0055: "Useless"
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
0055: "Useless"
Surprised to find no discussion for this.
I wondered if there was any significance to using the inverse Fourier transform in the time domain, instead of the frequency domain. The Tshirt seems to have switched to the forward LaPlace transform in the time domain.
Is there a theoretical reason for this or is it just more experience with teh domain of the heart?
karl
I wondered if there was any significance to using the inverse Fourier transform in the time domain, instead of the frequency domain. The Tshirt seems to have switched to the forward LaPlace transform in the time domain.
Is there a theoretical reason for this or is it just more experience with teh domain of the heart?
karl
 LE4dGOLEM
 is unique......wait, no!!!!
 Posts: 5972
 Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
 Location: :uoıʇɐɔol
Re: useless discussion
kyoung wrote:Surprised to find no discussion for this
because it's old. check earlier pages, and then check forum DoB/that comic upload
Last edited by LE4dGOLEM on Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Une See Fights  crayon superish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

 Posts: 1
 Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:10 am UTC
 TheTankengine
 Our Forafather
 Posts: 3328
 Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
 Location: Louisville, KY
 Contact:
Nullity may not be able to solve the problem of love, but the concept of nullity certainly can. Nullity is just some arbitrary 'number' that is equal to infinity, because some guy said so to make solving a problem easier in his mind.
Therefore, "nullinitization" will now be equal to 1/love. My work here is done.
Therefore, "nullinitization" will now be equal to 1/love. My work here is done.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6139
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
realitymage wrote:Why is the identity matrix times "heart" a question mark? Isn't the answer just "heart"?
Actually, the alttext to the original comic was, "Even the identity matrix doesn't work normally." So the answer is who the hell knows?
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
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 24756
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
realitymage wrote:Why is the identity matrix times "heart" a question mark? Isn't the answer just "heart"?
Only if "heart" is matrix with two rows.
Otherwise, it's like multiplying that identity matrix by
Code: Select all
1 1
8 0
2 9
or something.
You'd get a question mark trying to do that, too.
(Edited to account for the realities of matrix multiplication.)
Last edited by gmalivuk on Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
 cmacis
 Posts: 754
 Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:22 pm UTC
 Location: Leeds or Bradford, Thessex
 Contact:
What i meant was that heart is obviously an equivalence relation;
all x love x
x loves y implies y loves x
Okay, it fails at that point, no need to get onto transitivity.
all x love x
x loves y implies y loves x
Okay, it fails at that point, no need to get onto transitivity.
li te'o te'a vei pai pi'i ka'o ve'o su'i pa du li no
Mathematician is a function mapping tea onto theorems. Sadly this function is irreversible.
QED is Latin for small empty box.
Ceci nâ€™est pas une [s]pipe[/s] signature.
Mathematician is a function mapping tea onto theorems. Sadly this function is irreversible.
QED is Latin for small empty box.
Ceci nâ€™est pas une [s]pipe[/s] signature.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 24756
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
cmacis wrote:What i meant was that heart is obviously an equivalence relation;
all x love x
x loves y implies y loves x
Okay, it fails at that point, no need to get onto transitivity.
Yeah, it's definitely a relation, but not equivalence. In reality, it is neither reflexive, symmetric, nor transitive. (That is, some people don't love themselves, much love isn't returned, and if I love Alice who loves Bob, it doesn't mean I love Bob. More likely, I think the guy's a bastard for taking Alice's attention away from me.)
But nonetheless, there's no need to give up quite as easily on understanding it as this mathematician did. Plenty of nonreflexive, nonsymmetric, and nontransitive relationships work just fine in logic.
They just can't be taken as the variables variables of a firstorder theory.
lets give this a go...
We start by noting that hollywood would teach us that love is the only true constant in the Universe (hey  a thousand heroes can' be wrong!). Using this we get immediately:
d/dx (love) = 0, and
[ [ 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ](love) = [ [ love 0 ] [ 0 love ] ]
Next, my mother always told me that "friendship is the root of love" and who am I to argue with my mother? So, although I can't pretend to understand how she derived it, I do know that:
sqrt(love) = friendship
For cos(love) I think we have to start with that old "sine" of love "it's in his kiss" as expounded by Cher. Next we note that to us men, women seem to go off on a tangent at random, while I'm sure women think the same of us. Using
cos(love) = sin(love)/tan(love) we get
cos(love) = kiss/women if you're a man and,
cos(love) = kiss/men if you're a woman
Which leaves is with the Fourier transform of a function f(t) into the love domain (which I won't try to write mathematically here). Clearly we can't really answer this unless given a particular function to transform, but whatever the answer is, being "transformed into the love domain" sounds like it must be good.
Colin.
d/dx (love) = 0, and
[ [ 1 0 ] [ 0 1 ] ](love) = [ [ love 0 ] [ 0 love ] ]
Next, my mother always told me that "friendship is the root of love" and who am I to argue with my mother? So, although I can't pretend to understand how she derived it, I do know that:
sqrt(love) = friendship
For cos(love) I think we have to start with that old "sine" of love "it's in his kiss" as expounded by Cher. Next we note that to us men, women seem to go off on a tangent at random, while I'm sure women think the same of us. Using
cos(love) = sin(love)/tan(love) we get
cos(love) = kiss/women if you're a man and,
cos(love) = kiss/men if you're a woman
Which leaves is with the Fourier transform of a function f(t) into the love domain (which I won't try to write mathematically here). Clearly we can't really answer this unless given a particular function to transform, but whatever the answer is, being "transformed into the love domain" sounds like it must be good.
Colin.

 Posts: 29
 Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:58 am UTC
Here's the way I see it:
The Fourier Transform gives you the periodic properties of love. Look at its ups and downs, consider how long it'll take until you can love again, and so on. The Laplace Transform gives you the trends of love on various time scales. See how quickly love decays or grows. Find out the overall time scale love operates on, how local its behavior is.
Personally, I think that the Fourier transform is more forwardlooking. That cat (love, that is) has some serious periodic components. There's other fish in the sea, that sort of thing. It also looks at love with more people, and how it repeats from relationship to relationship.
The Laplace transform focuses more on now, and how love revolves around what happens now. To me, this hints more towards infatuation than love, in fact. But it also looks more at love with one person, and how that will progress, so in a sense, it's more faithful.
Basically, I think it makes more sense (or perhaps it is just more optimistic) to take the Fourier transform if you're just out of a relationship, and the Laplace transform if you're in one.
(I don't really know that much about the Laplace transform, so if I'm saying something wrong, please correct me.)
Edit: Or maybe it's much more simple. Maybe it just means that you need to look at love sideways.
Aside: why cos(love), and not sin(love)?
The Fourier Transform gives you the periodic properties of love. Look at its ups and downs, consider how long it'll take until you can love again, and so on. The Laplace Transform gives you the trends of love on various time scales. See how quickly love decays or grows. Find out the overall time scale love operates on, how local its behavior is.
Personally, I think that the Fourier transform is more forwardlooking. That cat (love, that is) has some serious periodic components. There's other fish in the sea, that sort of thing. It also looks at love with more people, and how it repeats from relationship to relationship.
The Laplace transform focuses more on now, and how love revolves around what happens now. To me, this hints more towards infatuation than love, in fact. But it also looks more at love with one person, and how that will progress, so in a sense, it's more faithful.
Basically, I think it makes more sense (or perhaps it is just more optimistic) to take the Fourier transform if you're just out of a relationship, and the Laplace transform if you're in one.
(I don't really know that much about the Laplace transform, so if I'm saying something wrong, please correct me.)
Edit: Or maybe it's much more simple. Maybe it just means that you need to look at love sideways.
Aside: why cos(love), and not sin(love)?

 Posts: 27
 Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:28 am UTC
 Location: College Station, TX
 Contact:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=873
PhD comics today reminded me of this. (PhD comics was funny once, but this changed...when I started grad school, it became just painful.)
PhD comics today reminded me of this. (PhD comics was funny once, but this changed...when I started grad school, it became just painful.)

 Posts: 26
 Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:42 pm UTC
Re: Useless
Wondering how many people noticed that the shirt uses the Laplace transform while the comic uses the Fourier transform???
XKCD in China?
This was from last July in a little town on the ChineseMongolian border called Erlian:
The statue is of two Sauropoda making out over a highway:
The statue is of two Sauropoda making out over a highway:
Re: "Useless" Discussion
This thread now contains two awesome first posts. I think hell may be beginning to get slightly chilly.
3.14159265... wrote:Sex is not a bad decision. Its a fun one.
Gunfingers wrote:Entirely too many of my metaphors involve Statutory Rape
Vaniver wrote:Real men use their hands.
Re: "Useless" Discussion
Those pictures are just way too awesome.
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully."
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."
Re: XKCD in China?
gruene wrote:This was from last July in a little town on the ChineseMongolian border called Erlian:
The statue is of two Sauropoda making out over a highway:
That seems like a different form of beastiality.
¡No tengo miedo a fantasmas!
Spoiler:

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:10 pm UTC
Re: "Useless" Discussion
I totally solved Love.
sqrt(Love) = ?
cos(Love) = ?
let Love = x
sqrt(x) = cos(x)
cos(x)  sqrt(x) = 0
f(x) = cos(x)  sqrt(x)
f'(x) = sin(x)  0.5(x^(0.5))
Using NewtonRaphson Numerical analysis to approximate the root of love:
x(n+1) = x(n)  f(x(n)) / f'(x(n))
using x(0) = 0.5
x(1) = 0.6436756318...
x(2) = 0.6417148668...
x(3) = 0.6417143709...
x(4) = 0.6417143709...
x(5) = 0.6417143709...
Therefore, x = 0.6417143709...
x = Love
so, Love = 0.6417143709...
Problem solved. If I've made a mistake, could someone give us a heads up please, it might help me quite a bit.
sqrt(Love) = ?
cos(Love) = ?
let Love = x
sqrt(x) = cos(x)
cos(x)  sqrt(x) = 0
f(x) = cos(x)  sqrt(x)
f'(x) = sin(x)  0.5(x^(0.5))
Using NewtonRaphson Numerical analysis to approximate the root of love:
x(n+1) = x(n)  f(x(n)) / f'(x(n))
using x(0) = 0.5
x(1) = 0.6436756318...
x(2) = 0.6417148668...
x(3) = 0.6417143709...
x(4) = 0.6417143709...
x(5) = 0.6417143709...
Therefore, x = 0.6417143709...
x = Love
so, Love = 0.6417143709...
Problem solved. If I've made a mistake, could someone give us a heads up please, it might help me quite a bit.
Re: "Useless" Discussion
Tinned_Tuna wrote:I totally solved Love.
sqrt(Love) = ?
cos(Love) = ?
let Love = x
sqrt(x) = cos(x)
...
so, Love = 0.6417143709...
Problem solved. If I've made a mistake, could someone give us a heads up please, it might help me quite a bit.
? is not a variable.
But it raining and me peeing on your foot are NOT mutually exclusive.
"Isn't arrogance measured in nanoDijkstra's?" Alan Kay
"Isn't arrogance measured in nanoDijkstra's?" Alan Kay

 Posts: 2
 Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:10 pm UTC
Re: "Useless" Discussion
Ahh please, it makes things a lot easier. Though I'd assume that if you do it for all the other things, like d/dy.(Love) against sqrt(Love), you'd get a different answer, I haven't been bothered enough to look into that.
Anyways, why can't ? = ? ?
Anyways, why can't ? = ? ?

 Posts: 1
 Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:19 am UTC
 Location: Berkeley, California
a simplistic go at "useless"
So I'm an immunologist who came up with this while doing a mediocre job in second semester calculus back in 2004:
∫ ♥ d♥ = ♥^2 / 2 + C
so if true love that is founded on solid, awesome things is defined as ♥ > 1
and if fleeting infatuation founded on sub optimal things is 0 < ♥ <1
(0 being the lack of ♥ in the first place)
then the function predicts the future of the love. ♥ will grow if > 1, shrink if less.
divided by two, because there's two people
and plus C. C is circumstance it can be a positive or negative term. if ♥^2/2 is great enough, then perhaps it can even overcome a negative C with a fairly large absolute value; if ♥ was not that much greater than 1 to begin with, then perhaps it cannot. and of course, we're all wishing for positive C's.
not useless!
∫ ♥ d♥ = ♥^2 / 2 + C
so if true love that is founded on solid, awesome things is defined as ♥ > 1
and if fleeting infatuation founded on sub optimal things is 0 < ♥ <1
(0 being the lack of ♥ in the first place)
then the function predicts the future of the love. ♥ will grow if > 1, shrink if less.
divided by two, because there's two people
and plus C. C is circumstance it can be a positive or negative term. if ♥^2/2 is great enough, then perhaps it can even overcome a negative C with a fairly large absolute value; if ♥ was not that much greater than 1 to begin with, then perhaps it cannot. and of course, we're all wishing for positive C's.
not useless!
Last edited by AntigenAntibody on Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Re: "Useless" you forgot to try the most basic integral
I think the point was that we don't know what that integral is. You're assuming it's a variable, eg x or y to use the most common letters. What if it takes on more the form of exp(♥), log(♥), sin(♥) etc?

 Posts: 61
 Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
 Location: Halle (Belgium)
Re: "Useless" Discussion
So he gives up after trying Fourier (or Laplace) transformation? I can think up some more desperate tries. Like a path integral, or this monstrosity.
Finite simple group of order two
...
You're the upper bound in the chains of my heart
You're my Axiom of Choice, you know it's true
...
by The Klein Four Group
...
You're the upper bound in the chains of my heart
You're my Axiom of Choice, you know it's true
...
by The Klein Four Group

 Posts: 105
 Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:30 am UTC
Re: "Useless" Discussion
Randal, I've found it. Love is a geometric probability function
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_distribution)
In short, you will only know failures until you met a success. That's the basis of the function. So, peoples, do no despair if you realise that you only have bad love affair, because IT'S MEANT THAT WAY. If you have 1 good love affair, the theory is you are still living it, and you are not asking yourself that question.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_distribution)
In short, you will only know failures until you met a success. That's the basis of the function. So, peoples, do no despair if you realise that you only have bad love affair, because IT'S MEANT THAT WAY. If you have 1 good love affair, the theory is you are still living it, and you are not asking yourself that question.
Re: "Useless" Discussion
Here is an article that might propose the equation for finding a mate. It's not the equation for love, but it is a good step in the right direction.
All My Mushrooms wrote:I'm practicing abstinence until someone offers me sex.
Re: "Useless" Discussion
Here's an outthere idea.
A heart in an inverted panj, the Farsi (Persian) numeral for five. So maybe heart is the inverse of five, 0.2.
Now I'm only part of the way into trig, so I can't do most of those equations. But I can tell you that the root of love is a nonrepeating decimal. So the very root of love is irrational, which is kind of what the comic said in the first place.
A heart in an inverted panj, the Farsi (Persian) numeral for five. So maybe heart is the inverse of five, 0.2.
Now I'm only part of the way into trig, so I can't do most of those equations. But I can tell you that the root of love is a nonrepeating decimal. So the very root of love is irrational, which is kind of what the comic said in the first place.

 Posts: 1
 Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:38 am UTC
Re: "Useless" Discussion
my math teacher recently became a fan of XKCD, and started thinking about this "Cos (love) = ?" comic. he came up with a great answer.
Cos (love) = Putting a Significant Other above Yourself.
who needs math?
Cos (love) = Putting a Significant Other above Yourself.
who needs math?