Where is the playground?

[Lupy]

LARGE IMAGE:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/online_communities.png

Where would Giantitp be on the map of online communities? Since the writer of XKCD forgot the most important site on the internet, I think we need to figure out just where we are.

My guess is that we're just off the "South West" point of compass rose shaped island.

[Innis Cabal]

Wiki seems to be on there.....no idea what you mean really :smallconfused:

[Kroy]

I'm guessing we're the untitled Island SSW of the compass rose.

[Neko Toast]

I'm guessing we're the untitled Island SSW of the compass rose.

I'm not sure we're classified as a 'blog', though. They need an area to classify web comics and/or random forums.

[Pandaren]

LARGE IMAGE:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/online_communities.png

Where would Giantitp be on the map of online communities? Since the writer of XKCD forgot the most important site on the internet, I think we need to figure out just where we are.

My guess is that we're just off the "South West" point of compass rose shaped island.

Nice map, but a bit outdated. Facebook has managed to take over much of myspace's land, and the "myspace band" country/county/area has (sadly) grown. And myspace has developed a new state, emospace.

On another point, I don't think yahoo and such are areas, they'd be more like religions.

[Andraste]

I'd say the middle island of the three islands southwest of WoW.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Somewhere in the Sea of Culture, I'd guess, would be ideal. After all, we have to keep up our brisk trade with the MMO's and social networks. We can dispatch some lighter ships to, say, chatrooms, blogs, and memes.

I'd also assume we're in a strong alliance with TV Tropes, wherever they are (my guess is near Wikiland).

[Fostire]

That map needs a webcomic island/area which is where I would put gitp

[Lupy]

Yeah... We should form a webcomic alliance and attack someone weak someone... Someone... Okay, we can attack the wikiland, and while they try to verify our source of arrival (it wasn't cited) TV tropes arrives to reinforce our beachhead. We can then take our own island and defend it from bloggers in air balloons. :smalltongue:

[RS14]

I second the Sea of Culture. We're like MMO's, but more real-life and intellectually focused.

[bluewind95]

I third the sea of culture. This forum is too... well... uh... cultural, what with the quality of most posts and such.

[Nevitan]

Yeah... We should form a webcomic alliance and attack someone weak someone... Someone... Okay, we can attack the wikiland, and while they try to verify our source of arrival (it wasn't cited) TV tropes arrives to reinforce our beachhead. We can then take our own island and defend it from bloggers in air balloons. :smalltongue:

Why Lupy, I had no Idea you had such a vicious tactile mind!
This is good.
We'll hit stop and hit fast.

Start preparing some E-bombs.

[thubby]

i would put us on that little peninsula deviantart has.
we are a web comic site, among other things, making it artistic. we have a lot of wiki-esk info seeking threads popping up. a ton of meme-ness (see tv tropers). and somewhere in the distance we are gaming.

either that, or on one of those unmarked islands in the sea of culture.

[KerfuffleMach2]

Now, I have to ask one thing.

Where be Newgrounds?

It saddens me that it is not there.

[Innis Cabal]

Probably on the island between 4chan and WoW.

[The Extinguisher]

We're a pirate ship on the ocean of subculture, occasionally drifting through the sea of culture, and stopping on land.

[Coidzor]

Inbetween culture and subculture is where I'd put us...

Either that, or webcomics would be to the east of what is mapped territory. Just skirting south of the anthropromorphic dragons for the most part.

[Fri]

Ah, awesome. We're actually pirates wandering on our city-ship between the ocean of culture or better yet...
http://www.thugdome.com/images/covers/castle_colour.jpg

We are SKY PIRATES!

[Quincunx]

AIRSHIP pirates, please.

A few of us would be patrolling the channel between Yahoo! Games and the Isle of MMORPG, picking off ships in transit and sailing them into the nearest MMO's pirate base.

[Fri]

GITP site would be our fixed base. Because it's a rather niche site about gaming. From there, we launch our ships to raid other places.

[thubby]

on second thought, if we think of this map as a globe, wouldn't the "lonely island" (far west on the map) fit?
it's near blogs, games, and subculture.

[dish]

on second thought, if we think of this map as a globe, wouldn't the "lonely island" (far west on the map) fit?
it's near blogs, games, and subculture.

In that case, we could also be reasonably close to Qwghlm. I endorse this idea.

[Jack Squat]

on second thought, if we think of this map as a globe, wouldn't the "lonely island" (far west on the map) fit?
it's near blogs, games, and subculture.

I think the unnamed island to the right of "Ocean of Subculture" is probably a better option. Farther away from Eharmony, Classmates.com, and the like.
Or one of the islands inbetween the Sea of Culture and Ocean of Subculture.


EDIT: spelling errors and added material.

[UnChosenOne]

Island at the middle sea of subculture would mostlikely best palce.

[Dallas-Dakota]

GITP site would be our fixed base. Because it's a rather niche site about gaming. From there, we launch our ships to raid other places.
Not to mention that TVtropes is our vassal.

[dish]

I still want to be near Qwghlm. Can we manage it without hitting the anthropomorphic dragons?

[thubby]

I still want to be near Qwghlm. Can we manage it without hitting the anthropomorphic dragons?

could run south through the wiki project.

[randman22222]

LARGE IMAGE:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/online_communities.png

Where would Giantitp be on the map of online communities? Since the writer of XKCD forgot the most important site on the internet, I think we need to figure out just where we are.

My guess is that we're just off the "South West" point of compass rose shaped island.

That's so pathetically typical of XKCD to label 'intellectual' with a mathematical symbol. :smallyuk:

[Jack Squat]

That's so pathetically typical of XKCD to label 'intellectual' with a mathematical symbol. :smallyuk:

What would you suggest?

Math was defined by intellectuals, philosophers. The greeks came up with (ok, formalized) geometry and Algebra, Newton came up with Calculus, and René Descartes came up with the Cartesian coordinate system.

I'd be willing to hear any other symbols you could think of that represent this kind of thinking.

[randman22222]

What would you suggest?

Math was defined by intellectuals, philosophers. The greeks came up with (ok, formalized) geometry and Algebra, Newton came up with Calculus, and René Descartes came up with the Cartesian coordinate system.

I'd be willing to hear any other symbols you could think of that represent this kind of thinking.

That's far from suggesting that all intellectuals are mathematicians. Though the idea of the renaissance man meant that many intellectuals were also mathematicians, such as your Descartes, they were also philosophers and scientists. Intellectualism doesn't need a symbol. If they could write the word 'intellectuals', then the image doesn't need a symbol either. My problem here is how XKCD over-glorifies maths. Yeah, it's useful, but when they think 'smart', the first thing they think is 'maths'. Which is not how it should be.

[Thufir]

XKCD over-glorifies maths.

No. Such. Thing.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'm thinking due east of the MMO Nations; you know, where there be anthropomorphic dragons :smallbiggrin:

XKCD does need to update the map though - I love it when he does illustrative strips. Like the Log Scale Map of Heights (http://www.xkcd.com/482/).

[Fostire]

That's far from suggesting that all intellectuals are mathematicians. Though the idea of the renaissance man meant that many intellectuals were also mathematicians, such as your Descartes, they were also philosophers and scientists. Intellectualism doesn't need a symbol. If they could write the word 'intellectuals', then the image doesn't need a symbol either. My problem here is how XKCD over-glorifies maths. Yeah, it's useful, but when they think 'smart', the first thing they think is 'maths'. Which is not how it should be.

useful? that's a huge understatement, every single science in existence depends on math. The whole freaking universe can be defined with math.

[Jack Squat]

That's far from suggesting that all intellectuals are mathematicians. Though the idea of the renaissance man meant that many intellectuals were also mathematicians, such as your Descartes, they were also philosophers and scientists. Intellectualism doesn't need a symbol. If they could write the word 'intellectuals', then the image doesn't need a symbol either.

All the other points on the compass had a symbol, it'd be strange to leave it out of the "South" point. I can't think of anything better than a mathematical symbol to put there. Sure, not all intellectuals are mathematicians, but nearly all systems of higher thought rely on math at some point or another. It's been referred to as a true universal language, and was used on the plaque placed on Pioneer 10 so any intelligent life forms in space would be able to discern it.


My problem here is how XKCD over-glorifies maths. Yeah, it's useful, but when they think 'smart', the first thing they think is 'maths'. Which is not how it should be.

Generally, if you're smart, you are able to comprehend higher math, making it a good indicator of intelligence. What would you suggest?

[eidreff]

I think the Playground is a mystical drifting island, normally meandering randomly though the whole map, but which occasionally teleports suddenly to new areas or appears brigadoon-like in one of the landmasses.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Generally, if you're smart, you are able to comprehend higher math, making it a good indicator of intelligence. What would you suggest?

I hardly think maths is the single indicator of intelligence, nor a great one. There are far too many people who think because they can calculate things that may or may not exist, they have the mental capacity few others have, when, really, they just have a greater understanding of symbols of ideas that only exist to make life simpler.

[randman22222]

Explain to me how, anything corporeal can be defined by maths. The act of defining supersedes maths itself. Maths isn't something you use to define anything. You use it to perceive phenomena. Ergo, a tool.

And @ Jack Squat, please explain to me about all forms of higher level thinking requiring maths. If you're referring to logic, well, logic is a form of thinking separate from mathematics. It'd be asinine to say mathematicians invented logic. Logic is inherent in our existence.

On that note, mathematics is an invention. Remember this. Quality thought is not. Quality thought is intellectualism.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Explain to me how, anything corporeal can be defined by maths. The act of defining supersedes maths itself. Maths isn't something you use to define anything. You use it to perceive phenomena. Ergo, a tool.

Wow... really?

I'll point you to the Wikipedia page on Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) and encourage you to read at least the introduction. I'm not certain that Wikipedia is going to sound authoritative for you, but the above statement is just wrong on so many levels.

I mean, mathematics doesn't "perceive" anything. To perceive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perceive) is "to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses." To define (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define) is, among other things "to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of" an phenomenon. The language of science is numbers; something is not "so hot," it is "97 degrees Fahrenheit." Something does not fall "fast," it falls at "9.8 meters per second, per second." And the only way to make sense of any of these numbers is via mathematics.

[Jack Squat]

I hardly think maths is the single indicator of intelligence, nor a great one. There are far too many people who think because they can calculate things that may or may not exist, they have the mental capacity few others have, when, really, they just have a greater understanding of symbols of ideas that only exist to make life simpler.

It's not a great indicator no, but it's as good as any. Intelligence ≠ Wisdom. If you look at schools, the smarter kids do relatively well in algebra 2 and up, while the dumber kids barely get by in Pre-Algebra and Geometry. This could be that they just don't care, but there is a correlation. Does this mean that the kids that aren't in Calculus aren't as smart as the ones that are? No. because maybe the person in pre-cal is a complete wiz at Chemistry, programming, or engineering/fabrication. However, all of these use math to some degree.


Explain to me how, anything corporeal can be defined by maths. The act of defining supersedes maths itself. Maths isn't something you use to define anything. You use it to perceive phenomena. Ergo, a tool.

area, Slopes of land, volume, flow rates, heat, force of impact...just about anything can be defined by math. You just have to apply it.


And @ Jack Squat, please explain to me about all forms of higher level thinking requiring maths. If you're referring to logic, well, logic is a form of thinking separate from mathematics. It'd be asinine to say mathematicians invented logic. Logic is inherent in our existence.

Yes, logic doesn't require math, in fact, math is applied logic. A lot of things that are generally labeled as "smart fields" - hard science, engineering, architecture, etc. require the use of "higher level" math (algebra and up).


On that note, mathematics is an invention. Remember this. Quality thought is not. Quality thought is intellectualism.

Math wasn't invented, it was discovered. Someone came up with it to explain how things worked, it's always been there. It is true that intellectuals aren't restricted to thinking about math, they can just as easily think about the human condition and what it means to exist, or political theory, or several other things that just require observation, but just about all of them have spent some time thinking on it at one time or another.

I still ask what you would think would be better to put in the place of pi.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Wow... really?

I'll point you to the Wikipedia page on Mathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) and encourage you to read at least the introduction. I'm not certain that Wikipedia is going to sound authoritative for you, but the above statement is just wrong on so many levels.

I mean, mathematics doesn't "perceive" anything. To perceive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perceive) is "to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses." To define (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/define) is, among other things "to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of" an phenomenon. The language of science is numbers; something is not "so hot," it is "97 degrees Fahrenheit." Something does not fall "fast," it falls at "9.8 meters per second, per second." And the only way to make sense of any of these numbers is via mathematics.

But math IS a perception itself. You don't have a two, you just percieve two.

[Jack Squat]

But math IS a perception itself. You don't have a two, you just percieve two.

No, you have two items. You can replace it and say you have fish items instead, but it doesn't change what you have. The terms are just there to set a standard.

[randman22222]

It's not a great indicator no, but it's as good as any. Intelligence ≠ Wisdom. If you look at schools, the smarter kids do relatively well in algebra 2 and up, while the dumber kids barely get by in Pre-Algebra and Geometry. This could be that they just don't care, but there is a correlation. Does this mean that the kids that aren't in Calculus aren't as smart as the ones that are? No. because maybe the person in pre-cal is a complete wiz at Chemistry, programming, or engineering/fabrication. However, all of these use math to some degree.



area, Slopes of land, volume, flow rates, heat, force of impact...just about anything can be defined by math. You just have to apply it.



Yes, logic doesn't require math, in fact, math is applied logic. A lot of things that are generally labeled as "smart fields" - hard science, engineering, architecture, etc. require the use of "higher level" math (algebra and up).



Math wasn't invented, it was discovered. Someone came up with it to explain how things worked, it's always been there. It is true that intellectuals aren't restricted to thinking about math, they can just as easily think about the human condition and what it means to exist, or political theory, or several other things that just require observation, but just about all of them have spent some time thinking on it at one time or another.

I still ask what you would think would be better to put in the place of pi.

I stand by no symbol. And the aesthetic response shouldn't be, "but the other points have symbols." It should be, "they should go as well."

Those things you've 'defined' with maths haven't been defined by maths at all. They have just had quantities attached to them. They certainly existed before maths. They could still be defined then. In fact, if you had no way of thinking other than maths, then you couldn't define them. Using the realm of numbers, variables, etc. that is maths, explain to me what a cow is.

And for the 'smart fields': they're simply standard, quality (hopefully) thought, with maths used to help expand them, and make them more precise.

"Math wasn't invented, it was discovered. Someone came up with it to explain how things worked" Contradiction?
Regarding the second half of that statement, maths was never intended to explain how things work. It was intended to help predict how things work to a more precise degree.

Maths is used to perceive the natural world. It's a perception that allows closer inspection of phenomena. Imagine a lens, if you will. Looking through it, numbers and labels appear when you see two cars hit each other. The numbers represent kinetic energy and such. Looking without the lens, the cars still hit each other, and you can tell energy was transferred, but you don't have any quantity. The cars and the crash were most certainly defined, the drivers will tell you. Then, under maths as a perception, you set a standard upon which crashes are judged. Hope that analogy made sense. It's getting late...

Oh, and don't limit yourself to dictionary definitions. Metaphors phail that way. Definitions are fairly elastic, and I would have it no other way.

[Telonius]

We're probably between the Ocean of Subculture and Here Be Anthropomorphic Dragons. (The actual space we take up extends beyond the map's edge, all the way to "Here be anthropomorphic catmuffins.")

That map is definitely outdated. It's missed the emergence of Cheezburger Island and the Trope-ics.

[Boo]

We're the compass. We point to all, and all point to us.

[Jack Squat]

I stand by no symbol. And the aesthetic response shouldn't be, "but the other points have symbols." It should be, "they should go as well."

Fair enough, earlier it sounded like you just wanted pi gone but didn't care about the others.


Those things you've 'defined' with maths haven't been defined by maths at all. They have just had quantities attached to them. They certainly existed before maths. They could still be defined then. In fact, if you had no way of thinking other than maths, then you couldn't define them. Using the realm of numbers, variables, etc. that is maths, explain to me what a cow is.

Notice I didn't mention biology :smalltongue:


And for the 'smart fields': they're simply standard, quality (hopefully) thought, with maths used to help expand them, and make them more precise.

True, but they wouldn't be considered intellectual if that precision wasn't there. It could be said that the math is what makes them 'smart fields'


"Math wasn't invented, it was discovered. Someone came up with it to explain how things worked" Contradiction?
Regarding the second half of that statement, maths was never intended to explain how things work. It was intended to help predict how things work to a more precise degree.

It's not a contradiction. Math existed before we know what it was, it's a set of laws, we don't need to know them or understand them for them to be applied. I probably could have worded it better than "came up with", but I was in a bit of a rush.

Math wasn't really either, it was more an observation on how things were/are, which is what I meant to put.


Maths is used to perceive the natural world. It's a perception that allows closer inspection of phenomena. Imagine a lens, if you will. Looking through it, numbers and labels appear when you see two cars hit each other. The numbers represent kinetic energy and such. Looking without the lens, the cars still hit each other, and you can tell energy was transferred, but you don't have any quantity. The cars and the crash were most certainly defined, the drivers will tell you. Then, under maths as a perception, you set a standard upon which crashes are judged. Hope that analogy made sense. It's getting late...

I see where you're getting at, but I fail to see where you're going. The collision wouldn't happen without math, just without our understanding of it. Just like how we remained planted to the earth's surface well before we knew what gravity was. Sure we don't need math to know that two things hit each other, and some damage was done, but we do need to know math to understand how and why.

Those are two critical questions that define intellectuals. They want to figure out how stuff happens and why it does. Aside from sociology, psychology, and related fields that deal with the study of interactions between organisms math is very good at answering these questions. Even in the crash, once you know that when two bodies hit each other, energy is transferred and redistributed throughout, there's the questions of how does it distribute, how much damage is done, and how do different cars effect this? For those, you need to bring in tensile strengths of metals, masses, and the like; then you're using math.

[Fostire]

Those are two critical questions that define intellectuals. They want to figure out how stuff happens and why it does. Aside from sociology, psychology, and related fields that deal with the study of interactions between organisms math is very good at answering these questions.

Actually sociology is psychology applied to the masses, while psychology is biology applied to the workings of the mind. Biology is chemistry applied to living organisms. Chemistry is physics applied to interactions of particles at an atomic level, and physics is math applied to the laws that define reality.

You can make chains like that to any science and the end result will be math.

[RabbitHoleLost]

Actually sociology is psychology applied to the masses, while psychology is biology applied to the workings of the mind. Biology is chemistry applied to living organisms. Chemistry is physics applied to interactions of particles at an atomic level, and physics is math applied to the laws that define reality.

You can make chains like that to any science and the end result will be math.

Then explain how it is any of those I can comprehend quite simply, and, yet, anything beyond basic algebra goes flying over my head?
Not all things are math-bound. You simply see it as connecting with math because that's what your brain comprehends best.

[Boo]

You guys are going way off topic now, so... *coughs in threads direction*

[Jack Squat]

Then explain how it is any of those I can comprehend quite simply, and, yet, anything beyond basic algebra goes flying over my head?
Not all things are math-bound. You simply see it as connecting with math because that's what your brain comprehends best.

I agree with you here...while at them most basic level, everything can be described by math, it's not always practical, and you certainly don't need math to study behaviors; nor would it be easy to do so.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Then explain how it is any of those I can comprehend quite simply, and, yet, anything beyond basic algebra goes flying over my head?
Not all things are math-bound. You simply see it as connecting with math because that's what your brain comprehends best.

You can comprehend sociology without math the same way Kepler could write the Laws of Planetary Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion) without knowing about Newton's Laws of Motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Newton.27s_laws_of_motion). Or how a bird can fly without understanding the field of aerodynamics, or how neanderthals could identify good and bad food without biology.

People are quite adept at making generalizations off of observed phenomena but, without mathematical rigour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigour#Mathematical_rigour) it is debatable how much you really understand what you are observing. Observation alone may result in systems that are fundamentally flawed thanks to an unobserved or ignored property. See Luminiferous Aether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether).

That said, nobody is claiming (I hope) that people who can't understand math are "dumber" than those who can. Dumb is a vague and insulting word that is difficult to define consistently. Was Mozart smarter than Newton? How could we tell?

No, I think it is easier to say that those who are best able to comprehend mathematics have brains which are better capable at grasping abstract concepts than others. This is certainly true.

[Fostire]

Then explain how it is any of those I can comprehend quite simply, and, yet, anything beyond basic algebra goes flying over my head?

Who said it had to be advanced math? some things can be explained using the most basics of mathematics. For example: I grab one pebble, I then grab one more pebble, the number of pebbles in my hand is now 2, how did that happen? easy 1 +1 = 2. It may sound stupid, or too obvious, or whatever, but that is math.
More advanced concepts will require more advanced mathematics to comprehend.


Not all things are math-bound. You simply see it as connecting with math because that's what your brain comprehends best.

All those things I mentioned are math-bound, but that doesn't mean its practical to, for example, explain how a synaptic connection works, using only mathematical equations.

But as Blue mentioned, we have derailed this thread quite a lot, if anyone wishes to continue this, start a new thread.


As for the original topic: as I said, that map needs a webcomic island and that's where I would place gitp. As to the location of the island, I don't really know, I can't think of a place where it would fit perfectly but the sea of culture is perhaps the closest thing.

[Moff Chumley]

(The arguing is getting to a point where Jack and Oracle are giving example after example, and Rand is saying "No! No! No!" I think it would be beneficial to all of us to drop this.)

I think the airship idea works the best, I must say.

[Lupy]

Actually sociology is psychology applied to the masses, while psychology is biology applied to the workings of the mind. Biology is chemistry applied to living organisms. Chemistry is physics applied to interactions of particles at an atomic level, and physics is math applied to the laws that define reality.

You can make chains like that to any science and the end result will be math.

Math is applied Logic. Logic is applied Thought. Thought is applied Linguistics (without language you cannot think). Linguistics is applied Sociology. Sociology is applied Pyschology. Pyschology is applied Biology is applied Chemistry is applied Physics is applied Math.

See the Pattern?

-----------------------

I like the idea of our being a flying pirate ship... Captained by Julio Scoundrel!

[Jack Squat]

I like the idea of our being a flying pirate ship... Captained by Julio Scoundrel!

I agree...this has to be it.

[Moff Chumley]

@Lupy: Yes, but you've just proved that everything is just applied everything else. In other words, nothing.

[Thanatos 51-50]

The Playground is the Map. Through the Playground, there is all, and all is the Playground.

Alternativly, I like the cruelean 'brolly's answer.

[Copacetic]

No. Stop. Math is certainly not the basis of everything, nor is it nothing. Honestly, we have so many fields of science they are so throughly interwoven it is ludicrous. THink of a giant quilt; Proving one thread touches all other threads is both useless and impossible.


On topic, however, The Thread is obviously outdated. I therefore suggest we skip any means of navigation and fly are airship full of pirates where Wikipedia's "Random Article" Button takes us.