I’m pretty sure that’s the gag - it’s not a math joke, it’s a Wikipedia joke posing as a math joke.
But it doesn’t need this much explanation. Everyone searching for an explanation is overthinking it. (All right, phi I’ll grant you.) It only seems like it needs a lot of explanation because there isn’t an explanation to be found, so people are trying really hard.
I want a T-shirt that says, “I survived the Battle of 4.108.” 
I still say you guys are wrong. The Wikipedia thing is the reason for the gag, but that is nowhere near the entire point, or he would have just put in random junk. And we know that at least two things have significance.
I also have never gotten the impression that Randal trolls his readers. That’s something, say, Andrew would do.
It’s a Wikipedia joke composed of math jokes.
I don’t think the joke(s) require any elaborate explanation.
It’s only over-thinking it if your knowledgable enough in the field he’s poking at. I’m only partially knowledgeable, so some of the gags I did get, some I was stumped. Knowing Randall’s style, he’s usually got an esoteric gag behind everything.
For instance:
How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
0.999…
If you didn’t know about this particular proof, you’d be scratching your head. Is it over-thinking it if you’re not sure if that actually means anything, or if it’s some sort of math joke akin to “Why did the chicken cross the road?”
That said, I don’t think this was a poke at Wiki only as a whole. Everything on that line is a gag in and of itself, some just silly, but others a bit clever (the average of e and pi being “observed” is a poke a President’s Day).
Yeah - not every single XKCD strip is a profound math truth that needs unraveling. Sometimes it’s just a quick gag. But that never stops anyone from insisting themselves into forced explanations.
The thing is, the comic isn’t funny. If you don’t know much about math, you might naturally think that you must be missing something, because it couldn’t possibly be that unfunny. The more math you have done, the more likely you are to see it for what it is: just a really unfunny comic with no deeper meaning.
.99… isn’t equal to 1. Big numbers aren’t used in real math. Hahahahaha!
These are tired, boring jokes. They can hardly be called jokes at all. More like unfunny references to things we’ve all heard before but which were never particularly funny in the first place.
I’m surprised he didn’t include “X - there, I found it” and “.5 - the chance of winning if you switch doors in the Monty Hall problem.”
I thought that was .666… 
But yeh… not his best.
It’s funny how I see this in threads about xkcd more than any other strip. People aren’t content to acknowledge that they simply don’t find it funny, but instead go out of their way to objectively declare the strip Not Funny, as if those of us who do find amusement in it shouldn’t.
Maybe they’re not in there precisely because it’s not as lame as you want it to be.
That brings up an interesting point about the nature of jokes, comic strips and humor. Of course, it’s subjective as anything else artistic would be, but certain artists draw a particular audience. In XKCD’s case, his humor is broad enough to capture the typical geek, but his knowledge is broad and deep enough to contrive some pretty clever strips, that might go over the majority of people’s heads. If it’s over your head, you don’t know if it’s just not funny to you, or if there’s something your missing. If this were Garfield, many of Davis’ readers would just pass it over if they didn’t get it, because his humor is almost entirely situational. By contrast, the majority of Randall’s audience are by nature, curious, like subtlety, and to tease apart anything they might not be grasping, as his humor stems from the irony found in science, human behavior, and the tropes within (recursiveness and perspective seem to be often occurring themes). That’s what I actually like about XKCD; the strip challenges his audience (sometimes to a fault), but overall is its strength, as it can be both enlightening and amusing when he pulls it off. More times than not, IMHO.
:smack:
Over at Explain XKCD, someone has pointed out that the nose-up loop-fish symbol is an archaic version of the number four, representing half of an eight. But dispite much discussion, neither this forum nor the XKCD forum has come up with an explaination for the Battle of 4.108.
(I did understand that the number line is infinite and no amount of expansion could complete it.)
I just figured it was a joke poking at all the Battle of [insert year here] wars.
Maybe he is just poking fun at geeks who like to over think things. (Like me.)
Actually, it’s brimming with profound truths yet to be deciphered!
(or he could’ve been very very high that day)
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal shows how you do a math joke.
Yes, but vertical, like a fish on a line, being trolled…
GIRD: Gastro-Intestinal Reflux Disease, you know
I viewed the ‘observed’ comment as referring to quantum physics and expectation values.
Incorrectly? I have issues with the implication that 0[sup]0[/sup] = 1.
Click the red button under the comment.