0055: "Useless"

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

Moderators: Magistrates, Prelates, Moderators General

0055: "Useless"

Postby kyoung » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:36 am UTC

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 T-shirt 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
kyoung
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:18 pm UTC

Re: useless discussion

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:00 pm UTC

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.
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
Spoiler:
Nullcline wrote:What a colossal waste of stupidity.
fjafjan wrote:I got quite a lot of "batter" left
natraj wrote:skydiving is p fun (in this respect it is almost exactly unlike centipedes)
doogly wrote:Oh, I like everything!
User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
 
Posts: 5961
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby realitymage » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:27 pm UTC

Why is the identity matrix times "heart" a question mark? Isn't the answer just "heart"?
realitymage
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:10 am UTC

Postby Belial » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:34 pm UTC

love does not follow your banal mathematical rules.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.
User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
 
Posts: 30196
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC

Postby Patashu » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:31 pm UTC

Even Nullity can't solve the meaning of love.
User avatar
Patashu
Answerful Bignitude
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:54 am UTC

Postby German Sausage » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:05 pm UTC

did you let it try?
User avatar
German Sausage
3 of 5
 
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:45 am UTC

Postby Jesse » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:08 pm UTC

I didn't want to be hurt again.
User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
 
Posts: 8612
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Blackpool, England.

Postby TheTankengine » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:27 am UTC

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.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting
User avatar
TheTankengine
Our Fora-father
 
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY

Postby skeptical scientist » Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:37 am UTC

realitymage wrote:Why is the identity matrix times "heart" a question mark? Isn't the answer just "heart"?

Actually, the alt-text 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
User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
 
Posts: 6150
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Postby cmacis » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:17 am UTC

Optimistically make it an equivalence relation.
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 n’est pas une [s]pipe[/s] signature.
User avatar
cmacis
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:22 pm UTC
Location: Leeds or Bradford, Thessex

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

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.
Treatid basically wrote:widdout elephants deh be no starting points. deh be no ZFC.


(If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome)
User avatar
gmalivuk
A debonaire peeing style
 
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There

Postby Yakk » Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:27 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
realitymage wrote:Why is the identity matrix times "heart" a question mark? Isn't the answer just "heart"?


Only if "heart" is a 2x2 matrix.


Incorrect.
User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
 
Posts: 10402
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby cmacis » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:27 pm UTC

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.
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 n’est pas une [s]pipe[/s] signature.
User avatar
cmacis
 
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:22 pm UTC
Location: Leeds or Bradford, Thessex

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:21 pm UTC

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 first-order theory. :-)
Treatid basically wrote:widdout elephants deh be no starting points. deh be no ZFC.


(If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome)
User avatar
gmalivuk
A debonaire peeing style
 
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There

lets give this a go...

Postby chiggs » Wed May 02, 2007 10:09 am UTC

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.
chiggs
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 8:52 am UTC

Postby 6453893 » Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 am UTC

I'm pretty sure "Transformed into the Love Domain" is the name of a stripper joint in Chicago.
User avatar
6453893
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:40 am UTC
Location: Australia

Postby awkward » Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:14 pm UTC

I just realized that the fourier transform on the comic is repleced by a laplace transform on the shirt. spooky.
awkward
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:28 am UTC

Postby Vortigen » Sun Jun 10, 2007 5:52 am UTC

Would it be possible to break down the chemical composition of phermones (or derive some number from it) and plug that into the equation?

:shock:

Because that would be loads help.

Although... once we got the number... what would we do with it?

:?
User avatar
Vortigen
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Poking you.

Postby flatluigi » Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:26 pm UTC

Vortigen wrote:Although... once we got the number... what would we do with it?


Make a t-shirt?
Image
User avatar
flatluigi
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:48 pm UTC

Postby Vortigen » Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:31 pm UTC

flatluigi wrote:
Vortigen wrote:Although... once we got the number... what would we do with it?


Make a t-shirt?


That would be so cool. (LOVE = 78.09342)
Hitlist:
1. Corbin Bleu
2. Imageshack
3. Asparagus.
User avatar
Vortigen
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:28 am UTC
Location: Poking you.

Postby ludwig_van » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:19 am UTC

This reminds me of a haiku I wrote for my school paper:

Robot wants to know:
What is equation for love?
hotness times money
ludwig_van
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:58 am UTC

Postby antonfire » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:27 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 forward-looking. 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)?
User avatar
antonfire
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

Postby SpitValve » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:51 am UTC

antonfire wrote:Aside: why cos(love), and not sin(love)?


Why?

Just 'cos.
User avatar
SpitValve
Not a mod.
 
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:51 am UTC
Location: Québec, Québec.

Postby Mike Graham » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:57 pm UTC

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.)
Mike Graham
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:28 am UTC
Location: College Station, TX

Postby Sprocket » Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:01 pm UTC

I had to stop reading this thread because it was turning me on. It doens't help that I'm wearing a thong. All my other underwear are in the wash.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
ImageImage Image Image
User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
 
Posts: 5742
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.

Re: Useless

Postby monkeykoder » Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:30 am UTC

Wondering how many people noticed that the shirt uses the Laplace transform while the comic uses the Fourier transform???
monkeykoder
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:42 pm UTC

XKCD in China?

Postby gruene » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:08 pm UTC

This was from last July in a little town on the Chinese-Mongolian border called Erlian:

Image

The statue is of two Sauropoda making out over a highway:

Image
gruene
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:56 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Dead Flag » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:38 pm UTC

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.
User avatar
Dead Flag
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:35 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Ari » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:46 pm UTC

Those pictures are just way too awesome. :D
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."
User avatar
Ari
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: XKCD in China?

Postby Cytoplasm » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:53 pm UTC

gruene wrote:This was from last July in a little town on the Chinese-Mongolian border called Erlian:

Image

The statue is of two Sauropoda making out over a highway:

Image


That seems like a different form of beastiality.
¡No tengo miedo a fantasmas!

Spoiler:
Cytoplasm: I have catoragized some of my family into lolcats.
Felstaff: For a drudging Thursday afternoon, that level of cuteness has really made my day. Can... Can I keep you?

Felstaff wrote:
Cytoplasm wrote:shannonigans

<3
User avatar
Cytoplasm
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:00 am UTC
Location: EE.UU.(+ Cheese)

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Tinned_Tuna » Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:22 pm UTC

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 Newton-Raphson 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.
Tinned_Tuna
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:10 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby ohki » Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:53 pm UTC

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 nano-Dijkstra's?"- Alan Kay
User avatar
ohki
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:27 am UTC
Location: San Luis Obispo, California

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Tinned_Tuna » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:33 am UTC

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 ? = ? ?
Tinned_Tuna
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:10 pm UTC

a simplistic go at "useless"

Postby AntigenAntibody » Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:17 am UTC

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!
Last edited by AntigenAntibody on Mon Dec 24, 2007 10:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
AntigenAntibody
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:19 am UTC
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: "Useless"- you forgot to try the most basic integral

Postby Alica » Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:35 pm UTC

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?
Alica
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:31 pm UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby ocean_soul » Wed Dec 26, 2007 7:28 am UTC

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
ocean_soul
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Halle (Belgium)

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby SolkaTruesilver » Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:31 pm UTC

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.
SolkaTruesilver
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:30 am UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby tradiuz » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:56 pm UTC

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.

Image
All My Mushrooms wrote:I'm practicing abstinence until someone offers me sex.
User avatar
tradiuz
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:19 am UTC

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby Mr. Mack » Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Here's an out-there 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 non-repeating decimal. So the very root of love is irrational, which is kind of what the comic said in the first place.
"Bagpipes, YES!"

Check out my girlfriend's Etsy shop, Kye's Kreations!
User avatar
Mr. Mack
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:26 am UTC
Location: If I must.

Re: "Useless" Discussion

Postby king_rich4 » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:45 am UTC

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?
king_rich4
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:38 am UTC

Next

Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mikeski, Pfhorrest, WibblyWobbly and 7 guests