## Reading the Comics, February 17, 2016: Using Mathematics Edition

Is there a unifying theme between many of the syndicated comic strips with mathematical themes the last few days? Of course there is. It’s students giving snarky answers to their teachers’ questions. That’s the theme every week. But other stuff comes up.

Joe Martin’s **Boffo** for the 12th of depicts “the early days before all the bugs were worked out” of mathematics. And the early figure got a whole string of operations which don’t actually respect the equals sign, before getting finally to the end. Were I to do this, I would use an arrow, =>, and I suspect many mathematicians would too. It’s a way of indicating the flow of one’s thoughts without trying to assert that 2+2 is actually the same number as 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 6.

And this comic is funny, in part, because it’s true. New mathematical discoveries tend to be somewhat complicated, sloppy *messes* to start. Over time, if the thing is of any use, the mathematical construct gets better. By better I mean the logic behind it gets better explained. You’d expect that, of course, just because time to reflect gives time to improve exposition. But the logic also tends to get better. We tend to find arguments that are, if not shorter, then better-constructed. We get to see how something gets used, and how to relate it to other things we’d like to do, and how to generalize the pieces of argument that go into it. If we think of a mathematical argument as a narrative, then, we learn how to write the better narrative.

Then, too, we get better at notation, at isolating what concepts we want to describe and how to describe them. For example, to write the fourth power of a number such as ‘x’, mathematicians used to write ‘xxxx’ — fair enough, but cumbersome. Or then xqq — the ‘q’ standing for quadratic, that is, square, of the thing before. That’s better. At least it’s less stuff to write. How about “x^{iiii}” (as in the Roman numeral IV)? Getting to “x^{4}” took time, and thought, and practice with what we wanted to raise numbers to powers to *do*. In short, we had to get the bugs worked out.

John Rose’s **Barney Google and Snuffy Smith** for the 12th of February is your normal student-resisting-word-problems joke. And hey, at least they have train service still in Smith’s hometown.

Randy Glasbergen’s **Glasbergen Cartoons** for the 12th (a rerun; Galsbergen died last year) is a similar student-resisting-problems joke. Arithmetic gets an appearance no doubt because it’s the easiest kind of problem to put on the board and not distract from the actual joke.

Mark Pett’s **Lucky Cow** for the 14th (a rerun from the early 2000s) mentions the chaos butterfly. I am considering retiring chaos butterfly mentions from these roundups because I seem to say the same thing each time. But I haven’t yet, so I’ll say it. Part of what makes a system chaotic is that it’s deterministic *and* unpredictable. Most different outcomes result from starting points so similar they can’t be told apart. There’s no guessing whether any action makes things better or worse, and whether that’s in the short or the long term.

Zach Weinersmith’s **Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal** for the 14th is surely not a response to that Pearls Before Swine from last time. I believe all the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal strips to appear on Gocomics are reruns from its earlier days as a web comic. But it serves as a riposte to the “nobody uses mathematics anyway” charge. And it’s a fine bit of revenge fantasy.

Historically, being the sole party that understands the financial calculations has not brought money lenders appreciation.

Tony Cochran’s **Agnes** for the 17th also can’t be a response to that Pearls Before Swine. The lead times just don’t work that way. But it gives another great reason to learn mathematics. I encourage anyone who wants to be Lord and Queen of Mathdom; it’s worth a try.

Tom Thaves’s **Frank and Ernest** for the 17th tells one of the obvious jokes about infinite sets. Fortunately mathematicians aren’t expected to list everything that goes into an infinitely large set. It would put a terrible strain on our wrists. Usually it’s enough to describe the things that go in it. Some descriptions are easy, especially if there’s a way to match the set with something already familiar, like counting numbers or real numbers. And sometimes a description has to be complicated.

There are urban legends among grad students. Many of them are thesis nightmares. One is about such sets. The story goes of the student who had worked for years on a set whose elements all had some interesting collection of properties. At the defense her advisor — the person who’s supposed to have guided her through finding and addressing an interesting problem — actually looks at the student’s work for the first time in ages, or ever. And starts drawing conclusions from it. And proves that the only set whose elements all have these properties is the null set, which hasn’t got anything in it. The whole thesis is a bust. Thaves probably didn’t have that legend in mind. But you could read the comic that way.

Percy Crosby’s **Skippy** for the 17th gives a hint how long kids in comic strips have been giving smart answers to teachers. This installment’s from 1928 sometime. Skippy’s pretty confident in himself, it must be said.

## Little Monster Girl 11:12 pm

onFriday, 19 February, 2016 Permalink |I used to love snuffy smith! But why is jughead’s tongue brown?

LikeLike

## Joseph Nebus 6:12 am

onSaturday, 20 February, 2016 Permalink |There, almost certainly, it’s because the coloring of daily strips is done by incompetents.

The Sunday comics, it is my understanding, are not directly colored by the cartoonists. They instead provide a sheet explaining what colors, and what coloring effects, should go in what sections of the artwork. The printing people know how to turn this into the effects, sometimes quite excellent, that the Sunday pages get.

The daily comics, though, aren’t given anywhere near that attention. I’m not aware of any daily cartoonists who provide this sort of detailed coloring guide for their weekday strips. (It is a lot of work, and cartoonists are paid slightly more than “getting kicked by donkeys”.) Instead the coloring is done by — well, it’s a mystery.

What we comic strip fans are able to work out is that the coloring is done by people who just

do not pay attentionto what is going on in the strip. The number of coloring errors is staggering, and hilarious. It reaches the point that folks wonder, seriously, whether they’re colorized by people who can even read English.And they clearly don’t have the time to do serious work. This produces unintentionally hilarious results in summer and around Christmastime. A swimming pool or ocean that’s colored black, to read in black-and-white as blue water, or a Santa Claus outfit similarly black, which in black-and-white reads as read, aren’t recolored. The result is the characters enjoy a day at Tar Sands Beach, or give their Christmastime wish jokes to Santa Johnny Cash.

So. Jughead’s tongue is brown possibly because the colorizers didn’t think about what tongues

are, or because the underlying artwork was colored in a way that didn’t give them room to do something else.LikeLiked by 1 person

## Little Monster Girl 6:15 am

onSaturday, 20 February, 2016 Permalink |Maybe it’s because he chews tobacco? 😗

LikeLike

## Joseph Nebus 3:55 am

onTuesday, 23 February, 2016 Permalink |Oh, yes, that could do it too.

LikeLiked by 1 person

## Meanwhile At The Carousel-Carving Shop In Like 1920 | Another Blog, Meanwhile 1:00 am

onSaturday, 20 February, 2016 Permalink |[…] I mention I had some more mathematically-themed comic strips put up over on my other blog? I had some more mathematically-themed comic strips put up over on my other blog. Make sure I remind you that I had some more mathematically-themed comic strips put up over on my […]

LikeLike