1751: "Movie Folder"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Muswell
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:33 pm UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Muswell » Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:52 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
m1el wrote:Titanic XCVIII?

I had a lot of trouble parsing the Roman Numerals, and even once y'all had translated it for me it felt like it violated some rule that I seemed to have imagined. My first thought was that you can't start a number with a "subtractive" element, but obviously I have no problem with IV, IX etc. Then I thought maybe you can do that but you can't go on to append additive elements. But that would be a daft rule and would force you into LXXXXVIII which breaks the "four in a row" rule (the clock in Madrid's Plaza Real notwithstanding).


The "four in a row" rule (which is definitely post-Roman; it's not uncommon to see four in a row on Roman tombstones and I've never actually consciously seen a Roman carving or document using the subtraction method, though Rome is admittedly a bit modern for my tastes and the Greeks had their own weird ways of doing numbers) is frequently broken on clocks for a simple reason: manufacture. If you use "IV" for 4, you need to have 5 Vs, 4 Xes and 17 Is. If you use IIII, you need 4 Vs, 4Xes and 20 Is, so clockmakers could have a mould that made 1xX, 1xV and 5xI and use it four times for each clock and never end up with unnecessary extras.

User avatar
yakkoTDI
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:02 pm UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby yakkoTDI » Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:10 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
ruurdjan wrote:So, blackhat is basically a hipster? Not sure what I think of that...



I actually thought they were just reading bad pr0n movie titles....


As long as it is bad, porn movie titles and not movie titles of bad porn I am ok with it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5439
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

The subtractive convention in Roman numerals always seemed pointless. You save a tiny amount of space on the page and writing time and increase learning difficulty and reading time. It's way easier to learn and to read that you start with big values and add successive smaller ones, and worst case scenario you're writing something like MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII instead of MCMXCIV, wow it's so hard and takes up so much space.

I like the suggestion of adding "twos", both because it gives you a nice 1-2-5-10-20-50... sequence, and because it almost completely eliminates the advantages of that subtractive convention. Let's set B =2, F = 20, and G = 200 (because they're the first three unused consonants), then that 1999 would become MDGGLFFVBB. If there were also a "fours" series it would eliminate the advantage of subtraction completely, but then you're getting dangerously close to just using Indo-Arabic numerals (I, B, skip a three, 4, V, skip a few, X...)

I feel like mentioning here that I recently devised my own procedural system for generating arbitrary numerals...

Image

(To be clear, these are to be combined in a positional number system, of whatever base you like; you wouldn't in practice want to generate a numeral for e.g. 1000 this way.)
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:15 pm UTC

The BBC was quite comfortable with MIM a while back, which messes up the apparent "rules".

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:37 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:The BBC was quite comfortable with MIM a while back, which messes up the apparent "rules".

Just looser 'rules'. Remove the need for a unit to only 'one less than' just its (five- or) ten-times multiple, and 49 can be IL, 499 ID, 990 XM, 999 IM, etc, rather than XLIX, CDXCIX, CMXC and CMXCIX, respectively. To shorten more, allow IIX1 to replace VIII, in entirely a consistent manner if you believe the tally marks hypothesis ("two unit marks prior to the first X", rather than "three unit marks past the first V").

Also, taking the tally indicators entirely literally and as 'sole rule', IXCM (the I immediately before the last X before the last C before the (first ever) M) could be 889 (otherwise DCCLXXIX) and IIXXCCMM (two Is before the penultimate X before the penultimate C before the second M mark) could be 1778 (otherwise MDCCLXXVIII, meaning a slight improvement was gained).

(Varying utility and positive/negative savings can be established by trying IVXLCDM = 334 (=CCCXXIV of same string length but the former is by far a rounder-about route)? IIVXXLCCDMM = 1213 (=MCCXIII, so better as 'standard')? IIVVXXLLCCDDMM = rather silly but ends up as 113 (=CXIII, latter being preferable)...)

This is fun, I must say. Not adding to the comic discussion itself, perhaps, but I definitely find this to be fun (and like your system, Pfhorrest, I'll look closer at it later). I shall now try to restrain my further distracting blathering. E&OE.


1 More advantage still if 2x10n characters can replace the II, XX, CC and maybe even MM, but at the expense of more codepoints.

User avatar
TvT Rivals
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:27 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby TvT Rivals » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:24 am UTC

The thing with the "four I in a row" rule is: The Romans were superstitious. "IV" could be read as "IU" since one letter had to do the work of two; "IU" also was the start of "IUPPITER" / Jupiter, and they thought starting to write his name and not finishing it might be unlucky.

iabervon
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:25 am UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby iabervon » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:48 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:And I'm the guy who sat through The Fifth Element waiting for anything at all about boron.


It was an allegory for the use of boron in nuclear control rods, due to its large neutron capture cross section and ability to absorb many neutrons without undergoing fission. Obviously.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Flumble » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:49 pm UTC

iabervon wrote:
da Doctah wrote:And I'm the guy who sat through The Fifth Element waiting for anything at all about boron.


It was an allegory for the use of boron in nuclear control rods, due to its large neutron capture cross section and ability to absorb many neutrons without undergoing fission. Obviously.

So was the big bad evil nuclear energy or public opinion?

x7eggert
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby x7eggert » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:06 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:The subtractive convention in Roman numerals always seemed pointless. You save a tiny amount of space on the page and writing time and increase learning difficulty and reading time. It's way easier to learn and to read that you start with big values and add successive smaller ones, and worst case scenario you're writing something like MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII instead of MCMXCIV, wow it's so hard and takes up so much space.


Recognizing is much easier than counting, so your letter-worm is worse.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby orthogon » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:08 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:And I'm the guy who sat through The Fifth Element waiting for anything at all about boron.


On my commute I cycle past a warehouse/outlet for a company called "Element 7" who sell wood flooring. I can't figure out what they're getting at. I mean, in the periodic table it's Nitrogen1, which doesn't work at all. There are other classical sets of elements, but none of those systems has more than five. The Chinese Wu Xing system includes wood as one of the five, so it couldn't be 7.

1 Trying to work this out whilst cycling on a busy road is slightly dangerous!
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

loaho
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:28 pm UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby loaho » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:51 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:and worst case scenario you're writing something like MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII instead of MCMXCIV, wow it's so hard and takes up so much space


You got a hard stone surface and a tool that hopefully is harder than the stone. You have to carve a number on the stone. Would you carve your version of the number?

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 753
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby somitomi » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:30 pm UTC

loaho wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:and worst case scenario you're writing something like MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII instead of MCMXCIV, wow it's so hard and takes up so much space


You got a hard stone surface and a tool that hopefully is harder than the stone. You have to carve a number on the stone. Would you carve your version of the number?

I'd probably start using base 60 or something. Carving seems labour-intensive enough, that inventing and learning sixty symbols is worth the time.
Avatar from Freddino
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord◯‐◯―

Ae7flux
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:45 am UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Ae7flux » Sat Oct 29, 2016 2:41 pm UTC

At what point did the 'Titanic' series go into space. Because I think I saw that one.
There is an x such that x entirely fails to signify just in case x lacks a specific combination of rotary and reciprocating motion.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Flumble » Sat Oct 29, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

Ae7flux wrote:At what point did the 'Titanic' series go into space. Because I think I saw that one.

That was a Doctor Who christmas special. It had a much better ending than the first film. :D

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:
Ae7flux wrote:At what point did the 'Titanic' series go into space. Because I think I saw that one.

That was a Doctor Who christmas special. It had a much better ending than the first film. :D

Still bittersweet. The small guy with the heart of gold (and other metals) still dies, and the girl he cared for, and she him, got to go travelling, but not exactly as she had hoped, ending with a glittery thing being let slip into the depths1...

(Hmm, more allegorically similar than I realised, and that's just the more obvious shoehorning.)

1 ...OF SPACE!!!

Ae7flux
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:45 am UTC

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Ae7flux » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

Actually, I was referring to the time the Titanic crashed in Southern England. That would have been a very bad ending except it was more the the beginning. (Or maybe somewhere off to the side. This is Doctor Who after all.)
There is an x such that x entirely fails to signify just in case x lacks a specific combination of rotary and reciprocating motion.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Nov 01, 2016 4:21 pm UTC

Ae7flux wrote:Actually, I was referring to the time the Titanic crashed in Southern England. That would have been a very bad ending except it was more the the beginning. (Or maybe somewhere off to the side. This is Doctor Who after all.)

Turn Left?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1751: "Movie Folder"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 07, 2016 4:59 pm UTC

somitomi wrote:
loaho wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:and worst case scenario you're writing something like MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII instead of MCMXCIV, wow it's so hard and takes up so much space


You got a hard stone surface and a tool that hopefully is harder than the stone. You have to carve a number on the stone. Would you carve your version of the number?

I'd probably start using base 60 or something. Carving seems labour-intensive enough, that inventing and learning sixty symbols is worth the time.
Though you'd do well to use a different system than the Babylonians', since theirs was really just base-10 up to 60, making it less space-efficient than a pure base-10 system (albeit more convenient for doing math).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests