, but this little discovery does go a way of showing some interesting relationship between Phil. and other subjects.

I believe when used in this sense "highest" means "most smug". I'm afraid in this philosophy has been overtaken by the discipline known as but having nothing whatsoever to do with Literary Theory

by **lambacck** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:58 pm UTC

Nice write up with analysis from processing the full wikipedia dump:
http://matpalm.com/blog/2011/08/13/wikipedia-philosophy

by **Gandoon** » Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:50 pm UTC

suweid wrote:Blew my extended mind right off! It's true! I tested on three articles!

But not for "Pocahontas"... You get stuck in an infinite loop from "fact"

by **darazan** » Fri Sep 16, 2011 5:12 am UTC

Unless I've missed some links, I've found a loop with the word "solid" (Solid>Three Classical States of Matter>Forces between Particles>Solid), and there are several words that will link to solid.

There are probably more. Also, I'm not seeing a loop with Greek, although this may have been changed since people were posting about it. I started with Aristotle, like a previous poster. Aristotle>Greek>Nation>International Relations>States (Sovereign States)>State>Social Sciences>Field (List of Academic Disciplines)>Knowledge>Information>Ordered (Order Theory)>Mathematics>...>Philosophy

by **Scyrus** » Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:43 pm UTC

I don't understand. I've tried it on many words you people say it loops back, and it always gets to philosophy, I believe half of you aren't following exactly what the alt-text says.

darazan wrote:Unless I've missed some links, I've found a loop with the word "solid" (Solid>Three Classical States of Matter>Forces between Particles>Solid), and there are several words that will link to solid.

But if you go to "Solid" page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid, you will follow this order:
Solid -> State of matter -> Phases -> Physical Sciences -> Natural Science -> Science -> Knowledge -> Information -> Ordered theory -> Mathematics -> Quantity -> Property (philosophy) -> Modern Philosophy -> Philosophy.

Alt text: Wikipedia trivia: if you take any article, click on the first link in the article text not in parentheses or italics, and then repeat, you will eventually end up at "Philosophy".

by **scarletmanuka** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:53 am UTC

Scyrus wrote:I don't understand. I've tried it on many words you people say it loops back, and it always gets to philosophy, I believe half of you aren't following exactly what the alt-text says.

Quite possible, but not necessarily so. As was mentioned several times in the thread, there is one group of moronic vandals editing Wikipedia articles solely to make this work, and another group of moronic vandals editing Wikipedia articles solely to make it fail. Some of the chains posted earlier in the thread have worked at some times and failed at others depending on which group of vandals had gotten to the associated articles most recently.

by **Doc241** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:08 am UTC

I tried it from "Democrat" and it resulted in a fatal loop.

Imagine that. Creepy, yes?

by **woddfellow2** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:27 pm UTC

woddfellow2 wrote:I just noticed that if I start at Vim (text editor), I end up in an infinite loop (Computer program, Computer software).

Apparently this is no longer the case:

Vim (text editor)
Text editor
Application software (Redirected from Software application)
Computer software
Computer program
Sequence
Mathematics
Quantity
Property (philosophy)
Modern philosophy
Philosophy

by **pigsfromagun** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:37 pm UTC

I found a new loop, which potentially causes a whole ton of loops.
State (polity) --> Sovereign State --> State (polity)

by **TangoThanato** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:36 pm UTC

It would seem that 'science' now loops as well.

Science > Knowledge > Information > Message > Object > Grammar > Linguistics > Language > Human > Species > Biology > Natural Science > Science

by **Anonyman** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:03 pm UTC

Starting with 'Philosophy' leads (via 'Science') to a loop around 'Indo-European languages'. Does this make 'Indo-European languages' the new target?

by **OP Tipping** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:05 am UTC

This is totally going to happen, for 24 hours.

The apocalypse is upon us.

by **vortighast** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:01 am UTC

I wonder if he won't post one today because of SOPA/PIPA?

(which incidentally I can't help but think of delicious Mexican desserts when saying that)

by **zxcs** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:04 am UTC

Since simple.wiki still works, does this mean our IQ only drops by ~20 points now? :O

by **XV-02** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:38 am UTC

Soup has issues.
Soup>
Food>
Plant>
Living>
Physical Body (on a re-direct from objects)>
Physics>
Natural Science>
Science>
Knowledge>
Information>
Order Theory (on a re-direct from order)>
Mathematics>
Space>
Looped to Physical Body (on a redirect from objects)
This also means that food, plant, living, physical body, physics, natural science, science, knowledge, information, order theory, mathematics, and space are busted. I think this also breaks the rule at large. Most things link, it seems, into some form of language page (via a part of speech), to science, to math, to knowledge, or to order. all those work their way to the loop now. Maybe the rule is in need of revision? Maybe a map of Wikipedia built on the first link per the rules specified?

by **Exkakx** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:51 am UTC

If you start from the wikipedia article on XKCD, you get into a loop. How ironic.

by **gurnec** » Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

I first read 903 today, while surfing via the Random button. I had to try the Philosophy assertion with "SOPA", so off I went:

Stop Online Piracy Act
bill
legislature
deliberative assembly
organization
social group
social science
academic discipline (redirected from field of study)
knowledge
information
order theory
mathematics
quantity
property
modern philosophy
philosophy

This was the first one I tried, so I was and remain rather alarmed....
On a side note, "soup" from above may be working now too, thanks to a change in "mathematics" (I didn't do it!)

by **mtambos** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:10 pm UTC

9 jumps from Dendrophilia (paraphilia) to philosophy, which means Plato was a tree loving degenerate. Or something like that.

by **SirMustapha** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:40 pm UTC

How many jumps from "Necroposting" to "Please-leave-this-thread-alone"?

by **Red Hal** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:29 pm UTC

Infinite. You can't get there from here. Especially in ICT.

by **EchoRomulus** » Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:25 am UTC

Only 6 jumps from vaudeville actor Dan Leno to Philosophy!

And 4 jumps from pokemon brings you into a loop with Intellectual property and societal views of intelectual property...

Interesting.

by **Pawsrent** » Wed Jun 27, 2012 1:58 am UTC

1. Magnet
2. Magnetic Field
3. Near and Far Field
4. Electromagnetic Field
5. Field (physics)
6. Physics
7. Natural Science
8. Science
9. Knowledge
10. Fact
11. Proof (truth)
12. Evidence
13. Truth
14. Fact

I'm sad it doesn't work anymore.

by **tms** » Sat Sep 22, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

I just tried this for the first two times:
Mind (6 clicks)
Stabbing (6 clicks)

by **reebty** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:47 pm UTC

I got into the "Greek loop" by starting with Spam.

by **royinvincible** » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:46 pm UTC

If you start at "Italic Languages" it loops you back to italic languages. Along the way you learn about latin, knowledge, taxonomy, human, mammal, and other stuff. :wink:

by **hyper-hexagon** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:14 pm UTC

I have discovered a counter-example to the theorem in the alt-text. Starting at 'Philosophy', whether that counts as reaching it or not, the first iteration leads to 'Problem'. 'Problem' then leads the examiner on merry chase that ends in the loop of 'Fact', 'Proof (truth)', 'Evidence', 'Truth'. 'Problem' does not lead to 'Philosophy', and nor do any other articles following it in the chain. However, this opens up the question of the Wiki-Collatz Conjecture: Does every starting article eventually lead to this loop? A weaker form of the original conjecture would, if proven, imply this result. But, as demonstrated below, other loops exist. Though somewhat disappointing, it would be interesting to consider what loops exist, and how many articles lead to each.

by **Karkasmolen** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:55 am UTC

Started out with Astrological Aspect (Hindu Astrology) and, ages later, ended up in a direct loop between "truth" and "fact".

...which I think naturally occurs, oddly enough, when it realizes that a word of what you're talking about is in English.

by **addams** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:03 am UTC

scarletmanuka wrote:
Scyrus wrote:I don't understand. I've tried it on many words you people say it loops back, and it always gets to philosophy, I believe half of you aren't following exactly what the alt-text says.

Quite possible, but not necessarily so. As was mentioned several times in the thread, there is one group of moronic vandals editing Wikipedia articles solely to make this work, and another group of moronic vandals editing Wikipedia articles solely to make it fail. Some of the chains posted earlier in the thread have worked at some times and failed at others depending on which group of vandals had gotten to the associated articles most recently.

This thread has taken me on some interesting journeys.
One of the links left me wondering about how little I know about the night sky.

I like the stars. They are Pretty. I can't name the the star groups. On a good night I can pick out a planet or two.
How did they do it. Long, long time ago people mapped planets and stars. They had no internet. No electricity. No tv. Watching the stars move across th Heavens was entertaining?

by **EpicanicusStrikes** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:58 am UTC

addams wrote:I like the stars. They are Pretty. I can't name the the star groups. On a good night I can pick out a planet or two.
How did they do it. Long, long time ago people mapped planets and stars. They had no internet. No electricity. No tv. Watching the stars move across th Heavens was entertaining?

Yes, it was. But the more important fact is that there was profit in the act. Once various groups of people stared at them long enough to notice consistancy, they realized that accurately mapping the heavens could provide navigational aid to merchants and trade missions.

by **addams** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:25 pm UTC

EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
addams wrote:I like the stars. They are Pretty. I can't name the the star groups. On a good night I can pick out a planet or two.
How did they do it. Long, long time ago people mapped planets and stars. They had no internet. No electricity. No tv. Watching the stars move across th Heavens was entertaining?

Yes, it was. But the more important fact is that there was profit in the act. Once various groups of people stared at them long enough to notice consistancy, they realized that accurately mapping the heavens could provide navigational aid to merchants and trade missions.

Can you find the North Star?

I know it must be there where it always is. Science?

When was your last confirmed sighting of the North Star? I don't need the North Star. I navigate by the ocean. The ocean provides one known when navigating in 3D. It is so much easier with a known.

by **Klear** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:32 pm UTC

addams wrote:
EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
addams wrote:I like the stars. They are Pretty. I can't name the the star groups. On a good night I can pick out a planet or two.
How did they do it. Long, long time ago people mapped planets and stars. They had no internet. No electricity. No tv. Watching the stars move across th Heavens was entertaining?

Yes, it was. But the more important fact is that there was profit in the act. Once various groups of people stared at them long enough to notice consistancy, they realized that accurately mapping the heavens could provide navigational aid to merchants and trade missions.

Can you find the North Star?

Of course. You cannot? It's quite simple, really, as long as the stars are visible at all.

This reminds me of one time when I was at a party in a park and someone had an application which showed you the constellations depending on where you pointed the phone. At first I was like - why bother? Identifying constellations is the fun part of stargazing. Then I realized something and borrowed the phone; I turned it downwards and was for the first time able to see the constellations of the south hemisphere =)

by **addams** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:46 pm UTC

Ok. umm. The North Star? It's not very bright.

The Southern Cross? I been told the northern sky is, better.
If the stars are visible. There are many reasons for not finding the North Star.
It is Never! needed for navigation in cities. Thank God. I can't find it in an urban sky. Can you?

Who is online