this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
284 points (99.0% liked)

xkcd

8727 readers
8 users here now

A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

alt text:

Calligraphy exam: Write down the number 37, spelled out, nicely.

explananation: https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2966:_Exam_Numbers

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 50 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

My dad is a retired Math professor.

The laughter had around this started at Cosmology, then erupted at Game theory and he couldn't breathe after the last one.

This is probably one of his most clever comics.

[–] CodexArcanum@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (6 children)

For the final answer, I guess Big Omega, unless you don't count infinities in which case my answer is getting up and arguing with the professor because "the number of times I can recursively write TREE(TREE(TREE... is just as arbitrary as declaring a biggest theoretical number and assigning it a new symbol.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Of course it includes infinities, and when was the last time you saw a postgrad exam whose answers didn't include an argument with the professor?

[–] CodexArcanum@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

"How well you can irl debate me bro on the exam room floor will account for 50% of your final grade."

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago

That's actually the correct answer. If you don't get angry and start an argument, you fail.

[–] palordrolap@kbin.run 5 points 2 months ago

"The largest non-impossible ordinal that is less than the number of infinities there are."

[–] Contravariant@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

The biggest number that can be defined in fewer than twenty words.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

In fact the answer was a series of definitions of new biggest numbers, and you only defined one, instead of defining it, using it for its value of trees, then using that new term for more trees.

[–] stingpie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The set of real numbers between 0 & 1 is larger than any countable infinity.

[–] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

Yass baby compare infinites to me harder

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Man, I remember getting the kindergarten question at a point where my older brother had already told me that you can just add more digits and it always gets bigger.

I was so angry at that question, because what the hell do you want me to do here? I think, I ended up just cramming as many 9s into the box as I could, but that question is almost philosophical.

Clearly, I'm able to think of an even larger number by cramming one more 9 into there. So, what I've written down is always wrong. It is never the largest number that I'm actually able to think of. I'm telling you, I got forced into this life of lies and crime at a young age.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago

the real answer is n+1

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The game theory one is easy. Put down 999,999,999,999 factorial. Then everyone got it wrong, and the curve will reflect that.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Basically, write down the biggest number you can think of

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Only if it's "10 more" in the sense that anything bigger than that is also accepted. If you need to hit 57, because the average is 47, then yeah, good luck.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

The goal in the upstream comment wasn't to get the answer right for you, it's to skew the average so badly that nobody gets it right, and the bell curve adjusts accordingly for everyone.

Not a bad strategy to be honest

[–] Chadus_Maximus@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's why it's always between 1 and 100. Never seen one without an upper and lower bound.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Write NaN to destroy your classmates

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 months ago
[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Joke is on you, I wrote Tree(Tree(3))

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

My strategy is still working, though, and you've now (all but) guaranteed that my answer is the closest to the correct answer.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

2 is pretty big. Oh, or π! That's probably the biggest number I've seen this month.

[–] techognito@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

0

is bigger than

1

but my

2

is bigger than yours

[–] RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

draw a picture of the galaxy with a giant 1 going through it. that's pretty reasonable.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

1 x ∞

Simplest way to take a shot at the biggest number without getting into some weird multiple multipliers of infinity.