2031: "Pie Charts"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Vroomfundel
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:36 am UTC

2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Vroomfundel » Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:41 pm UTC

Image
Title text: If you can't get your graphing tool to do the shading, just add some clip art of cosmologists discussing the unusual curvature of space in the area.

I'm trying to imagine what would it look like when the percentage doesn't add up to 100.
lexicum.net - my vocabulary learning platform

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:10 pm UTC

That'd be a Pac-Man Chart... :P

(Glad somebody else jumped on this,.Was worried I'd look like I was trying to hog the OPs this week!)

kenag122002
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:12 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby kenag122002 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

It seems like Randall put in his full 130% effort on this one.

RogueCynic
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby RogueCynic » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:38 pm UTC

If the numbers don't add up to 100, say the difference is the "margin of error".
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
rhhardin
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:11 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby rhhardin » Fri Aug 10, 2018 7:48 pm UTC

A rising pie lifts all boats.

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby moody7277 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:12 pm UTC

I think it's like with triangles; pie charts add up to more than 100% on positively curved surfaces, exactly 100% on flat ones, and less than 100% on negatively curved surfaces.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Heimhenge » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

moody7277 wrote:I think it's like with triangles; pie charts add up to more than 100% on positively curved surfaces, exactly 100% on flat ones, and less than 100% on negatively curved surfaces.


That was my first thought too ... graph it on a sphere if they add up to more than 100%. Hadn't considered the geometry if they add up to less than 100%, but yeah, a negatively curved surface would do it. In fact, with sufficient negative curvature you could graph any non-zero positive sum without "wrinkling" the chart out of the surface.

What I'm not clear on is what the maximum sum could be on a positively curved surface. My intuition tells me it would depend the radius of the sphere. Like, if the chart spanned an entire hemisphere, you could do a pie chart with percentages that sum to 2πR, no? It gets kinda fuzzy if you go past one hemisphere. There probably some topology theorem that answers this question, but I try to avoid that branch of math. :)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Aug 10, 2018 9:46 pm UTC

Heimhenge wrote:That was my first thought too ... graph it on a sphere if they add up to more less than 100%.
FTFY Sum of internal boundary angles add up to>180° (or pi rads), but length of boundary (tending to circumference) is shorter than the 2.pi.r of a flat plan and areas likewise lower (whichever is the surrogate to percentage). Each centre-point still has a full 360° around it, but have only five 60°-worth elements and insist on making them adjoin around, you're starting to construct a dodecahedral corner.

The other curvature handles more, 'rucking up' as per the comic, until you stretch it out into a hyperbolic plane of some kind.

qvxb
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby qvxb » Sat Aug 11, 2018 12:22 am UTC

What's This Foolishness? Reca!culate the percentages.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby MartianInvader » Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:53 am UTC

I always knew Randall could get hyperbolic at times, but this is getting ridiculous.
moody7277 wrote:I think it's like with triangles; pie charts add up to more than 100% on positively curved surfaces, exactly 100% on flat ones, and less than 100% on negatively curved surfaces.

Other way around. Negatively curved surfaces grow faster, positively curved surfaces grow slower.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby heuristically_alone » Sat Aug 11, 2018 2:59 am UTC

I am just in awe at the beauty of the shadings in the right graph.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

You can learn to levitate with just a little help.

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Heimhenge » Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:14 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Heimhenge wrote:That was my first thought too ... graph it on a sphere if they add up to more less than 100%.
FTFY Sum of internal boundary angles add up to>180° (or pi rads), but length of boundary (tending to circumference) is shorter than the 2.pi.r of a flat plan and areas likewise lower (whichever is the surrogate to percentage). Each centre-point still has a full 360° around it, but have only five 60°-worth elements and insist on making them adjoin around, you're starting to construct a dodecahedral corner.

The other curvature handles more, 'rucking up' as per the comic, until you stretch it out into a hyperbolic plane of some kind.


Now that you mention it, yeah I guess it depends on what geometric entity represents percentage. I was thinking "area" since circumference arc lengths and vertex angles would be meaningless. There might be some other measure that works ... maybe sum of the interior angles, or something like the Gaussian curvature. But I think area is the most intuitive, since on a normal flat pie chart area maps to percentage.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:04 am UTC

The area of a circle sector (the area bounded by two radii and a suitable perimeter arc between them) on flat space is proportional to the arc-length (is proportional to the angle between the two radii at the centre).

You'd not be wrong in perceiving either area or thickness of angle as reflecting the relative values of two 'slices' (unless it's a deliberately information-added variable radius version, of course).
Spoiler:
On a spherical surface, the centre-angles will technically all give "100%", still (for an arbitrarily small area of surface around the centre, still bounding the point, the surface tends towards flatness) but there's less area for a circle of any non-zero 'radius' (maxes out at 4.pi.R² when r of the circle approaches pi.R on the radius=R sphere and becomes the whole sphere, from antipode to antipode) and less perimiter too (maxes out at pi.R² when describing a hemisphere limit at r=½.pi.R, then falls back to zero at pi.R). Like arc and chord lengths, it starts out roughly similar until the spherical geometry starts to be 'felt', then, past the point of the 'fattest waist' it goes radically different.


For all practical purposes, though, percentages that don't add up to 100% are likely represented by either <2.pi.r of circumference or <pi.r² of area in equal measure of summed sectors, and those should lay down on a sphere if you're determined to make the sum of the 'pointy angles' add up to a full circle, rather than a Pac-Man.

fibonacci
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:37 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby fibonacci » Sun Aug 12, 2018 3:01 pm UTC

Relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/1448/

If your chart generates more confusion than clarity, consider including some sort of label.

"上下文很重要." is true, and relevant. However a viewer expecting English on this board would probably rather I type out "Context is very important." A chart showing a percent of some unindicated amount, rather than any of the indicated amounts, makes the same mistake.

Any of these as a title could provide enough context to a viewer that the percent is of some amount, perhaps indicated elsewhere but still it exists:
  • "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Vendor"
  • "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Event"
  • "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Grade"
  • "Percent Profit on School Fundraising by Year"

User avatar
Old Bruce
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:27 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Old Bruce » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:50 pm UTC

Mix and match:

15% of charts ...
30% of charts ...
40% of charts ...
45% of charts ...

are deliberately misleading.
are utterly useless.
are of the wrong sort.
accurately depict useless information.
are designed to obfuscate.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Aug 12, 2018 5:03 pm UTC

give an inappropriate number of data.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:17 am UTC

From the secret vaults,
PieChart2colorOneValue.jpg


piecharteaten.jpg
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
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

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 788
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby MartianInvader » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:36 am UTC

Heimhenge wrote:
Now that you mention it, yeah I guess it depends on what geometric entity represents percentage. I was thinking "area" since circumference arc lengths and vertex angles would be meaningless. There might be some other measure that works ... maybe sum of the interior angles, or something like the Gaussian curvature. But I think area is the most intuitive, since on a normal flat pie chart area maps to percentage.

It doesn't matter. The area of a circle on the surface of a sphere is also less than its flat counterpart.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:36 pm UTC

Area applies more to absolute values, while the angles indicate the fractions of the total.
This is apparent when you consider a big slice of a small pie and a small slice of a big pie in the same presentation.

In this case, the angles are still normal fractions of the total (15/130 for example), and the area of the implied 3d surface is 130 units. The area of the 2d projection should be 100 units, but isn't quite right in the example due to the hand-drawn nature and the comic exaggeration.

For OCD health and safety reasons, the shading should be changed to be symmetrical and smooth as like a deployed parachute rather than a rumpled sheet.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26413
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2031: "Pie Charts"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:42 pm UTC

It has to come to a point in the middle to be able to consistently represent the required quantities, though. If it were smooth, then the represented fractions would vary with the radius of the pie (relative to the radius of curvature).

The shape in the comic is actually flat (as in Euclidean) except for at the one point of discontinuity in the center. It's basically a cone, but with extra surface around it instead of missing surface.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests