And those last three have pushed you overOneLess wrote:xkcd wrote:YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
It's obviously a concerted attempt by liberal elitist mathematicians to foist communist rhetoric upon the masses. They'd rather children learn that numbers can be rearranged through distribution of multiplication than embrace the reality that it works much better when you let the invisible hand of the market arrange the operations!
Exactly fifty muahaha!
0263: "Certainty"
Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates
I'm not lazy, I'm just getting in early for Christmas is all...
 ArchangelShrike
 Rodan's Title
 Posts: 1533
 Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:39 am UTC
 Location: Waikiki
 archgoon
 Posts: 62
 Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:08 am UTC
 Location: Large (But Finite) Dimensional Hilbert Space
ArchangelShrike wrote:Alice*(Bob+Carol) != (Alice*Bob) + (Alice*Carol).
That is, a threesome is not the same as a guy getting cheated on by some random chick in the street.
In memory of Mr. Falwell, who proved that gay couples do not make a threesome. Or something. Something right.
Wow. Okay, I'm thinking of giving you the win here, sex being (almost by definition) sexier than programming languages. And tying in Falwell to boot. Though I do feel obliged to point out that you probably meant to use the smash product (^) there.
Fight commutative oppression NOW!
Spoiler:
 ArchangelShrike
 Rodan's Title
 Posts: 1533
 Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:39 am UTC
 Location: Waikiki
I'm too tired, but I'm sure you can find this tying in as well. And any mistakes are simply because I'm tired and I really don't want to go to sleep, which means getting up and going to work for some reason...
[Edit: Fix it mods, if my post was wrong!]
[Edit: Fix it mods, if my post was wrong!]
 evilbeanfiend
 Posts: 2650
 Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
 Location: the old world
JoshuaZ wrote:UmbrageOfSnow wrote:Gelsamel wrote:Nothing can be proven universal, even math has it's axioms.
Sure, a(b+c) = (ab)+(ac) in our math systems, but it's based on axioms about multiplication and addition.
You could, in fact, set up a mathematical system where the above equation DOESN'T hold.
Yes Sir, Captain Godel.
This has nothing to do with Godel's theorem at all. ...
well goedel shows that if maths is consistent it can't be complete. a better and funny reference for showing there are always axioms (infinitely many hidden ones!) is http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
in ur beanz makin u eveel
"a(bc)=(ab)+(ac). Politicize that, bitches." ... can we get that on a tshirt? I think it'd be hillarious to watch how different kinds of people react.
There would be a group of people who'd just assume it's over their heads, or nerdy, or something. This group ignores it.
There would be the "I'm trying to appear smarter than I really am" group that notices arcane mathematical markings, but focuses on the "bitches" part in its comments.
There's a related group that also focuses on the "bitches" part, but mainly because they find it offensive.
Some people with insufficient imagination, but sufficient math knowledge, would point out the alleged error.
Some people would find ways of making it true, perhaps by spending all day at work trying to come up with a new set of axioms that don't contradict the one on the tshirt.
There'd probably also be mix'n'match groups that e.g. finds the error offensive but loves the "bitches" part.
There would be a group of people who'd just assume it's over their heads, or nerdy, or something. This group ignores it.
There would be the "I'm trying to appear smarter than I really am" group that notices arcane mathematical markings, but focuses on the "bitches" part in its comments.
There's a related group that also focuses on the "bitches" part, but mainly because they find it offensive.
Some people with insufficient imagination, but sufficient math knowledge, would point out the alleged error.
Some people would find ways of making it true, perhaps by spending all day at work trying to come up with a new set of axioms that don't contradict the one on the tshirt.
There'd probably also be mix'n'match groups that e.g. finds the error offensive but loves the "bitches" part.
Last edited by plams on Fri May 18, 2007 11:11 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
 voodooKobra
 You just....
 Posts: 159
 Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:34 am UTC
 Contact:
This comic is full of win.
If you need to reach me, email kobrasrealm@gmail.com
in b4 spam
Kobra's Corner  My horriblywritten opinions that aren't worth reading. Seriously; you're better off reading Nietzsche translated into myspace user lingo.
in b4 spam
Kobra's Corner  My horriblywritten opinions that aren't worth reading. Seriously; you're better off reading Nietzsche translated into myspace user lingo.
 smithman89
 Posts: 13
 Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:22 pm UTC
 nogenius
 Seemed like a good idea at the time
 Posts: 4220
 Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:32 pm UTC
 Location: UK
 Contact:
OneLess wrote:Bloody continentals, wot wot.
THROW HIM/HER IN THE WATER!!!
I don't sing, I just shout. All. On. One. Note.
Official ironmen you are free, champions officially
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Why? It does nothing to address dance music's core problem: the fact that it sucks.
 bigglesworth
 I feel like Biggles should have a title
 Posts: 7461
 Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
 Location: Airstrip One
OneLess wrote:Can a comic be written about using the word "maths" as a singular noun? It may or may not be correct as far as definition, but it sounds awful to hear a phrase like "Maths is great!" Bloody continentals, wot wot.
Yeah, but imagine how your (possibly hypothetical) friend James would feel if you said Jame is great!
(we're right and you're wrong)
 The LuigiManiac
 Posts: 695
 Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:09 am UTC
 Location: Trapped in a hypothetical situation somewhere in Ontario...help?
bigglesworth wrote:OneLess wrote:Can a comic be written about using the word "maths" as a singular noun? It may or may not be correct as far as definition, but it sounds awful to hear a phrase like "Maths is great!" Bloody continentals, wot wot.
Yeah, but imagine how your (possibly hypothetical) friend James would feel if you said Jame is great!
(we're right and you're wrong)
Can't we all just call it mathematics and get along?
Spoiler:
 bigglesworth
 I feel like Biggles should have a title
 Posts: 7461
 Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
 Location: Airstrip One
OneLess wrote:Can a comic be written about using the word "maths" as a singular noun? It may or may not be correct as far as definition, but it sounds awful to hear a phrase like "Maths is great!" Bloody continentals, wot wot.
Would "Mathematics is great" also sound awful to you? Do you say "Mathematics are great"? (I would say the former).
I've always wanted to know this, but have kept on forgetting to ask.
A friend of mine in sophomore year announced his principle of Williamsian geometry: a=/=b.
Because no two numbers canÂ be EXACTLY alike, and you're oppressing the individuality of 5 by expecting it to be the same as 10/2, or five, or 2.5*2, you bastard!
Of course this actually meant, when we worked it out, that a=/=a, and I still have a shirt somewhere to that effect (which also says "logic is for losers") on it.
The funny thing is, he wants to be a mathematician.
Because no two numbers canÂ be EXACTLY alike, and you're oppressing the individuality of 5 by expecting it to be the same as 10/2, or five, or 2.5*2, you bastard!
Of course this actually meant, when we worked it out, that a=/=a, and I still have a shirt somewhere to that effect (which also says "logic is for losers") on it.
The funny thing is, he wants to be a mathematician.
 cmacis
 Posts: 754
 Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:22 pm UTC
 Location: Leeds or Bradford, Thessex
 Contact:
I love this comic, as well as any dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise.
There is a thread in Mathematics section for debating whether it is "math" (no) or "maths" (yes).
There is a thread in Mathematics section for debating whether it is "math" (no) or "maths" (yes).
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.

 Posts: 139
 Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:36 pm UTC
 Location: Fremont, CA
evilbeanfiend wrote:JoshuaZ wrote:UmbrageOfSnow wrote:Gelsamel wrote:Nothing can be proven universal, even math has it's axioms.
Sure, a(b+c) = (ab)+(ac) in our math systems, but it's based on axioms about multiplication and addition.
You could, in fact, set up a mathematical system where the above equation DOESN'T hold.
Yes Sir, Captain Godel.
This has nothing to do with Godel's theorem at all. ...
well goedel shows that if maths is consistent it can't be complete. a better and funny reference for showing there are always axioms (infinitely many hidden ones!) is http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html
Doesn't Godel's Theorem rely on the distributive property? If I remember correctly, mathematics with only addition and mathematics with only multiplication are both complete. I believe Godel's Theorem requires a field with distribution. So yeah, it does. Kinda.
Last edited by oblivimous on Fri May 18, 2007 4:38 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
This is perhaps the greatest xkcd of all time (including future strips in bizzaro self referential 'what if' dimensions).
That being said, here's my stab at politicizing:
Knowledge of the distributive property would allow terrorists to effectively make a dirty bomb, therefore no educational visas should be granted to noncitizens.
I can see this being a response in a presidential debate.
As with "good" any political statement it takes something seemingly incorruptible and add just enough ambiguity to support an unrelated agenda.
That being said, here's my stab at politicizing:
Knowledge of the distributive property would allow terrorists to effectively make a dirty bomb, therefore no educational visas should be granted to noncitizens.
I can see this being a response in a presidential debate.
As with "good" any political statement it takes something seemingly incorruptible and add just enough ambiguity to support an unrelated agenda.
Winston: What if the Party says that it is not to be trusted?
O'Brien: Well, doublethink, um... *turns knob*
O'Brien: Well, doublethink, um... *turns knob*
cmacis wrote:I love this comic, as well as any dialogue between Achilles and the Tortoise.
There is a thread in Mathematics section for debating whether it is "math" (no) or "maths" (yes).
xkcd: A webcomic of romance,
sarcasm, math, and language.
I rest my case.
(Temporarily, in case you somehow delude yourself into thinking you're still right. )
SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.
The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.
 Yakk
 Poster with most posts but no title.
 Posts: 11097
 Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
 Location: E pur si muove
The distributive property presumes that our finite knowledge of mathematics continues upwards without bounds. This imperialistic implicit conquest up to infinity is a legacy of externallyoriented conquestbased societies, which are inheritly unstable and base their prosperity on the suffering of others. True Math is a list of tried and tested facts grounded in physical experience, not unproven axioms based off of mere extrapolations of experience.
Is Mr. Munroe really trying to argue the fact that because Iraq, and Iran are so close to each other that one might even simply add them together, that the United States has the Universal Authority to invade both as stated by the Universal Truth of the distributive property?
USA*(Iraq + Iran) /= (USA*Iraq) + (USA*Iran)
Stating otherwise is simply warmongering.
(ps, love the comic)
LE4dGOLEM SAYS: It's a conspiracy!
USA*(Iraq + Iran) /= (USA*Iraq) + (USA*Iran)
Stating otherwise is simply warmongering.
(ps, love the comic)
LE4dGOLEM SAYS: It's a conspiracy!
 LE4dGOLEM
 is unique......wait, no!!!!
 Posts: 5972
 Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
 Location: :uoıʇɐɔol
a(b+c)=(ab)+(ac)?
a(b+c)=a^2+b+c
Because brackets killed the simplon. If my maths is wrong, this only further proves my point.
a(b+c)=a^2+b+c
Because brackets killed the simplon. If my maths is wrong, this only further proves my point.
Une See Fights  crayon superish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.
xkcd wrote:YOUR TASK: Politicize the distributive property in 50 or fewer words!
"Your petty bourgeois ambitions have been thwarted, class traitor!"
"But I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky kids! Curse their loyalty to our fearless and perfect leader, whose boots I am not worthy to lick!"
(*cut to commercial for Stalin's Tasty Sandwich Spread*)
As a physics major, i have to say, i love this comic. I was debating with some math friends of mine about how math isn't a science. When you solve discover something in physics and use math to represent that, you are still going under the assumption that it may not always be true. The best example by far is Newtonian mechanics vs relativity.
On the other hand, assuming the proof was done properly, a mathematical proof is always true.
With saying it isn't a science, i do acknowledge that it is the language of all physics and therefore the language of all science (biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, physics is applied math). That is to say, physics is applied math like literature is applied language.
This reminds me of a joke. The other day, a physics professor, a math professor and a philosophy professor were sitting and talking. The physics professor was saying he needs billions of dollars in machinery to do some cutting edge research. The math professor was saying how he has it better than the physics professor because all he need to do research is pencil, paper and an eraser. The philosophy professor says he has it even better, all he needs is pencil and paper.
On the other hand, assuming the proof was done properly, a mathematical proof is always true.
With saying it isn't a science, i do acknowledge that it is the language of all physics and therefore the language of all science (biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, physics is applied math). That is to say, physics is applied math like literature is applied language.
This reminds me of a joke. The other day, a physics professor, a math professor and a philosophy professor were sitting and talking. The physics professor was saying he needs billions of dollars in machinery to do some cutting edge research. The math professor was saying how he has it better than the physics professor because all he need to do research is pencil, paper and an eraser. The philosophy professor says he has it even better, all he needs is pencil and paper.
Got Godel?
For a site devoted to "advanced" math, this comic sure doesn't get it. Or perhaps I am just not understanding Godel's work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ss_theorem
Briefly, "If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent."
While there is stunning beauty in the world of math (Godel's theorem being one of the, in my opinion), there are also some serious limitations to the formal systems we use to understand it. Arrogant blathering about "perfect universal truths" is only true if the subject of your discussion is trivial. Which reminds me of another rather lovely H.L. Mencken quote: "Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, direct, plausible, and wrong."
Briefly, "If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent."
While there is stunning beauty in the world of math (Godel's theorem being one of the, in my opinion), there are also some serious limitations to the formal systems we use to understand it. Arrogant blathering about "perfect universal truths" is only true if the subject of your discussion is trivial. Which reminds me of another rather lovely H.L. Mencken quote: "Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, direct, plausible, and wrong."
Last edited by ahammond on Fri May 18, 2007 7:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
 ArchangelShrike
 Rodan's Title
 Posts: 1533
 Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:39 am UTC
 Location: Waikiki
 william
 Not a Raptor. Honest.
 Posts: 2418
 Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
 Contact:
bigglesworth wrote:Yeah, but imagine how your (possibly hypothetical) friend James would feel if you said Jame is great!
At first when you said "Jame" I thought you were referring to this.
Also: Oh me yarm NOGENIUS! Oh me yarm Oh me yarm Oh me yarm Oh me yarm Oh me yarm!
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.