Physicist: 1 is prime[li], 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 is prime…[/li]
Mathematician: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime. Therefore all numbers by extension are prime.
Engineer: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime…
[li] yes, I know that 1 is a special case and not really prime.[/li][/QUOTE]
Computer programmer: 1 is prime, 1 is prime, 1 is prime, 1 is prime…
Physicist: 1 is prime[li], 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 is prime…[/li]
Mathematician: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime. Therefore all numbers by extension are prime.
Engineer: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime…
[li] yes, I know that 1 is a special case and not really prime.[/li][/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah, sorry, I wasn’t thinking when I wrote that. Thanks for elaborating
I was thinking of the English Major part of the joke I once heard: “1 is prime, 2 is prime, 3 is prime, 4 is prime… what?”
Concerning “Gird”, I’m thinking the joke here is that it’s the name/symbol of another integer only recognized by a sect of “orthodox mathematicians”, since it’s not at 3.5, but is where 4 should actually be.
It’s also pretty funny that Wikipedia suggests that you could “help” by expanding the list, since expanding the list won’t help it get any closer to complete, nor will it make it a more useful page.
If you really think that the sporadic groups, and the monster in particular, are “trivial nonsense”, I don’t know what to tell you. You might want to read an actual mathematician’s account of its important in “legitimate mathematical research”.
I thought that might be a reference to Orthodox (e.g. Greek and Russian) Christianity, which have a larger Bible canon (i.e. their bible has more books) than other Christians.
Postscript: The gird symbol even looks like a Christian ichthys (Jesus fish) symbol.
I suspect that most folks know about this one, but for the sake of completeness…
There are people who see the “golden ratio” phi everywhere, claiming that i’s the “favorite rectangle”, that it lies at the root of the logarithmic spiral and the Fibonacci numbers. Golden rectangles supposedly show up all over the place - including the Parthenon (Disney’s cartoon short Donald in Mathemagicland helped promote this idea), and sunflower seeds are supposedly bracketed by logarithmic spirals swirling inopposite directions, with adjacent Fibonacci numbers of spirals in the two directions. In reality, the idea of the “most pleasing rectangle” is pretty unfounded (I note that most common rectangular objects – paperback books, credit cards, movie theater screens, etc. aren’t golden rectangles. And the “research” purporting to show the golden rectangle “most pleasing” has been effectively discredited). A lot of folks now believe that the spirals in sunflower heads and suchlike are better described by other curves and processes, and so on. Phi enthusiasts are knda the new Pyramid Believers, which explains the line “Wait, Come Back! I have Facts!”
Physicist: 1 is prime[li], 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error, 11 is prime…[/li]
Mathematician: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime. Therefore all numbers by extension are prime.
Engineer: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is prime, 11 is prime…
[li] yes, I know that 1 is a special case and not really prime.[/li][/QUOTE]
Philosopher: 3 is prime. 3 is an odd number. Therefore all odd numbers are prime.
Yupp. As a graphic designer for a long while, I was commissioned to create a logo for a four-lettered corporation about 7 or 8 years ago. For self-amusement, I decided to use the golden ratio for each letter, as well as the letter thickness. While I thought it turned out nice, I can’t say it was any better than any other logo I’d done before or since just based off eyeballing and a sense of balance. Although, I will say, the client didn’t request any changes, and went with my first attempt. It happens, but not often.
It’s an intriguing ratio, none-the-less. In an industry such as mine, aspect ratios seem so arbitrary sometimes… it can be more fun/interesting for the designer to make something out of a ratio determined by a mathematical constant. At least for me.
I interpreted the joke as him having seen where the Wiki page says, “You can help by expanding the list,” and thus made up a bunch of mathematical “facts” to add to the page, none of which are actually true. I.e., it’s a joke about Wikipedia’s fallibility, incorporating some fairly esoteric math-gags. (Some of which I didn’t get.)
Any joke that needs this much explanation isn’t funny at all. I normally love XKCD even when I don’t fully understand it, like the joke about the Erdös number and I have to look it up but this one is awful.
It may be old news now, but at the time, nailing down the universe of finite simple groups was a big fucking deal, as Joe Biden would say if he were a mathematician.
