Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 24, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
|
||
Court case, Megadodo publications proved that their statement was right, and the fact was wrong. "They claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf." Mujokan 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need another small, badly written section on Spore when we already have it listed with the other references? I can't figure out how to remove it, unfortunately, so if someone else could get around to that it'd be appreciated. 67.242.120.197 ( talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, still, The Staff Of Life has 42 uses. Either way, it's a valid Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy reference. We should make a section here called "42 in pop culture" or something like that. 70.51.131.118 ( talk) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there an "Appearances of 42" page? I know there used to be. Thanks. Im a bell(Don't ask) 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't quote me on this, but wasn't the answer 43? Mr Poo —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Mr. Granger 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What are all these card symbols, ♠♣, doing in the article? Han-Kwang ( t) 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I killed the two ugly-as-sin footnote boxes. The first one (with all the cloak and dagger) was mostly unnecessary (quillard doesn't actually wikilink to the explanation). The second one was entirely unnecessary. There must be a better way of doing footnotes so if you really require them do them in a pretty manner. 155.212.30.130 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To explain the fails:
I'm particularly concerned with the "One should of course" bit - not very encyclopaedic, and the "of course" is one of those WP:Words to avoid things. Quite a few single sentence paragraphs too, which makes it look a bit choppy, especially with the number of cquotes floating around in there.
Several issues here:
Your little CSS joke? Please remove it! Did Adams' letter in Gaiman's book actually have anything for the question? If so, put it in!
The only reason for the question mark there is inconsistency on where the citations are in the text. Around the cquotes, sometimes you have them before the cqoute starts, at other times at the end. You shouldn't have spaces between punctuation and the citation. I'd also be inclined to avoid mid-sentence citations if you can - that's not a policy, just something to consider to prevent possible formatting problems.
Mostly OK here, I just don't like the rambling about the neo-numeracy. You could probably improve a lot of that if you talk about Deep Thought calling himself (itself?) the second greatest, and the philosophers then doing the comparisons with the other computers, resulting in the bit about Deep Thought designing Earth. Fixing the footnote method would help there too.
Well, the only thing here really is the to-ing and fro-ing of the card symbols for the footnotes. Other than that, no real problems.
There's at least one fair-use image in there with no rationale either in the article or on the image page.
So, overall a fail. I doubt it would take a huge effort to fix the above points, at which point feel free to renominate. Cheers. Carre 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
is very understated in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 ( talk) 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
...that, since Deep Thought didn't know what the question was, it is highly likely that the answer is inaccurate. Just saying. Tenk you veddy much. -- Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
How come it says the Question could be "What do you get when you multiply 6x9?" when it's 54? 71.188.51.22 ( talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
#include <stdio.h>
#define SIX 1 + 5
#define NINE 8 + 1
void main()
{
printf("What do you get if you multiply %d by %d?\n", SIX, NINE);
printf("Answer: %d\n", SIX * NINE);
}
In the 1991 movie, "Little Man Tate", the "Math Magician" was given a very complex problem to solve, the answer to which was the inverse of "24"...kinda scary... 66.227.153.56 ( talk) 02:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I just found this tidblit on the IMDb message board for Hitchhiker's, thought it was interesting...
If you have two terms next to each other in math, you mulitply them. life, the universe works out (if you count the letters) to 4 X 8 = 32. If you have two terms separated by the word "and", you add them. Counting the letters again, it's life, the universe and everythings or 4 X 8 + 10, or 32 + 10, which equals you know what.
Tenk you veddy much. -- Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Douglas Adam's statement on his reason for choosing "42" seems to be mentioned twice in this article. Unusual Gazelle 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The section added by Gpghonest is interesting but is not backed by any citation and I can't find anything for Gordon McQue on Google. I propose to remove the section unless anyone can justify its inclusion. -- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
42 is "for two" spelled out in numbers. The meaning/purpose of life is that it is for two. Simple and obvious.
MisterMilkman ( talk) 14:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one: The only english word that vaguely resembles forty-two is fortitude. Make of that what you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.108.2 ( talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This section
There’s another possible theory, in line with Adams’ idea that Casuality is the real engine of Life, Universe and Everything.
A throw at dice well represents Casuality ( and its opposite, Destiny) at work.
If we sum up the faces of two dice we obtain:
'''(1+2+3+4+5+6)* 2 = 42'''
But, maybe, this is Casuality too.
has been added/removed/added so seems to be contentious. I have left it in for the time being as its author has mentioned Adams’ idea on Casuality, which seems relevant. I am not clear that Adams expressed any views on the summation of numbers on a die why multiply by two?
I propose its removal unless anyone can provide some citation. -- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
These three tags have appeared on the article recently. Can we discuss, improve as needed and then remove the tags?
-- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 8 factors of 42: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 21, and 42.
Exactly 3 of those are prime: 2, 3, and 7.
2 x 3 x 7 = 42
Distance between corners of a 3d rectangle with sides 2, 3, and 7
= squareRoot(2x2 + 3x3 + 7x7)
= squareRoot(62)
= 7.87400787401181101968503444881...
Notice the repetition of 078740
07.8740 078740 1181101968503444881...
That alone is very unlikely, but if we continue, it is even stranger...
Extend 078740
into the lower digits
7.87400787401181101968503444881
7.87400787400787400787400787400
and subtract it from the original corner-to-corner distance, and you get:
0.00000000000393701181102657481
Notice that the digits contain 0118110
in a different position than the original corner-to-corner distance:
0.00000000000393701181102657481
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BenRayfield (
talk •
contribs) 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
xxxxxx7.87400787401181101968503444881
This article is appalingly written. There is a lack of punctuation and grammar and there are several spelling mistakes. Please edit it so that it is actually well written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coozins ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I search the answer to life, the universe, and everything (lowcase) on Google, an it says it's 42. for real. 200.1.17.105 ( talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"For tea two" or "tea for two" - the number means that we should get along and be companionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.81.122 ( talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just assumed that 42 was a nod to people who understood ASCII and the usage of the asterisk as a wildcard. I think the correlation is too coincidental to actually be a coincidence. Either that, or the ASCII definition was modified to create this correlation. Any ideas? -- Christopher C. Parker t c 15:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Normally, this "dice theory" that people throw up on here was decently written and it usually looks halfway presentable...even though it's been proven wrong by Adams. But this latest addition was atrocious and it took away from the entire article. I've removed the newest "dice theory" because of this, and if anyone wants to re-add it in, please make it at least presentable! Zellthemedic ( talk) 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The addition of the positions in the alphabet of "xkcd" is not a reference to Hitchhikers' Guide, merely a coincidence. I believe somewhere on xkcd.com it is explained in detail by the author, but I don't have time to find it right now... if I can tomorrow, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.253.31 ( talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this is an easter egg and not just a bug in Appleworks? It seems kind of unlikely that someone would implement something quite as annoying to the user as making 41 pages worth of text suddenly look as though they've disappeared just because they're a fan of the hitchhiker's guide... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.168.246 ( talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if this is a current theory but try rotating 42 ninety degrees to the right so the two is laying on it's back so to speak. Only a tiny bit of creative thinking to draw a head on the stick man and woman to see what it's all really about. It's not esoteric, it's procreation in effect. My answer anyways.
gpierre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.252.181 ( talk) 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
42 puzzle is really just a subsection of this article. It doesn't need to stand on its own. Serendi pod ous 11:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned by another editor above in the "google" section, I have always thought it was word-anagram of Two for Tea. Adams mentions tea in quite a lot of places, including the Infocom adventure and Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul
Music: Vincent Youmans: Lyrics: Irving Caesar + Otto Harbach: Book: Otto Harbach + Frank Mandel :Film: 1950
CHORUS:
Picture you upon my knee
Just tea for two
And two for tea
Just me for you
And you for me alone
Nobody near us to see us or hear us,
No friends or relations
On weekend vacations,
We won't have it known, dear,
That we own a telephone, dear...
Day will break and you'll wake,
And start to bake a sugar cake
For me to take for all the boys to see.
We will raise a family
A boy for you
And a girl for me
Oh, can't you see how happy we would be...
MrMarmite (
talk) 09:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The numbers above DA (Douglas Adams) on a keyboard are 42 MrMarmite ( talk) 09:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't advocate merging an article this big, but Notable phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is relatively short, and neither would lose much in a merge, which would prevent needless duplication of information. A lot of articles in Wikipedia's Hitchhiker domain are getting "lost" because they repeat information already found in other articles. Serendi pod ous 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 24, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
|
||
Court case, Megadodo publications proved that their statement was right, and the fact was wrong. "They claimed that the first version of the sentence was the more aesthetically pleasing, summoned a qualified poet to testify under oath that beauty was truth, truth beauty and hoped thereby to prove that the guilty party in this case was Life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true. The judges concurred, and in a moving speech held that Life itself was in contempt of court, and duly confiscated it from all those there present before going off to enjoy a pleasant evening's ultragolf." Mujokan 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need another small, badly written section on Spore when we already have it listed with the other references? I can't figure out how to remove it, unfortunately, so if someone else could get around to that it'd be appreciated. 67.242.120.197 ( talk) 01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, still, The Staff Of Life has 42 uses. Either way, it's a valid Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy reference. We should make a section here called "42 in pop culture" or something like that. 70.51.131.118 ( talk) 23:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there an "Appearances of 42" page? I know there used to be. Thanks. Im a bell(Don't ask) 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't quote me on this, but wasn't the answer 43? Mr Poo —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Mr. Granger 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What are all these card symbols, ♠♣, doing in the article? Han-Kwang ( t) 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I killed the two ugly-as-sin footnote boxes. The first one (with all the cloak and dagger) was mostly unnecessary (quillard doesn't actually wikilink to the explanation). The second one was entirely unnecessary. There must be a better way of doing footnotes so if you really require them do them in a pretty manner. 155.212.30.130 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
To explain the fails:
I'm particularly concerned with the "One should of course" bit - not very encyclopaedic, and the "of course" is one of those WP:Words to avoid things. Quite a few single sentence paragraphs too, which makes it look a bit choppy, especially with the number of cquotes floating around in there.
Several issues here:
Your little CSS joke? Please remove it! Did Adams' letter in Gaiman's book actually have anything for the question? If so, put it in!
The only reason for the question mark there is inconsistency on where the citations are in the text. Around the cquotes, sometimes you have them before the cqoute starts, at other times at the end. You shouldn't have spaces between punctuation and the citation. I'd also be inclined to avoid mid-sentence citations if you can - that's not a policy, just something to consider to prevent possible formatting problems.
Mostly OK here, I just don't like the rambling about the neo-numeracy. You could probably improve a lot of that if you talk about Deep Thought calling himself (itself?) the second greatest, and the philosophers then doing the comparisons with the other computers, resulting in the bit about Deep Thought designing Earth. Fixing the footnote method would help there too.
Well, the only thing here really is the to-ing and fro-ing of the card symbols for the footnotes. Other than that, no real problems.
There's at least one fair-use image in there with no rationale either in the article or on the image page.
So, overall a fail. I doubt it would take a huge effort to fix the above points, at which point feel free to renominate. Cheers. Carre 13:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
is very understated in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 ( talk) 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
...that, since Deep Thought didn't know what the question was, it is highly likely that the answer is inaccurate. Just saying. Tenk you veddy much. -- Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
How come it says the Question could be "What do you get when you multiply 6x9?" when it's 54? 71.188.51.22 ( talk) 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
#include <stdio.h>
#define SIX 1 + 5
#define NINE 8 + 1
void main()
{
printf("What do you get if you multiply %d by %d?\n", SIX, NINE);
printf("Answer: %d\n", SIX * NINE);
}
In the 1991 movie, "Little Man Tate", the "Math Magician" was given a very complex problem to solve, the answer to which was the inverse of "24"...kinda scary... 66.227.153.56 ( talk) 02:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I just found this tidblit on the IMDb message board for Hitchhiker's, thought it was interesting...
If you have two terms next to each other in math, you mulitply them. life, the universe works out (if you count the letters) to 4 X 8 = 32. If you have two terms separated by the word "and", you add them. Counting the letters again, it's life, the universe and everythings or 4 X 8 + 10, or 32 + 10, which equals you know what.
Tenk you veddy much. -- Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Douglas Adam's statement on his reason for choosing "42" seems to be mentioned twice in this article. Unusual Gazelle 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The section added by Gpghonest is interesting but is not backed by any citation and I can't find anything for Gordon McQue on Google. I propose to remove the section unless anyone can justify its inclusion. -- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
42 is "for two" spelled out in numbers. The meaning/purpose of life is that it is for two. Simple and obvious.
MisterMilkman ( talk) 14:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's another one: The only english word that vaguely resembles forty-two is fortitude. Make of that what you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.108.2 ( talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This section
There’s another possible theory, in line with Adams’ idea that Casuality is the real engine of Life, Universe and Everything.
A throw at dice well represents Casuality ( and its opposite, Destiny) at work.
If we sum up the faces of two dice we obtain:
'''(1+2+3+4+5+6)* 2 = 42'''
But, maybe, this is Casuality too.
has been added/removed/added so seems to be contentious. I have left it in for the time being as its author has mentioned Adams’ idea on Casuality, which seems relevant. I am not clear that Adams expressed any views on the summation of numbers on a die why multiply by two?
I propose its removal unless anyone can provide some citation. -- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
These three tags have appeared on the article recently. Can we discuss, improve as needed and then remove the tags?
-- Brian R Hunter ( talk) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are 8 factors of 42: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 21, and 42.
Exactly 3 of those are prime: 2, 3, and 7.
2 x 3 x 7 = 42
Distance between corners of a 3d rectangle with sides 2, 3, and 7
= squareRoot(2x2 + 3x3 + 7x7)
= squareRoot(62)
= 7.87400787401181101968503444881...
Notice the repetition of 078740
07.8740 078740 1181101968503444881...
That alone is very unlikely, but if we continue, it is even stranger...
Extend 078740
into the lower digits
7.87400787401181101968503444881
7.87400787400787400787400787400
and subtract it from the original corner-to-corner distance, and you get:
0.00000000000393701181102657481
Notice that the digits contain 0118110
in a different position than the original corner-to-corner distance:
0.00000000000393701181102657481
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BenRayfield (
talk •
contribs) 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
xxxxxx7.87400787401181101968503444881
This article is appalingly written. There is a lack of punctuation and grammar and there are several spelling mistakes. Please edit it so that it is actually well written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coozins ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I search the answer to life, the universe, and everything (lowcase) on Google, an it says it's 42. for real. 200.1.17.105 ( talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"For tea two" or "tea for two" - the number means that we should get along and be companionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.81.122 ( talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just assumed that 42 was a nod to people who understood ASCII and the usage of the asterisk as a wildcard. I think the correlation is too coincidental to actually be a coincidence. Either that, or the ASCII definition was modified to create this correlation. Any ideas? -- Christopher C. Parker t c 15:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Normally, this "dice theory" that people throw up on here was decently written and it usually looks halfway presentable...even though it's been proven wrong by Adams. But this latest addition was atrocious and it took away from the entire article. I've removed the newest "dice theory" because of this, and if anyone wants to re-add it in, please make it at least presentable! Zellthemedic ( talk) 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The addition of the positions in the alphabet of "xkcd" is not a reference to Hitchhikers' Guide, merely a coincidence. I believe somewhere on xkcd.com it is explained in detail by the author, but I don't have time to find it right now... if I can tomorrow, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.253.31 ( talk) 20:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that this is an easter egg and not just a bug in Appleworks? It seems kind of unlikely that someone would implement something quite as annoying to the user as making 41 pages worth of text suddenly look as though they've disappeared just because they're a fan of the hitchhiker's guide... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.168.246 ( talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if this is a current theory but try rotating 42 ninety degrees to the right so the two is laying on it's back so to speak. Only a tiny bit of creative thinking to draw a head on the stick man and woman to see what it's all really about. It's not esoteric, it's procreation in effect. My answer anyways.
gpierre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.252.181 ( talk) 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
42 puzzle is really just a subsection of this article. It doesn't need to stand on its own. Serendi pod ous 11:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned by another editor above in the "google" section, I have always thought it was word-anagram of Two for Tea. Adams mentions tea in quite a lot of places, including the Infocom adventure and Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul
Music: Vincent Youmans: Lyrics: Irving Caesar + Otto Harbach: Book: Otto Harbach + Frank Mandel :Film: 1950
CHORUS:
Picture you upon my knee
Just tea for two
And two for tea
Just me for you
And you for me alone
Nobody near us to see us or hear us,
No friends or relations
On weekend vacations,
We won't have it known, dear,
That we own a telephone, dear...
Day will break and you'll wake,
And start to bake a sugar cake
For me to take for all the boys to see.
We will raise a family
A boy for you
And a girl for me
Oh, can't you see how happy we would be...
MrMarmite (
talk) 09:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The numbers above DA (Douglas Adams) on a keyboard are 42 MrMarmite ( talk) 09:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't advocate merging an article this big, but Notable phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is relatively short, and neither would lose much in a merge, which would prevent needless duplication of information. A lot of articles in Wikipedia's Hitchhiker domain are getting "lost" because they repeat information already found in other articles. Serendi pod ous 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)