0613: "Threesome"

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

Moderators: Magistrates, Prelates, Moderators General

0613: "Threesome"

Postby KTC » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:01 am UTC

Image

Alt-text : I wanted us to try finding an approximate numeric solution, but noooo.

http://www.xkcd.com/613/

Oh dear, oh dear... :D
User avatar
KTC
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:04 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby pimanrules » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Why so much sex these days...?

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:*facepalm*

Randall, this is a new low. A truly awesome new low.

Agree'd!
Last edited by pimanrules on Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:05 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
pimanrules
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:06 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:04 am UTC

*facepalm*

Randall, this is a new low. A truly awesome new low.
SocialSceneRepairman
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Omegaton » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:05 am UTC

I learned something new from xkcd again. I had to look this one up... Not really much of a physicist. But still funny!
User avatar
Omegaton
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Kwiz » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 am UTC

All in favor of renaming the n-body problem to "the gravitational orgy problem"?
"Apathy on the individual level translates into insanity at the mass level."
-- Douglas Hofstadter, Metamagical Themas
User avatar
Kwiz
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:16 am UTC
Location: University of Washington, Seattle

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby glasnt » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:07 am UTC

See, this is what happens when I'm not around

Spoiler:
We get multiple new comic threads. I should have been here 7 minutes ago fixing everything by submitting it on the hour. I'm sorry, I dropped the ball.
User avatar
glasnt
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:18 am UTC
Location: SQUEE!

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:11 am UTC

Good show. I also would have accepted: anything related to the Double-Slit Experiment.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.
User avatar
Steve the Pocket
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Aradae » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:23 am UTC

BOOOOOOOO!
Guys guys guys! I found Russel's teapot! . . . nevermind, it was just Jesus flying to Mars again.
Aradae
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Shale » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:26 am UTC

Oh god my BRAIN.
Shale
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:21 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby guyy » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:29 am UTC

To be fair, no one else can solve the three-body problem, either. I guess that's why most people are monogamous...and not physicists.
guyy
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:02 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby sunami » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:31 am UTC

I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?
"You heard it here first: all my software is shitty."
User avatar
sunami
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:52 am UTC
Location: Arlington. The state of Northern Virginia.

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Pazi » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:32 am UTC

Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.
Pretend you're a scrambler.
User avatar
Pazi
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:48 am UTC
Location: Lake Wobegon, out on the prairie

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby nomulous » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:33 am UTC

sunami wrote:I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?


Same here. Maybe a psychiatrist could tell us why?
User avatar
nomulous
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 5:10 am UTC
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby K^2 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:39 am UTC

Lies!

We have some three-body solutions...
K^2
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:40 am UTC

Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.


Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.
User avatar
SummerGlauFan
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Pazi » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:45 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.


Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.


Sweet. ^_^
Pretend you're a scrambler.
User avatar
Pazi
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:48 am UTC
Location: Lake Wobegon, out on the prairie

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby obituary » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:47 am UTC

well, i can't really say i get it but sex comics are always good fun.
hey. i like you. <3.
Image
Image
obituary
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:21 am UTC
Location: washington.

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby axlemn » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:48 am UTC

I likez teh cookies.

The comic felt a bit like Randall's overplayed this type of idea. It's fine and all, but so many is one summer?
axlemn
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:57 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby 10nitro » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:48 am UTC

FINALLY, another xkcd I don't get! I'm going to cut myself off right there and prevent myself from writing a sociology paper on why xkcd is so awesome. Because I was about to write one, explaining why that was a good thing.

sunami wrote:I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?

It's okay, the green ducks are playing tricks on us all the time. Now if only I could find my magic tape dispenser...

[edit:]fix. punctuation
[edit:]Woo! This is my hundredth post. Yes, it says 99, but it starts counting at 0.
[edit:]So the forum DOESN'T start counting at 0 (somehow I had seen a post by someone with 0 posts, it was their only post). So it's not really my hundredth post
Last edited by 10nitro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
~ Luke Shumaker
FRC1024 Programmer
IT technician, GNU/Linux admin, comp. security guy
Eagle Scout
http://lukeshu.ath.cx
10nitro
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Josephine » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:54 am UTC

Pazi wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.


Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.


Sweet. ^_^


I'm afraid I have to revoke that cookie.
Richard Feynman wrote:Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.


I apologize.
Belial wrote:Listen, what I'm saying is that he committed a felony with a zoo animal.
User avatar
Josephine
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:53 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Pazi » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:58 am UTC

nbonaparte1 wrote:
Pazi wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.


Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.


Sweet. ^_^


I'm afraid I have to revoke that cookie.
Richard Feynman wrote:Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.


I apologize.



She hadn't seen that. ;p

Really, if you're gonna take the cookie, why not point out that she just did see someone make that comparison, by authoring the comic?
Pretend you're a scrambler.
User avatar
Pazi
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:48 am UTC
Location: Lake Wobegon, out on the prairie

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:59 am UTC

Lame, guys. Quicksilver's topic (42875) was before this one, albeit by less than a second. But then everyone went and discussed it here, so I had to boneyard that thread.

Sorry Quicksilver.
Treatid basically wrote:widdout elephants deh be no starting points. deh be no ZFC.


(If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome)
User avatar
gmalivuk
A debonaire peeing style
 
Posts: 21990
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby howdyhamster » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:00 am UTC

I rarely post here, but I do have to point to this:

[link deleted]
Last edited by MFHodge on Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: User has less than five posts.
howdyhamster
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:18 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Achmos » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:03 am UTC

Oh me yarm! An xkcd comic I actually get! And I'm not even a Physics Major! :mrgreen:
Thank goodness I discussed with my Astronomy teacher if there was any drastic difference in calculations between two body and three body gravitational trajectories. 8)
"Tell me why I had to be a Powerslave!
I don't want to die, I'm a god, why can't I live on!
When the life giver dies, all around is laid waste.
And in my last hour, I'm a slave to the Power of Death!"
Achmos
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 6:39 am UTC
Location: Fremont California

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby SummerGlauFan » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:12 am UTC

Pazi wrote:
nbonaparte1 wrote:
Pazi wrote:
SummerGlauFan wrote:
Pazi wrote:Actually, as a dedicated polyamorist, I can tell you that group sex is more comparable to string theory: laypeople think you're crazy if you try and explain it, it's very appealing to those with a novice's awareness of the field, actually implementing it can get messy, and there's a wide number of possible solutions, none of them inherently more obvious than the others.


Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.

I award you a cookie.


Sweet. ^_^


I'm afraid I have to revoke that cookie.
Richard Feynman wrote:Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.


I apologize.



She hadn't seen that. ;p

Really, if you're gonna take the cookie, why not point out that she just did see someone make that comparison, by authoring the comic?


You still get to keep my cookie.

Shame on the cookie-stealer! :cry:
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.
User avatar
SummerGlauFan
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Mr Jack » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:13 am UTC

That made my day. I was in a bad mood after an irritating physics lab. And Pazi's comment double-made my day, thank you!

(edit: I should add: Pazi's comment is still worth a cookie).
User avatar
Mr Jack
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:31 am UTC
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Simon17 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:16 am UTC

Terribly contrived setup. The pun wasn't too bad, but overall this was a poor comic.
This could have been much better with a little more effort.
You can do better, randall!

I spilled the nachos in my lap when I read about the people who didn't even get the joke but thought it was a good comic because it was about sex! You're the primary reason for the xkcd backlash!
Randall, get out of my trunk!
User avatar
Simon17
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:45 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Simon17 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:19 am UTC

SummerGlauFan wrote:Congratulations, you are the first person I have ever seen who has compared sex to physics.


I really hope that you were being ironical but for some reason, I doubt it.
Randall, get out of my trunk!
User avatar
Simon17
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 4:45 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby kharidiron » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:26 am UTC

You know, I've never posted on here before, but I just feel I should point out: there is in fact a stable three-body solution. The only problem is, it involves chasing each other around. Just sayin...

(Too much of a newb to post a link. >_< Search 'Montgomery three body problem.' Pretty easy to find)

Otherwise, kudos on the comic! =D
User avatar
kharidiron
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:19 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby KTC » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:28 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Lame, guys. Quicksilver's topic (42875) was before this one, albeit by less than a second. But then everyone went and discussed it here, so I had to boneyard that thread.

Sorry Quicksilver.

Blame the forum software. Mine appeared lower down (to me anyway) than Quicksilver when we both submitted at the same time even if it did give Quicksilver's a lower thread number. Anyway, this one was more complete from the start, Quicksilver's only had the picture on submission. :P Anyhow, given the thread number, I give Quicksilver a cookie in compensation for "stealing" today's thread.

(I actually pressed "Save" by mistake before I press back on the browser and found the right button for "Submit" :D )
User avatar
KTC
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:04 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Sir-Taco » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:46 am UTC

Argh I had to look this one up. But have we hit the sex summer comics limit? 4 weeks left to tell (for me anyways)
The world is a cold and dark place, so start fire.
User avatar
Sir-Taco
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:39 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:50 am UTC

I don't get this at all.

I do however fully understand it and appreciate the humour :D
User avatar
Eternal Density
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Location: The Hotdog Cart

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby linguistic » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:35 am UTC

nomulous wrote:
sunami wrote:I read this twice as "psychiatrist" instead of "physicist". What does this say about me?


Same here. Maybe a psychiatrist could tell us why?


What? Why would a physicist have any idea?




:-P
Son of a bit!
User avatar
linguistic
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:16 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Math_Mage » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:46 am UTC

"A reasonable starting point for a discussion of the many-body problem might be the question of how many bodies are required before we have a problem. Prof. G.E. Brown has pointed out that, for those interested in exact solutions, this can be answered by a look at history. In eighteenth-century Newtonian mechanics, the three-body problem was insoluble. With the birth of general relativity around 1910, and quantum electrodynamics around 1930, the two- and one-body problems became insoluble. And with modern quantum field theory, the problem of zero bodies (vacuum) is insoluble. So, if we are out after exact solutions, no bodies at all is already too many."

Richard Mattuck, A Guide to Feynman Diagrams and the Many-Body Problem (1976)
http://alexpetrov.com/memes/sci/simplicity.html

So the question is, how knowledgeable does a physicist need to be before he can't even masturbate anymore? ;)
Math_Mage
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:14 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby DVC » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:51 am UTC

When it comes to relationships, physicists have enough trouble trying to solve the two-body problem.
DVC
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:20 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby 9squirrels » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:06 am UTC

Perhaps she should have got some bondage gear involved to turn it into a restricted 3-body problem...

Great strip, I had to look it up to fully appreciate it, but that just adds to the fun, humour AND learning!
9squirrels
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:02 am UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Max2009 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:20 am UTC

I'm surprised that so many people didn't get this one.

Just the other day we were discussing futility in physics, and one of my TAs said that physicists can solve one, two and lots.
Randall, I give you permission to stay in my head (for the time being).
Cogito ergo surf - I think therefore I network

Registered Linux user #481826 Get Counted! http://counter.li.org

Image
User avatar
Max2009
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:20 pm UTC
Location: Where?

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Kalos » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:30 am UTC

omigawd, Randall's aware of sex!
Kalos
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Quercus314 » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:28 am UTC

Computer Scientists, on the other hand, would have less problem with three bodies, and more so with 3-SATisfaction... :D
Quercus314
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:20 am UTC
Location: Israel

Re: "Threesome" Discussion

Postby Landak » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:45 am UTC

Has anyone pointed out that, as a physicist, I can provide solutions to the three body problem - albeit not in a closed form, and chaotic. The details were worked out by Lagrange, and a Finnish dude called Sundman (iirc).

Does this mean I can haz polygamy, albeit in the form of an infinite sum of r^{1/3}?
Landak
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:23 am UTC

Next

Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlitzGirl, Google [Bot], HES, SBN and 19 guests