Comments on: How Indeed? http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/ JFK: ''we choose to go to the ...'' Wed, 23 May 2012 09:07:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Jim in Phx http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33596 Jim in Phx Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:14:41 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33596 Mark - I don't see how that worked starting on page 3, 3rd picture. Four reduced pictures, one with 4 fingers, one with 5 fingers, one with 6 fingers (borrow the killer on Monk for this one?), one with 7 fingers (?????). Mark - I don’t see how that worked starting on page 3, 3rd picture. Four reduced pictures, one with 4 fingers, one with 5 fingers, one with 6 fingers (borrow the killer on Monk for this one?), one with 7 fingers (?????).

]]> By: Mark in Boston http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33450 Mark in Boston Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:37:18 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33450 I knew someone who gave a very clever handmade (well, copy-machine-made) card (booklet actually) to his girlfriend. Cover: "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." Page 1: Copy machine picture, his hand on the glass, index finger up, meaning "one". Page 2: Two reduced pictures, one with two fingers, one with three. Page 3: Four reduced pictures and so on, with each page having twice as many pictures (each half the size) as before until you can't even tell how many hands there are. I knew someone who gave a very clever handmade (well, copy-machine-made) card (booklet actually) to his girlfriend.
Cover: “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.”
Page 1: Copy machine picture, his hand on the glass, index finger up, meaning “one”.
Page 2: Two reduced pictures, one with two fingers, one with three.
Page 3: Four reduced pictures and so on, with each page having twice as many pictures (each half the size) as before until you can’t even tell how many hands there are.

]]> By: furrykef http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33444 furrykef Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:59:17 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33444 <i>I love you guys. Where else on the web would a comic lead to a discussion of Cantor’s diagonal proof?</i> The xkcd forums, perhaps? ;) I love you guys. Where else on the web would a comic lead to a discussion of Cantor’s diagonal proof?

The xkcd forums, perhaps? ;)

]]> By: Arthur http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33441 Arthur Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:19:37 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33441 Mitch: As Wayne said, "Follow the arrows, and count the hearts ." That shows that there's a way to go through the whole table without ever having to "go to infinity" along a row or column. Mitch: As Wayne said, “Follow the arrows, and count the hearts .”
That shows that there’s a way to go through the whole table without
ever having to “go to infinity” along a row or column.

]]> By: mitch-4 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33435 mitch-4 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:36:59 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33435 I get the difference between the entries in hearts and those without. But I don't get the difference between those with up arrows and those with down. I get the difference between the entries in hearts and those without. But I don’t get the difference between those with up arrows and those with down.

]]> By: James Schend http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33432 James Schend Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:30:26 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33432 Proof aside, I still don't get the joke. Proof aside, I still don’t get the joke.

]]> By: Chakolate http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33429 Chakolate Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:48:36 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33429 I love you guys. Where else on the web would a comic lead to a discussion of Cantor's diagonal proof? I love you guys. Where else on the web would a comic lead to a discussion of Cantor’s diagonal proof?

]]> By: Wayne http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33425 Wayne Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:50:58 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33425 I take it that Powers' question is how this could show that the real numbers aren't countable. Answer: it doesn't. This diagram has nothing to do with Cantor's diagonal proof, which shows that the set of all real numbers (rational and irrational) can't be put into one-one correspondence with the natural numbers; it's the diagram for the proof (also due to Cantor) that the set of all rationals *can* be put into one-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Follow the arrows, and count the hearts as you go! I take it that Powers’ question is how this could show that the real numbers aren’t countable. Answer: it doesn’t.

This diagram has nothing to do with Cantor’s diagonal proof, which shows that the set of all real numbers (rational and irrational) can’t be put into one-one correspondence with the natural numbers; it’s the diagram for the proof (also due to Cantor) that the set of all rationals *can* be put into one-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Follow the arrows, and count the hearts as you go!

]]> By: Kit http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33413 Kit Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:44:04 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33413 @Powers they are reducible to numbers already counted. @Powers they are reducible to numbers already counted.

]]> By: Derek http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33412 Derek Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:43:37 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2010/02/14/how-indeed/#comment-33412 Powers: All of the numbers here are rational. If each axis was extended infinitely, it would contain ALL the rational numbers. The numbers that are not in hearts have already appeared, and can't be counted twice. Powers:

All of the numbers here are rational. If each axis was extended infinitely, it would contain ALL the rational numbers.
The numbers that are not in hearts have already appeared, and can’t be counted twice.

]]>