Exodies wrote:udscbt wrote:I come from page 293 (I've been absent for about 72 TF) and I've only read this page, so excuse me if I'm missing something while writing this.
About the "if the comic will have an infinite number of frames, it will certainly loop" theory, I have a very simple counterexample. Let's take two different Frames and call them A and B; at one point of Time, Randall could decide to do this: for each n from 1 to ∞, show n consecutive A frames, then n B frames (i.e. ABAABBAAABBBAAAABBBB...). This way the comic will continue indefinitely without ever looping, using only 2 (TWO) Frames. If you want me to demonstrate it isn't a loop, let me know (I haven't done it because I don't want to think about it, anyway it should be obvious that it won't loop).
There is a simpler counter example to my original claim - 2 Frames and the Comic consists of Frame 1 followed by an infinite number of Frame 2. This is not a loop.
However. I have been on a long walk and had a long think and have sent the excavators in to Westminster Abbey to dig up the infinite but no loop infidels. They will be thrown in a ditch and covered in quick lime to encourage the others. And this is why - we have been looking only at the mathematics of permutations but the Comic is driven by a, whatsit, narrative not science and one step demands the next. If the same frame shows up, the same next frame must thereafter appear. With a finite number of possible frames, the Comic will loop.
The same frame can be used more than once in a narration without the need of a loop. Counterexample in the attached image (the 1st and 5th panels are copy-pasted). A non-comic (so we're no more talking about frames) counterexample is Groundhog Day (and stories using the same concept): I don't remember the film and I don't know if the exact same frame is showed, but inside the world of the story every day starts exactly the same way so the same frame could be used.
EDIT: forgot the image