Shirt.Woot

not sure why people are defending this... the graph is downright wrong. it doesn't matter how you cut up the horizontal axes, if you assume they are of equal value, it is still wrong.

good idea, but not buying it because of this.

Isn't peanuts in the public domain though? Maybe i'm flawed on exactly what public domain material can be used for, but i'm like 60% sure peanuts is public domain now...

depository wrote:not sure why people are defending this... the graph is downright wrong. it doesn't matter how you cut up the horizontal axes, if you assume they are of equal value, it is still wrong.

good idea, but not buying it because of this.

I agree with you, the shirt is wrong - the reason I said technically it can work is that you can set it up such that it does if you throw convention to the wind:

X axis is at y = -0.6 units
The scale of the Y axis is 1.2 units per tick.

Then your peaks are at y = 3 and -3 as expected, and your Y scale is consistent.

I agree it is wrong because I seriously doubt that was the intention of the author. At the very least it is misleading and as I mentioned before, I think most people would believe it to be wrong .

That is awesome.

MarlosTiger wrote:Nope, a B at best. The drawn curve is not vertically symmetrical around y = 0, so it should be something more like this.

y = 2.5 * sin( (x + 0.7) * 2 ) + 0.5

It will correct itself after a few washings.

Have we come up with a winner for pointless internet argument to make oneself feel superior contest?

Funny shirt, block-head write up comment.

Wear this shirt: To distract from your juvenile alopecia.

This should probably be a lesson to shirt designers. If you want to use math as a joke, make sure you get it right and remove all chance of confusion.

That said, it's a pretty boring shirt anyway.

vesayth wrote:This should probably be a lesson to shirt designers. If you want to use math as a joke, make sure you get it right and remove all chance of confusion.

That said, it's a pretty boring shirt anyway.

This means you like it, yeah? (because two negatives equal a positive)

labotomi wrote:Have we come up with a winner for pointless internet argument to make oneself feel superior contest?

We'll find out in November when the elections are over. ;)

nathanwpyle wrote:This means you like it, yeah? (because two negatives equal a positive)

Sorry just being honest. I like the idea (definitely clever), but the simplicity is a little too much.

vesayth wrote:Sorry just being honest. I like the idea (definitely clever), but the simplicity is a little too much.

Haha that' s fine! I was math-joking. Thank you though

I can't decide whether or not to buy it. The amplitude is not graphed correctly, but I could turn the error around into a challenge to my students to find the mistake.

You guys have missed the biggest mistake of all. Charlie Brown's shirt is not a curve, it's a zig zag.

It should be f(x) = x mod 2

westz wrote:Isn't peanuts in the public domain though? Maybe i'm flawed on exactly what public domain material can be used for, but i'm like 60% sure peanuts is public domain now...

certainly not. Charles Shultz hasn't been dead that long, since 2000. According to Wikipedia, as a general statement, "Typically, the duration of copyright is the whole life of the creator plus fifty to a hundred years from the creator's death,"

ThunderThighs wrote:It's gonna be a long day of brain hurt for us non-math people.

why? The line is vertically shifted, so that the midpoint between the peaks and valleys is not at zero, where the equation says it should be. There's nothing tricky about it, unless you are trying to make some awkward justification for the zero point not being on the wider horizontal line.

Josephus wrote:certainly not. Charles Shultz hasn't been dead that long, since 2000. According to Wikipedia, as a general statement, "Typically, the duration of copyright is the whole life of the creator plus fifty to a hundred years from the creator's death,"

Not only that, but a company called Iconix bought the rights to the copyright in 2010. So no telling when the copyright would actually end. But it certainly isn't soon.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2010-04-27-peanuts-rights-sold_N.htm

What is the correct formula for the real shirt?

At first, I wondered what this shirt had to do with Chuck Norris.

I feel like such a peanut.

Alternate title: "Brown Note"

Josephus wrote:why? The line is vertically shifted, so that the midpoint between the peaks and valleys is not at zero, where the equation says it should be. There's nothing tricky about it, unless you are trying to make some awkward justification for the zero point not being on the wider horizontal line.

That equation has no vertical shift. The (x+.7) term causes a horizontal shift.

The graph on the shirt has poorly chosen axes at best (other posts mention setting the bold line in the place typically associated with zero to another value and scaling the units on the y-axis), but is mostly just wrong.

Here is the expected output of the curve:

Wolfram|Alpha

Shirt.Woot wrote:This shirt tells the world: "I saw the sin."

... I hate you.

patculator wrote:That equation has no vertical shift. The (x+.7) term causes a horizontal shift.

The graph on the shirt has poorly chosen axes at best (other posts mention setting the bold line in the place typically associated with zero to another value and scaling the units on the y-axis), but is mostly just wrong.

Here is the expected output of the curve:

Wolfram|Alpha

I wasn't talking about the equation, I was talking about the line on the shirt. and your point is my point. There should be no vertical shift on the shirt.

eifiji20 wrote:http://editingandwritingservices.com/a-or-an-before-words-beginning-with-h/ would disagree, sort of. I'm pretty indifferent on this one.

Actually, I use "a" in conversation and I prefer it in my writing, but they loved hammering that one home.

patculator wrote:That equation has no vertical shift. The (x+.7) term causes a horizontal shift.

The graph on the shirt has poorly chosen axes at best (other posts mention setting the bold line in the place typically associated with zero to another value and scaling the units on the y-axis), but is mostly just wrong.

Here is the expected output of the curve:

Wolfram|Alpha

Interestingly, if you look at the graph on wolframalpha, the peak is slightly off x=0 as well...

westz wrote:Isn't peanuts in the public domain though? Maybe i'm flawed on exactly what public domain material can be used for, but i'm like 60% sure peanuts is public domain now...

Nope, not even close.

All the characters and related ideas are owned/controlled by the Schulz estate.

We are doing a project for a certain insurance company and they still have to ask permission (and get approval) for every use of the Peanuts brand.

And, fwiw, the Mall of America had a Peanuts-themed amusement park from 1992 until 2006, when they lost the rights.

So, no, it's not public domain.

dsb411 wrote:Should be lower on the shirt.

agree!

mathematics of won-ton burrito meals

Check this graphing calculator:
http://fooplot.com/#W3sidHlwZSI6MCwiZXEiOiIzKnNpbigoeCsuNykqMikiLCJjb2xvciI6IiMwMDAwMDAifSx7InR5cGUiOjEwMDB9XQ--

I think I'm gonna buy it, just to spite all the people nitpicking it, and to troll math geeks.

My two cents:

This guy needs to adjust his oscilloscope settings. That done, potentially correct.

The lack of units seems to support this as well.

theskev wrote:You guys have missed the biggest mistake of all. Charlie Brown's shirt is not a curve, it's a zig zag.

It should be f(x) = x mod 2

Or use a triangle function. My signals and systems is a bit rusty though. Maybe a triangle function convolved by an infinite number of equally spaced delta functions?

(2Λ(x)-1)●∑∂(x) maybe? Okay, spent way too much time on that.

BigAssRat wrote:Uhmmmm...not it doesn't, the shirt goes from 3 to -2. It should be from 3 to -3 on the Y axis.

NEEEEEEERRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSS! NERDS!NERDS! NERDS!NERDS!

mykexyz wrote:It is misleading enough that I believe most people would think this is an error.

As an artist, there's a concept we hold dear. It's called the willing suspension of disbelief. Most people are down with it.

I could get into Aristote and the concept of representation.

safyrejet wrote:Last math class I took was my third semester of calculus over 3! years ago. I'm studying engineering now, I haven't actually used stuff like sine functions in ages except when making nerdy comments on my friends' facebook walls.

What discipline are you taking and at what school? I'm also an EE and even if I had gone the digital route, I would have had to deal with sinusoids in one way or another at least with emag. That assumes no one ever mentions dispersion and how it affects high speed digital signals. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of a single major that doesn't deal with harmonic motion in some sense.

Also, this shirt is amazing. This would go great with the trombone teacher wah wah shirt.

Lol Nathan... this is so nice

redstang wrote:Interestingly, if you look at the graph on wolframalpha, the peak is slightly off x=0 as well...

As it should be, if you want to peak to line up you need to offset it by exactly pi/4 (It would have otherwise been pi/2 but the multiplication of the two is why we have pi/4 now).

http://wolfr.am/QSU2ej

As a math instructor who wears a lot of mathematics-related shirtwoot tees to class, I am saddened by the fact that the axes are not labeled and the equation does not match the graph. I REALLY wanted to buy this shirt.

On a more pessimistic note ... as a graduate of the US public school system, I am unfazed by the number of erroneous "corrections" supplied in the comments and hope we all get at least a B-.

nathanwpyle wrote:But I really DO enjoy antihero comic strips and math! The Woot writers know me so well.

In any case, thanks for keeping an eye on the symmetry, fellow wooters. Nice catch!

Now watch this and drift off to sleep after watching that crazy ending to the Seahawks-Packers game!

Now, if you could make an actual T-Shirt do this, I'd buy a dozen on the spot.

KimNicole wrote:As an artist, there's a concept we hold dear. It's called the willing suspension of disbelief. Most people are down with it.

I could get into Aristote and the concept of representation.

The suspension of disbelief works for something like "in the future, we'll have spaceships with Warp Factor Plaid" or "if there were fairies, they would be able to throw a fairy dust football at my tv to give me a new football package", not for something like "Let's use a mathematical formula that produces a curve, but let's not bother to make sure the equation would actually produce a curve that matches the one that we put on the shirt."