Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Calvin and Hobbes

Comments (89) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. chamin

    chamin said, over 5 years ago

    Math atheist -> Matheist Long live atheists and matheists~!

  2. ♥Mrs. Ladywolf♥

    ♥Mrs. Ladywolf♥ said, over 5 years ago

    Wait! So all this time we were forced to learn math against our will.

  3. LX013

    LX013 GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    Atheist - Matheist - Theist - Deist.

  4. GROG!

    GROG! GoComics PRO Member said, over 5 years ago

    I don’t think so, Calvin. Unlike Religion, the answers to math questions can be proven.

    Good morning. Marg, Mike & ♠Lonewolf♠!

  5. chovil

    chovil said, over 5 years ago

    For Pythagorus in ancient Greece, mathematics was a religion. Why does the square of the two sides of a right angle triangle equal the square of the hypotenuse? No reason that I have ever been able to find. That’s the magic of the religion. Why does E=m times c squared? With math you can find this magic, but you can’t explain why or even how the magic works.

  6. Nabuquduriuzhur

    Nabuquduriuzhur said, over 5 years ago

    It’s more like learning a new language. It has it’s own rules, grammar and so on.

    In fact, it’s like a “dead language” in that it has rigid rules. No slang, no colloquialisms. In refreshing for an exam where I hadn’t had to deal with calc in years, a book recommended by a calculus website and published almost exactly 100 years ago turned out to be far better than any of the calc books I’d had to suffer through when I was taking it.

    Math can be extended into religion, or rather things that cannot be vindicated in the physics world can be expressed mathematically. String theory is an example. A single dimensional “object” can be expressed as a vector, but the moment such a singularity came into existance in a 4d universe, it would assume a spherical “shape.” Cosmology’s the same way: when you have an act of “spontaneous” creation of something from nothing, that is religion. It can be expressed mathmatically. Well, sort of, but from a physics perspective, it’s junk.

    About ten years ago, there were intense arguments about the “Plank era” or 10 to the -42 seconds after the big bang. Again, pure mathematics. There’s simply no way to know what things were like without directly observing it or being able to observe after the fact. What little we can observe of the current universe have changed our theories radically since then, at any rate. And will again. Probably many times in the future.

    To give an idea in simple terms of how that kind of thing changes, when I graduated from OIT, there were estimated to be 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. As of two years ago, there were estimated to be 400 billion. A recent development in being able to detect red dwarf stars now stands to triple that number to 1.2 trillion.

  7. Yukoner

    Yukoner said, over 5 years ago

    Calvin, don’t you want to be a mathemagician?

  8. titanicus

    titanicus said, over 5 years ago


    There’s quite a famous example of the ubiquitous nature of maths (in this case, arithmetic) that goes like this:

    Prove that 2+1=3.

    I’ll leave that to you :)

    One thing that always bugs me about any knowledge is that it is all made up by humans to try and explain things. Maths isn’t the truth, it’s just a concept that has been developed over time, by many people, to try and help us along.

    E=mc2 only because Einstein says it does. For instance, if someone else defines the parameters differently, then Q=FG/6x, if you want it to. Not quite as catchy, though.

  9. pbarnrob

    pbarnrob said, over 5 years ago

    I recall that geometry has some lemmas that you have to start with, that you just have to take ‘on faith’ as it were. Always bothered me.

    That’s why a DI-lemma is so bothersome; you’re trying to believe two contradictory things at the same time! Mind-bending!

    But then there’s the marvel of the Golden Ratio, of 1.618… that the ancients thought was the perfect proportion for a painting. And a basis for Archimedes’ Spiral, the shape of the Chambered Nautilus, who moved into a larger space as he outgrew his old quarters.

    It’s related directly to the Fibonnacci series of 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, (the next one is the sum of the last two). somewhere about thirty, the ratio of the two becomes – you guessed it!

    And the wonderful Penrose tiles (thanks, Roger!), kites and darts from a five-pointed star, that you can ‘tile the plane’ with but it doesn’t repeat; just recently learned, the ratios of the sides of those is – yup!

    (I want to make some for a patio; anybody know a mold?)

    Lots of magic in our Universe; ain’t it Grand?

  10. Dberrymanal1

    Dberrymanal1 said, over 5 years ago

    Good point! Let the pinheads who are always screaming about seperation of church and state put THAT in their pipes and smoke it.

  11. Tineli

    Tineli said, over 5 years ago

    I’m just reading “The Math Gene. How Mathematical Thinking Evolved and Why Numbers Are Like Gossip” by Keith Devlin - an in a way he says the same as Calvin does!

  12. zeeny

    zeeny said, over 5 years ago

    And I thought I was the only one being forced to learn maths :(

  13. dataweaver

    dataweaver said, over 5 years ago

    My personal favorite is the “proof” that 1 = -1. It’s obviously a flawed proof; but I have yet to see anyone give a satisfying explanation as to why it’s flawed.

    There’s more truth to Calvin’s theory than most people would care to admit.

  14. GrimmaTheNome

    GrimmaTheNome said, over 5 years ago

    On the other hand, since the extent of Calvin’s ‘math’ at this point isn’t anything beyond simple arithmetic it could just be that he’s being an awkward lazy little smartarse. Someone should give him an abacus if he needs constant evidence that 2+3=5.

  15. Johanan Rakkav

    Johanan Rakkav said, over 5 years ago

    I suspect that any such false equation as 1 = -1 involves dividing by zero, which is rightly forbidden. If memory serves Wikipedia devotes a page to the issue and there are undoubtedly other references on the Web and in hard copy that do.

    Folks, like it or not all human thinking has to proceed from axioms (things that are accepted “on faith”) - otherwise we couldn’t think at all. There is no such thing as metaphysical neutrality and only overemphasis on some human cognitive processes at the expense of others keeps some people from seeing this.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (74).