## 1190: "Time"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

mikro2nd
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:52 pm UTC
Location: ɐɔıɹɟɐ

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Whizbang wrote:Also, is Long-har Lady supposed to be Beardo?

Is that Brigitte Beardo?

ETA: page pope? What the hell is that? Decree: carry on with the voices! MAKE IT SO!
Last edited by mikro2nd on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
One world, one soul
Time pass, the river rolls

Rule110
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:14 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Angelastic wrote::idea: I guess 1.0 (a.k.a. 0.9999999999...) is in that set of numbers with a 9 in their decimal expansions.

Yes.

When proving mathematically that the Cantor Set maps to the entire set of reals (as I described in the "magic trick" post), the greater part of the proof is dealing with real numbers that have more than one valid expansion (1.000 = .999... as is the favorite math fact of Internet trolls everywhere, but also 0.5000... = 0.4999..., and in base 3,1/3 = .1000... = .0222...) and showing that that doesn't interfere with the main line of the argument. I left that part out completely, since I wasn't presenting a proof, and it's rather tedious to deal with.

sciakybros wrote:
Someguy945 wrote:
Arky wrote:
NetWeasel wrote:Whence have you traveled me?E

Whence have you traveled he(r)e

I hate to criticize, but I think the word "you" should have been written more cleanly, because that's a basic word I'd expect this long-haired person to have a good handle on.

My impression is that Randall is conveying accent along with mispronunciation in the messiness.

I interpret the multiple superimposed words as Hypatia using "trial and error" pronunciation trying some words multiple times ("whoil... wale... rale... rare... where") and sometimes starting whole phrases over as needed. And even the "best" versions are still distorted and/or heavily accented, but the meaning gets across.
If you're lost you can look--and you will find me
Time after Time...

Arky
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 7:23 am UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Once again a newpix reminds me of a song, unedited, unOTTified.

Six years I have been in the city
And every night I dream of the sea

They say home is where you find it
Will this place ever satisfy me?

For I come from the salt water people
We always live by the sea

Now I'm down here living in the city
With my man and a family

- Is this Megan's future, or My Island Home by Christine Anu?
Veteran of the One True Thread. And now the Too True Thread?

b2bomberkrh
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:50 am UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

ttscp wrote:
fhorn wrote:I totally heard organ music with this one.

It is a beautiful scene. I like the way the light shimmers around the windows.

NetWeasel wrote:
Spoiler:
A long time ago (longer than Prof Grumbles 40 years), I learned about aleph-zero, etc, and the thought at that time was that aleph-zero was the integers (or rationals, etc), and, although not provable, aleph-one was the reals and aleph-two was the infinity of curves. All of that felt right to me based on Cantor diagonalsD. But I don't see any mention of the curves in the articles referenced so far. The subject has changed a lot since then, so are the curves still a larger infinity than the reals?

I was planning to get to this after I finished ketchupping, but --

Most of my info comes originally (from my viewpoint) from Azimov on Numbers. The set of integers is aleph-null. The set of real numbers is aleph-1 (between any two reals, there are infinite reals, not so with integers). The set of curves on a plane is aleph-2.

This is from an old book read years ago, from old memory...

That's the problem with infinities, they confound our understanding. There are infinite rationals between any two rationals, yet the cardinality of the rationals are aleph-0. The beauty of Cantor's Diagonal proof is that he found a way around this.

It turns out that the illustrator of One, Two, Three, Infinity was Gamow himself, so the discontinuous curves were probably deliberate.

Actually, Cantor's Diagonal proof and the cardinality of the rationals and reals has no relationship to the denseness of the rationals (the property that between any two rationals there is another.) It's very easy when discussing this stuff to confuse the notion of a set, a group and a field. Cardinality refers to the properties of the integers, rationals, reals etc. as sets (infinite sets in this case.) Sets by themselves do not have concept of "between" or "bigger" or anything, they are just collections of abstract objects. It is only when you lay an algebraic structure on top that other properties begin to emerge. Thus, the integers can be turned into a "group" by adding the concept of addition. Multiplication can be added as an extension to addition, but it isn't sufficient to turn the integers into a "field" since the multiplication is incomplete in the sense that multiplicative inverses aren't in the group (to get 1, you have to multiply 2 by 1/2, but 1/2 isn't an integer.) The rationals, however are a field under the operations of multiplication and addition, and so are the reals. Both of these fields share the property of denseness. Stating, as another writer did, that the integers are the same cardinality as the rationals, but aren't dense, is really mixing metaphors, since cardinality is a property of the sets, and denseness is a property of the rationals as a field under addition and multiplication, and the integers aren't even a field at all.

Ebonite
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:30 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Kazza3 wrote:
NoMouse wrote:Ketchup:
As for the voice-over - has anyone a list of all submitted voice samples? I'm starting to forgetting them and I'm too lazy to search for them in the OTT.

This is what I could find:

Cueball:
Latent22
yappobiscuits
ucim
DavidRa
mscha
ChronosDragon

Megan:
BlitzGirl
Valarya
buffygirl 1
buffygirl 2
buffygirl 3
lmjb1964 1
lmjb1964 2

Once I caught up, I was going to recommend that we post all of the voice samples to the wiki so we could listen to them side-by side before voting on them.

I also suggest that perhaps we post them without the names of the people visible right next to the links, so that voting can be done kind of anonymously.

Although I'd love to submit a voice sample myself, I don't think I'd make a good Cueball. (Or Megan, for that matter.) My voice is too gravelly. Maybe if the characters meet an older Beanie...
Sir Ebonite, Lord of the Three Holes
"molpy molpy molpy molpy la la la"

CasCat
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 1:42 am UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Valarya wrote:BLIXPOST

BlueCrab wrote:
Spoiler:
Valarya wrote:
BlueCrab wrote:
Valarya wrote:
jovialbard wrote:If I were creating a language, I would make my alphabet phonetic. It's simpler, and having a non-phonetic alphabet generally implies the creation of several different language origins, which would make the problem more complex.

This reminds me of the Chronicler in the Kingkiller seires (Name of the Wind)... having devised his own short-hand so he can write as fast as people speak. It's phonetic. That's all I had to add to that discussion.
Heart! Heart, heart, heart! I've been trying not to think about how long we might have to wait for volume three.

I knowww, I can't wait. Just another series I'm waiting on. T_T
Me, too ^~^ I really do prefer to discover authors/series when there's plenty of backlog to keep me occupied, though, just like I do here. Being caught up is great if I can hang out while we wait for the newpix, but most of the Time I can't so I prefer to be a few pages back.
For an entirely different kind of reader-agony, are you familiar with Kage Baker? For some reason her books have always been hard to find in bookstores, so yay for online shopping. I think she's an important author, and deserves more attention.

Actually, no.. I haven't. But from another avid reader, any suggestion is worth a look up! Have you read any Robin Hobb?

Blindpost while ketchupping; Kage Baker died a few years ago, but her Company books are well worth reading. Strongly suggest they be read in order of publication (although the internal chronology will jump around some). In the Garden of Iden is the first Company book.

And if you like Robin Hobb, also check out Megan Lindholm. Same writer; different pen name. (Actually, I believe Megan Lindholm is her real name.) Say, I wonder what OUR Megan's last name is....?

It's all related!
BlitzGirl the Fast the First

jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Rule110 wrote:My impression is that Randall is conveying accent along with mispronunciation in the messiness.

I interpret the multiple superimposed words as Hypatia using "trial and error" pronunciation trying some words multiple times ("whoil... wale... rale... rare... where") and sometimes starting whole phrases over as needed. And even the "best" versions are still distorted and/or heavily accented, but the meaning gets across.[/quote]

I think if she was really trial and erroring it would actually show the ellipsis. Rather I think it's more likely that she isn't quite sure what word she is/should be using while saying it, and the two words are superimposed. Like mixing up where and when and saying "whern" or something.
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

Wildhound
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:34 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Time.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Ximenez wrote:As a foreign English speaker (and not very good at that), I can relate to Farrah Hairdo Beanie. Painfully so.

When you learn English from books, you get a distorted view of word usage and few, if any, clues about pronunciation. Also, it's somewhat hard to understand native speakers when they speak fast (or on top of each other, like in the present frame), so there will/should be difficulties on that front.

(Multiple edits trying to make this look less gibberish.)

B-b-but... your English (written at least) is really good!
Now and forever, a staunch TimeKeeper amongst heretics.

OTC Android Live Wallpaper

taixzo
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:54 am UTC
Location: The Present

### Re: Beacon Beta, Papal Decree

AluisioASG wrote:Firsts things first:

Time Travelers: Welcome to Beacon Beta.

Please report to the Future Present if you're more then 5 pages behind.
The Tracker will be available soon.

This is Taixzo, reporting in, Beacon Beta.

I am somewhat surprised to be five pages behind. Something exciting must be happening in the Present!

AluisioASG: what are you going to do when you run out of Greek letters? We don't know how long the OTT will get, after all!
BlitzGirl the Next
BlitzGirl the Fast
Knight Temporal
Bringer of the Light

Useless utilities: Newpix clock for Mac OS, Newpix clock for Ubuntu

Sandgarden - a relaxing experience for Time Waiters

Best wishes to GnomeAnne, Vytron, ColletArrow and january1may! One day you will all join me in the Present!

NetWeasel
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:08 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Rule110 wrote:...(1.000 = .999... as is the favorite math fact of Internet trolls everywhere, but also 0.5000... = 0.4999..., and in base 3,1/3 = .1000... = .0222...)

Getting back the the "mind-boggling" posts of a few pages ago...
While .5000.... is not equal to .499999..... and therefore has an infinite number of reals between them, the two numbers can be shown to be closer together than any interval you can name. (yes, I went there -- delta epsilon, bitches!)

Also on the "how can 10% of reals start with .9?" question (not Rule 110's question, BTW) -- if all real numbers can be represented in decimal notation, and if reals are distributed evenly across the number line, then how can they not??
Remember waiting a half hour for one darkening pixel? Pepperidge Farms remembers...
Note To Blitzers:It is advisable NOT to go past page 1130 until you've seen up to frame 2900 (Geekwagon Numbering). A lot is happening, and really, you do not want to skip ahead at that point.

42isall
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:39 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Okay, I've been mostly lurking since about newpix ten, and I have to say, I find it spectacular how far this has come. I've followed the OTT, reading it almost daily, and missing very little the whole time (When I started it was on page 3 as I recall. I've probably missed about a dozen pages, and at this point to blitz would be crazy). You folks have made the most wonderful group and it has been a real pleasure to watch. I'm super excited to learn beanglish, and hope we get some more clues as to the nature of this language.
I felt moved to write this for some reason.
Well, back to the shadows with me.
Keep on keeping on

svenman
Posts: 675
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:09 pm UTC
Location: 675 km NNE of the Château d'If

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Whizbang wrote:The reason for the usage of "somewhat" and "whence" could be that she is speaking an old and corrupted/half-learned version of Cuegan's language. Imagine if someone learned English from a Chinese to English dictionary published in 1800 and then tried to talk to us today. We'd be able to communicate, but not only would the accent be horrible, but the word usage would be outdated and oddd as well. I am guessing that Long-hair Lady learned Cuegan speech from an old book. Or maybe the Beanish school/education system has a class on Cueganese, but the teachers learned it from the previous generation of teachers and no one has spoken fluent Cueganese in generations. It'd be like someone who learned Latin in highschool going back in time to talk to the Romans.

If there has been some kind of civilization breakdown in the inside historical background of Time, then Long-haired Lady's sources for learning Cuegan's language (represented here as English) may predate that breakdown.

ETA: Also, thank you all for your welcome. Been looking into the thread occasionally since the very early days and followed it more or less continuously since around page 500-ish.
Last edited by svenman on Wed Jul 17, 2013 4:57 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Apart from Forum Games, mostly active on the One True Thread.
If you need help understanding what's going on there, the xkcd Time Wiki may be useful.

Addams thanks all of us who helped. Her life is much better now.

Randallspeed to all blitzers on the One True Thread!

RudeDude
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:43 am UTC
Location: Meatspace

### Re: 1190: "Time"

NetWeasel wrote:
Rule110 wrote:...(1.000 = .999... as is the favorite math fact of Internet trolls everywhere, but also 0.5000... = 0.4999..., and in base 3,1/3 = .1000... = .0222...)

Getting back the the "mind-boggling" posts of a few pages ago...
While .5000.... is not equal to .499999..... and therefore has an infinite number of reals between them, the two numbers can be shown to be closer together than any interval you can name. (yes, I went there -- delta epsilon, bitches!)

Also on the "how can 10% of reals start with .9?" question (not Rule 110's question, BTW) -- if all real numbers can be represented in decimal notation, and if reals are distributed evenly across the number line, then how can they not??

I'm certain this is a good time to bring up Dedekind Cut! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut

Wikipedia:
... a partition of the rational numbers into two non-empty parts A and B, such that all elements of A are less than all elements of B, and A contains no greatest element.

If B has a smallest element among the rationals, the cut corresponds to that rational. Otherwise, that cut defines a unique irrational number which, loosely speaking, fills the "gap" between A and B. In other words, A contains every rational number less than the cut, and B contains every rational number greater than the cut. An irrational cut is equated to an irrational number which is in neither set. Every real number, rational or not, is equated to one and only one cut of rationals.

jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Now, with all my advice to everyone else it's pretty much assured that I'll make a fool of myself when I throw my own hat into the ring

Note: I guess I should add that I'm talking mainly about character acting, which is what this seems to be. If we're talking about an MC or a sales pitch on a radio commercial it's going to be much closer to public speaking tone and quality.
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

mscha
Posts: 6908
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

### Re: Ketchup: Part 2

HES wrote:
HES, BEng (Hons) Civil Engineering

Congratulations̿
Spoiler:
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.

Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:

cellocgw
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

TimeLurker wrote:
SBN wrote:
Spoiler:
NetWeasel wrote:
patzer wrote:
NoMouse wrote:
NetWeasel wrote:ETA: Hold on.. I just goatted the PagePope who quoted this message before I posted it????
I think I need a ruling here...

You two just broke the space-time continuum... How in the hell could he quote your message that was submitted at the precisely same second?

"Last edited by mathmannix at newpix 2868.26, edited 4 times in total."
I assume he edited in the quote later.

no... I saw it quoted at the top of this page while mine was at the bottom of the previous one.
I hit refresh and the positions reversed.
Weird.
Here's my ruling, since you asked for one. You are co-popes and co-goats. (Not that I have any power to make rulings.)

That won't do. How can we follow the decrees of 2 different popes at the same time?
Maybe we should continue discussing it though, until we move past this newpage of time-traveling posts.

"How can you be in two places at once when you're really nowhere at all?"

Anyway, even without resorting to Aleph-Null, it's easy to follow two Papal (or Mamal) decrees simultaneously so long as they are not in direct conflict with each other.
So, while I'm not Pope of the current page, instead of a decree, here's a challenge: collect all Page Decrees in this thread and find all pairings which DO conflict. Extra credit for circular triples or larger sets ("circular" here meaning mathematically non-transitive).
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

patzer
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:48 pm UTC
Contact:

### Re: 1190: "Time"

NetWeasel wrote:Also on the "how can 10% of reals start with .9?" question (not Rule 110's question, BTW) -- if all real numbers can be represented in decimal notation, and if reals are distributed evenly across the number line, then how can they not??

in the numbers from 90 to 899, approximately 1.234% of numbers begin with 9.
in the numbers from 900 to 8999, approximately 1.234% of numbers begin with 9.
in the numbers from 9000 to 89999, approximately 1.234% of numbers begin with 9.
in the numbers from 90000 to 899999, approximately 1.234% of numbers begin with 9.
in the numbers from 900000 to 8999999, approximately 1.234% of numbers begin with 9.

it's quite clear that approximately 1.234% of all numbers begin with 9.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. –Douglas Adams

NetWeasel
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:08 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

### Re: 1190: "Time"

cellocgw wrote:So, while I'm not Pope of the current page, instead of a decree, here's a challenge: collect all Page Decrees in this thread and find all pairings which DO conflict. Extra credit for circular triples or larger sets ("circular" here meaning mathematically non-transitive).

Looks like you've set yourself up to put a new page in the wiki, or the Book of Time....
Remember waiting a half hour for one darkening pixel? Pepperidge Farms remembers...
Note To Blitzers:It is advisable NOT to go past page 1130 until you've seen up to frame 2900 (Geekwagon Numbering). A lot is happening, and really, you do not want to skip ahead at that point.

SinusPi
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:16 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

So confusONG!

YOU AROSE HERE FROM THE (sand) DESERT BELOW? NOBODY (lives)TRANSPIRES THERE.
Last edited by SinusPi on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

b2bomberkrh
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:50 am UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

NetWeasel wrote:
Rule110 wrote:...(1.000 = .999... as is the favorite math fact of Internet trolls everywhere, but also 0.5000... = 0.4999..., and in base 3,1/3 = .1000... = .0222...)

Getting back the the "mind-boggling" posts of a few pages ago...
While .5000.... is not equal to .499999..... and therefore has an infinite number of reals between them, the two numbers can be shown to be closer together than any interval you can name. (yes, I went there -- delta epsilon, bitches!)

Also on the "how can 10% of reals start with .9?" question (not Rule 110's question, BTW) -- if all real numbers can be represented in decimal notation, and if reals are distributed evenly across the number line, then how can they not??

Define "distributed evenly" in this context. In order to talk about percents, you have to put things into ratios with each other, and that doesn't work for infinite sets like this, since putting things into correspondence with each other can be done in lots of different ways that lead to contrary results. I can just as easily show that 99% of real numbers start with a 9, just by the way in which I present them. (You have to be very careful here, since you can't even list the reals in any way that includes them all, this is the crux of why the reals aren't the same size, as a set, that the rationals/integers are.) It's easier to understand the difficulties if you just stick with the integers, which at least can be listed. You might intuitively think that 50% of the integers are even, but that isn't true. We only think like that because the "normal" way of listing the integers, every other one is even. It's equally valid to list the integers as (1,3,2,5,7,4,9,11,6...) in which case it is "obvious" that one third of the integers are even. For the same reason, it doesn't make sense to state that ANY percent of the reals start with 9 in their decimal expansions, the situation being even worse with reals, since you can't come up with any way to list them that might suggest a percent, which would be erroneous even if you did.

ETA: In the SET of all real numbers, if we define set members by decimal expansions, .5 is not the same as .4999...or even as .50 or .500, etc. But when we add a "field" structure to the reals, so that we can ask questions like "are there any numbers between A and B?", those numbers are in fact the same number, as your own proof showed you, equality being defined by there being arbitrarily close together. Being equal, there are NO numbers between them, not an infinite number, since they are the same number within the field of the real numbers.
Last edited by b2bomberkrh on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

mscha
Posts: 6908
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Hairdo wrote:You arose here from the desert below?
Nobody ....pires there.

Edit: note the use of ° as a question mark, pretty much proving that we were right.
I can't figure out that second-last word. Anyone?
Last edited by mscha on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:06 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.

Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:

Pikrass
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:18 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Blindpost from NP 1086. I've been ketching up nearly all day for the past two days, and I'll be with you soon!

ucim wrote:
Arky wrote:Oh, page pope![...]Optional decree:
Have you ever watched/are you watching the Tour de France?
I've never watched the TdF, though when I was in Paris one afternoon I did see myriads of cyclists speeding down the Seine (or rather, the quay which parallels it). I didn't have a clue what it was; turns out they do that every week, pretty much taking over the streets. Them Frenchies - they take their bicycles seriously!

Have you ever been in Amsterdam? I'd say *they* take their bicycles seriously, you see more of them than cars!

higgs-boson wrote:
Zorin_75 wrote:I wonder what will happen when Cueball gets to the point of the story where he draws himself drawing...

Nothing special. It just gets complicated. Ever read The Neverending Story (Michael Ende)?

I know the book (though I haven't read it), but this made me think of this song. This one clearly needs an ottification!

And finally, the random image of the day is quite OTT-related:
Spoiler:

Caption: Clubbing moist!

Redundant:
Spoiler:

random cake

redundakitty cat cake
Programmer and waiter devoted to Time.

Scripts for the One True Thread: heretic date to newpix converter; spoiler detector; multiquote; extra hide button for spoilers.
Code, links and instructions on Github.
Bundle (Firefox only)

NetWeasel
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:08 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

### Re: 1190: "Time"

SinusPi wrote:So confusONG!
Spoiler:

(you) towardse here from the sands below (Beanie question mark!!!)
Nobody (something--equates to lives??) there

Spoiler:

ETA: Desert/sands as one word
Last edited by NetWeasel on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:12 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Remember waiting a half hour for one darkening pixel? Pepperidge Farms remembers...
Note To Blitzers:It is advisable NOT to go past page 1130 until you've seen up to frame 2900 (Geekwagon Numbering). A lot is happening, and really, you do not want to skip ahead at that point.

Ximenez
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:06 pm UTC
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Wildhound wrote:
Ximenez wrote:
Spoiler:
As a foreign English speaker (and not very good at that), I can relate to Farrah Hairdo Beanie. Painfully so.

When you learn English from books, you get a distorted view of word usage and few, if any, clues about pronunciation. Also, it's somewhat hard to understand native speakers when they speak fast (or on top of each other, like in the present frame), so there will/should be difficulties on that front.

(Multiple edits trying to make this look less gibberish.)

B-b-but... your English (written at least) is really good!

Thanks! But when I speak I'm not better than Farrah H.!

mscha
Posts: 6908
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Pikrass wrote:Have you ever been in Amsterdam? I'd say *they* take their bicycles seriously, you see more of them than cars!

It's generally much faster to get around by bike than by car, at least in the center of Amsterdam. And that's excluding the 15 minutes you need to find a parking spot for your car.
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.

Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:

Moose Anus
Posts: 444
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Nobody perspires there!

Wildhound
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:34 pm UTC
Location: Lost in Time.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

mscha wrote:
Hairdo wrote:You arose here from the desert below?
Nobody ....pires there.

Edit: note the use of ° as a question mark, pretty much proving that we were right.
I can't figure out that second-last word. Anyone?

If you look at the faded diagonal text behind it, it seems to end in "ves". I wonder if this was a failed attempt to say "Nobody lives there".
Now and forever, a staunch TimeKeeper amongst heretics.

OTC Android Live Wallpaper

jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

SinusPi wrote:So confusONG!
Spoiler:

YOU AROSE HERE FROM THE (sand) DESERT BELOW? NOBODY (lives)TRANSPIRES THERE.

Because it looks like people missed it, I think this is a pretty good reading.
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

ttscp
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:05 pm UTC
Location: Lost In Thought - Send Search Party

### Re: 1190: "Time"

b2bomberkrh wrote:Actually, Cantor's Diagonal proof and the cardinality of the rationals and reals has no relationship to the denseness of the rationals (the property that between any two rationals there is another.)
Spoiler:
It's very easy when discussing this stuff to confuse the notion of a set, a group and a field. Cardinality refers to the properties of the integers, rationals, reals etc. as sets (infinite sets in this case.) Sets by themselves do not have concept of "between" or "bigger" or anything, they are just collections of abstract objects. It is only when you lay an algebraic structure on top that other properties begin to emerge. Thus, the integers can be turned into a "group" by adding the concept of addition. Multiplication can be added as an extension to addition, but it isn't sufficient to turn the integers into a "field" since the multiplication is incomplete in the sense that multiplicative inverses aren't in the group (to get 1, you have to multiply 2 by 1/2, but 1/2 isn't an integer.) The rationals, however are a field under the operations of multiplication and addition, and so are the reals. Both of these fields share the property of denseness. Stating, as another writer did, that the integers are the same cardinality as the rationals, but aren't dense, is really mixing metaphors, since cardinality is a property of the sets, and denseness is a property of the rationals as a field under addition and multiplication, and the integers aren't even a field at all

Correction noted, thanks. It's hard to talk about this in lay language and the point I was trying to convey was really the same as yours: just because the reals are dense doesn't mean that the set of reals has a higher cardinality. It takes a separate proof for that.
Did I say that right?

Wildhound wrote:
Ximenez wrote:As a foreign English speaker (and not very good at that), I can relate to Farrah Hairdo Beanie. Painfully so.

When you learn English from books, you get a distorted view of word usage and few, if any, clues about pronunciation. Also, it's somewhat hard to understand native speakers when they speak fast (or on top of each other, like in the present frame), so there will/should be difficulties on that front.

(Multiple edits trying to make this look less gibberish.)

B-b-but... your English (written at least) is really good!

Seconded. I'm amazed at the English ability of everyone on this thread. I have to look at people's locations to guess that English might not be your native language. .
Always act to increase the survival chances of the largest group you are a part of.

Fictioneer
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:38 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

NetWeasel wrote:
SinusPi wrote:So confusONG!
Spoiler:

(you) towardse here from the sands below (Beanie question mark!!!)
Nobody (something--equates to lives??) there

Spoiler:
sands below.png

It looks like she was starting to say "expires" and then remembered the opposite word, "lives".

devrelm
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:17 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Anybody know what the background says?

My best guess is:

To This Fortress

SinusPi
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:16 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Given Hairdo's odd accent, she tried to say "lives" and ended up with... transpires? Could be a far-fetched synonym, seasonable for mispronouned speaqueen.

Also, not only Beanie-question-mark, but Beanie-fullstop, too.

mscha
Posts: 6908
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

### Re: 1190: "Time"

jovialbard wrote:
SinusPi wrote:So confusONG!
Spoiler:

YOU AROSE HERE FROM THE (sand) DESERT BELOW? NOBODY (lives)TRANSPIRES THERE.

Because it looks like people missed it, I think this is a pretty good reading.

Yeah, that's because SinusPi retroninja'd it in there.
Good transcription, though – but “transpires” makes no sense. (But what could it be? I can't find a synonym for “lives” that fits.)
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.

Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:

b2bomberkrh
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:50 am UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

ttscp wrote:
b2bomberkrh wrote:Actually, Cantor's Diagonal proof and the cardinality of the rationals and reals has no relationship to the denseness of the rationals (the property that between any two rationals there is another.)
Spoiler:
It's very easy when discussing this stuff to confuse the notion of a set, a group and a field. Cardinality refers to the properties of the integers, rationals, reals etc. as sets (infinite sets in this case.) Sets by themselves do not have concept of "between" or "bigger" or anything, they are just collections of abstract objects. It is only when you lay an algebraic structure on top that other properties begin to emerge. Thus, the integers can be turned into a "group" by adding the concept of addition. Multiplication can be added as an extension to addition, but it isn't sufficient to turn the integers into a "field" since the multiplication is incomplete in the sense that multiplicative inverses aren't in the group (to get 1, you have to multiply 2 by 1/2, but 1/2 isn't an integer.) The rationals, however are a field under the operations of multiplication and addition, and so are the reals. Both of these fields share the property of denseness. Stating, as another writer did, that the integers are the same cardinality as the rationals, but aren't dense, is really mixing metaphors, since cardinality is a property of the sets, and denseness is a property of the rationals as a field under addition and multiplication, and the integers aren't even a field at all

Correction noted, thanks. It's hard to talk about this in lay language and the point I was trying to convey was really the same as yours: just because the reals are dense doesn't mean that the set of reals has a higher cardinality. It takes a separate proof for that.
Did I say that right?

Kind of. Denseness is a property of the reals as a field, cardinality is a property of the reals as a set. They aren't even the same thing at all. It isn't just that it takes a separate proof, they aren't even the same types of objects mathematically (reals as a set, vs. reals as a field.) What you're saying is akin to stating that "just because oranges have seeds, doesn't mean a baseball team has nine players, it takes a separate proof for that."
Last edited by b2bomberkrh on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

SinusPi
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:16 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

mscha wrote:Good transcription, though – but “transpires” makes no sense. (But what could it be? I can't find a synonym for “lives” that fits.)

To transpire = to happen, to take place.
To live = to occupy a habitat.
Seems pretty reasonable for a far-reached (raught?) synonym.

jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

mscha wrote:
jovialbard wrote:
SinusPi wrote:So confusONG!
Spoiler:

YOU AROSE HERE FROM THE (sand) DESERT BELOW? NOBODY (lives)TRANSPIRES THERE.

Because it looks like people missed it, I think this is a pretty good reading.

Yeah, that's because SinusPi retroninja'd it in there.
Good transcription, though – but “transpires” makes no sense. (But what could it be? I can't find a synonym for “lives” that fits.)

It doesn't have to be a perfect synonym, it just has to be conceptually similar. I wonder if she's trying to sound smart, which is why she kind of whispers lives under her breath while saying Transpires, which isn't quite accurate but "sounds" smarter. "Nobody happens there."

Ninja'd by SinusPi, let's see if editing will push me in front (Awwwww)
Last edited by jovialbard on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:17 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

NetWeasel
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:08 pm UTC
Location: South Carolina, USA

### Re: 1190: "Time"

SinusPi wrote:So confusONG!
Spoiler:

YOU AROSE HERE FROM THE (sand) DESERT BELOW? NOBODY (lives)TRANSPIRES THERE.

Looks to me like you nailed it! Apart from specific mention of the Beanie question mark.
Remember waiting a half hour for one darkening pixel? Pepperidge Farms remembers...
Note To Blitzers:It is advisable NOT to go past page 1130 until you've seen up to frame 2900 (Geekwagon Numbering). A lot is happening, and really, you do not want to skip ahead at that point.

BytEfLUSh
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:15 am UTC
Location: Sombor, Serbia, Pizza
Contact:

### Re: 1190: "Time"

By the way, behind the first line, there's a text that goes something like "to this fortress".

-- Professor Dan, The Man from Earth (paraphrased)

mscha
Posts: 6908
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

### Re: 1190: "Time"

SinusPi wrote:
mscha wrote:Good transcription, though – but “transpires” makes no sense. (But what could it be? I can't find a synonym for “lives” that fits.)

To transpire = to happen, to take place.
To live = to occupy a habitat.
Seems pretty reasonable for a far-reached (raught?) synonym.

Not reasonable if in your native language “transpireren” only means “to sweat”.
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.

Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:

meerta
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 11:25 am UTC

### Re: 1190: "Time"

mscha wrote:
jovialbard wrote:
SinusPi wrote:So confusONG!
Spoiler:

YOU AROSE HERE FROM THE (sand) DESERT BELOW? NOBODY (lives)TRANSPIRES THERE.

Because it looks like people missed it, I think this is a pretty good reading.

Yeah, that's because SinusPi retroninja'd it in there.
Good transcription, though – but “transpires” makes no sense. (But what could it be? I can't find a synonym for “lives” that fits.)

But it makes sense that transpires makes no sense, when her Cueganese is so poor.

Yet perhaps it does make sense - if nobody lives there nobody it follows nobody "transpires there" except people passing through, and if nothing transpires there in the way of people then, well... I think she might believe that no one can survive there too, which might have affected the word choice.

I think it was a good reading too.
Last edited by meerta on Wed Jul 17, 2013 5:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.