There’s only 10^70 atoms in the universe; there’s more chess games than that. Even 10^(10^70) is indistinguishable from zero compared to Graham’s number.
If you asked how many digits are in that number, and how many digits it has, and keep asking that as many times as there are atoms in the universe, I doubt you’d get down to something on the scale of g63, much less something comprehensible.
So it’s sort of a cosmic Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?Arewethereyet?..
Man, I’m nerd enough that I got pretty much every comic in the OP. I had read about 1/2 of them before, though, so I’m not sure if I got it then, or I finally got it this time.
If you’re interested in Graham’s number, Ackermann’s function and other large number topics, check out this old thread.
Maybe. I’m not sure Computational Linguistics is even a solid enough field to even be called a seperate field. Wich may be the point of the comic.
Chomsky wasn’t exactly totally stupid, but at the same time, his theories are essentially unprovable and highly dubious except in the most extraordinarily general way. His primary concepts of a built-in grammar (which he assumed was like English, for some ungodly reason) is more or less wrong according to everything we knew then and know now.
Hmm, is there a reason in the Computational Linguists xkcd that Ryan North (Dinosaur Comics) gets a mention in the Mouse-over? Yeah, Dinosaur comics often features interesting wordplay (lets face it - ain’t much action) but…the same level as N. Chomsky?
Ryan North holds a master’s degree in computational linguistics and occasionally makes references to it in the comic.
Chomskyists. He’s just talking about people who subscribe to Chomsky’s theories, not Chomsky himself.
Also, they’re friends (or at least, the April Fools Joke from 2 years ago with them and Jeph from QC would imply so), so Ryan North naturally gets the “easy target” card placed on him.
To make a small addendum to the fact I don’t understand a lot of xkcd…
I do realize I don’t understand a lot…but I WANT to.
Smart people get these jokes, if I get these jokes I might be smart.
Transitive property- It works bitches!
That could probably be drawn into a pretty good comic for xkcd.
Some xkcd jokes I get, others I don’t. I read them all because even if I don’t get it, I can look it up and hopefully learn something new. Win-win-win.
Agreed, and some are so involved that I lose interest. But there’s enough payoff that I still go and check it out once or twice a week.
See I don’t, I just get by with a little bit remembered from school. Which sort of makes it more satisfying, when I remember something and then “get it”. It makes me feel unduly proud of myself 
This thread just made me love the SDMB even more!
I think most xkcd panels are aimed at the computer crowd with a strong background in mathematics.
Now, how a matematician+comp sci geek can be funny is one of the greatest mysteries of our time
So, I have a slightly different interpretation of the Fourier Transform one. I’m a phonetician, so I work with them a lot, though I don’t do the calculations myself (I let my good friend Praat do them for me). The really basic explanation of the Fourier transform is that it breaks down a complex wave (one made up of a bunch of different waves of different frequencies and amplitudes) down into its component parts. One way the results can be displayed is on a graph where the x-axis is frequency and the y-axis is amplitude. So, a simple sine wave would make one spike. A wave made up of two waves would make two spikes, and so on. I work with the human voice, which, when making a periodic sound like a vowel, is made up of a shit-ton of different waves, and every voice and every vowel will have a particular Fourier transform based on the shape of the vocal tract, the speed of the vibrations of the vocal chords, where the tongue is, etc. All of this can be measured and studied and it’s a grand old time.
Anyway, this is one application of the Fourier transform and one that I think XKCD is riffing off of. The squiggles that are now the cat look like what the transform of the waves produced by a human vowel would look like (an example can be seen here). I’m assuming that a cat’s meow would be similar to a human vowel since a meow is very vowel-like and cat’s vocal tracts aren’t too much different than our own (I tried to test this, but I can’t make my cat meow into a microphone). So, yeah, I take the joke to be, beyond the surrealist idea of taking a Fourier transform of something that’s not a wave, that the result looks like the Fourier transform of the sound waves produced by a cat’s meow. I could, however, be reading too much into it.
I think you’re reading too much into it. Nevertheless, that’s an excellent explanation of what a Fourier transform is and how it is useful, so I’m glad you posted it. Makes a lot more sense to me now.
Bumping thread for todays Xkcd
I dont get it…
A play on the “reverse polish notation” used in calculators of yore.
Ahahahhahahah. That’s a good one. Anyway, learn about reverse Polish notation.
In RPN, one would write an expression like “2 + 3” as “2 3 +”. So a reverse Polish sausage is…you get the idea.
