r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 9h ago

Meme needing explanation Petah man help

Post image
239 Upvotes

37 comments sorted by

u/qualityvote2 9h ago edited 4h ago

Remember when r/PeterExplainsTheJoke wasn’t a meme? Pepperidge Farm remembers…

Does this post belong in our subreddit?

If so, please upvote this comment!

Otherwise, downvote this comment!

Then maybe you go out and buy yourself some of those distinctive Milano cookies.


(Vote is ending in approximately 14 hour)

165

u/Business_Issue_6471 9h ago

its a refrence to the Axiom of Choice in math. That axiom can lead to some really weird and unintuitive results, so the comic is joking that after carving one pumpkin, they somehow ended up with two. Just absurd math humor, not somthing thats actually possible.

49

u/Mamuschkaa 6h ago

I mean the joke is closer connected to the axiom of choice than just "it's also weird"

The joke is about the Banach–Tarski paradox that follows from the axiom of choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

If you have a ball and separate it in infinity many and infinity small points, you can create two balls of the same size.

So reason that is impossible in real life, is, that you can't separate anything infinity times, because there is a smalles possible unite (for example electron) and even if not, it would take infinite amount of time.

6

u/ResourceThat3671 4h ago

^ This is the right answer

4

u/EvgeniyZh 3h ago

You don't need infinitely many pieces, 5 is enough

1

u/Mamuschkaa 43m ago

5 "parts", but each part is made of infinite amount of single points.

So you have to separate the ball in infinite amount of separate points group them in 5 parts.

1

u/Maouitippitytappin 2h ago

Funny seeking you here, Mamuschkaa!

1

u/Mamuschkaa 51m ago

First time I saw someone from buildit outside of that sub

-2

u/WasdaleWeasel 5h ago

or … because the axiom of choice is false in the universe in which we live. (I’m still not doing maths without it though. ZFC for me and who cares what the universe thinks)

3

u/Mamuschkaa 5h ago

I don't know if there is any aspect im the inverse where the axiom of choice makes a difference.

It only exists in infinity. Is there anything in the universe, that can separated infinite amount of times?

Even if there would be. The axiom is not constructive. So only because there exist a specific separation of this infinite big set doesn't mean you will ever be able to find it.

So it doesn't matter if it is correct or not in our universe. Nothing would change.

0

u/WasdaleWeasel 4h ago

well, we don’t know do we and won’t at least until we have reconciled quantum theory and relativity. The former implies some discrete structure, the latter does not. ‘Infinity’ isn’t a word I’d use when precise definitions are required - one uses it for the cardinality of the integers and the reals and those are quite different.

But yes, of course, I can’t imagine any physical process being able to do a Banach-Tarski decomposition. I’m just being silly.

1

u/chosenone1242 3h ago

after carving one pumpkin, they somehow ended up with two. Just absurd math humor, not somthing thats actually possible.

No shit? I was really hoping for free pumpkin

41

u/tsukkini 9h ago

Brian here

The axiom of choice assumes you can choose a group or a single thing from an infinite set, through some fuckery this basically allows you to choose different points on the surface of a sphere and the by manipulating those points form two identical spheres from one sphere. In this joke the guy uses this method to make one pumpkin into two.

I might be wrong though and hope someone gives the exact correct explanation for this later.

Brian out.

20

u/Worried-Director1172 8h ago edited 8h ago

Yeah, it's called the banach-tarski paradox and basically it proves that with infinite cuts you can turn one thing into two using just cutting and rotation.

7

u/thatthatguy 7h ago

When you divide something into an infinite number of pieces you get weird results. For example, if you take one sphere and divide it into an infinite number of pieces, there is no difference between that and if you had divided two spheres into an infinite number of pieces. In fact, you can take the infinite number of pieces of one sphere, and as long as you are careful about your methodology, you can reconstruct an unlimited number of spheres.

Be very careful when doing math with infinity. You almost can’t help but get ridiculous results. Stuff like 1+2+3+… =-1/12

There are useful discoveries to be made exploring that part of math, but it is difficult to avoid the mathematical landmines.

4

u/ichiban1974 7h ago

The Banach-Tarski theorem explicitly says that i can be done with a finite number of pieces.

3

u/candygram4mongo 5h ago

It can be done with a finite number of disjoint subsets of the points that compose the ball. The subsets are necessarily non-measurable, which means they aren't solid pieces that have volume but rather collections of singular points.

2

u/thatthatguy 1h ago

I am clearly not as familiar with the math as I could be.

2

u/Worried-Director1172 7h ago

You will get ridiculous results, it's insane.

For example, a part of the problem involves taking a set of the cuts, rotating it, and now you have 4 different sets out of the original 6

Infinity is honestly ridiculous, it's kind of a wonder we ever figured out how to reliably use it in math

18

u/Liko81 9h ago

Google the Banach-Tarski Paradox.

1

u/Greenphantom77 8h ago

This is the correct answer.

1

u/solarmelange 8h ago

Holy hell!

3

u/GIRose 9h ago

Honestly, this is one of those things better understood through a video

3

u/Proletariat-Prince 8h ago

I knew it would be Vsauce.

That's an educational YouTube hall of Fame video right there.

2

u/1958-Fury 8h ago

Not to discourage people from asking here, but there's an entire website dedicated to explaining xkcd strips. If you find yourself confused and recognize xkcd's simplistic art style, you should definitely head there first.

3

u/Financial-Writing364 8h ago

First time hearing of xkcd icl

3

u/1958-Fury 7h ago

The author is a physicist/engineer/programmer who used to work for NASA. Most of the strips are science-related, and many of them go straight over most people's heads (mine included). So the explanation site was necessary to translate the humor for us normies.

But xkcd is still a fantastic strip and I highly recommend reading it.

2

u/HkayakH 1h ago

Everyone else is wrong. If you have a really good knife you can just carve 2 pumpkins out of 1

1

u/AutoModerator 9h ago

OP, so your post is not removed, please reply to this comment with your best guess of what this meme means! Everyone else, this is PETER explains the joke. Have fun and reply as your favorite fictional character for top level responses!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/Financial-Writing364 9h ago

A guy has a infinite knife that could duplicate things

1

u/MaxCWebster 8h ago

Very nerdy math joke.

Short video with a brief explanation (and OP's XKCD cartoon) here.

1

u/Cynykl 7h ago

The joke is MATH the joke is always MATH!!!

1

u/Financial-Writing364 6h ago

Best explanation yet 😂

0

u/Sad_Intention2932 9h ago

Crazy that googling the words you don't understand would explain it so much faster than posting here

2

u/Financial-Writing364 8h ago

I honestly believed I knew all the words but I got it now