Talk:Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: September 24, 2007

This article is part of WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

see also ... Archive 1

[edit] I've got a question...

What is the significance of the gray box in this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.240.53 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] String theory

Could this have been a reference to the possible x value for f(x)= in terms of string theory?

f(x)= 42 = variable used to generate current universal law

If so, I don't really understand why you humans don't get it. The robot must have been using an old processor. I suspect it would have done some statistical analysis in order to decide upon the mathematic deviations. Perhaps 7 million+ years was necessary based on its hardware, but I don't think so. I think it was because it lacked free will. I don't think I will be able to send Arthur the letter, however. --Cyberman (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Statement

In the section on "Arthur's Scrabble tiles" under "The search for The Ultimate Question", the claim is made that 'Fenchurch did have the correct "God's Final Message to His Creation" message ("We apologise for the inconvenience") revealed to her in a small cafe in Rickmansworth.' This is not the case - Fenchurch and Arthur saw this message when they journeyed across space to its location to see it. It was never stated what was revealed to her in the cafe, but we can assume that it was supposed to be the final readout of The Ultimate Question - although it probably would've been the garbled version that Arthur revealed through his scrabble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.41.76 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm correcting it. 69.201.150.130 01:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to make that assumption. Why would a message from God be a question? --DocumentN (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks

There are too many... Good Lord. The idea is to link to things that are relevant to the article and aid in understanding. If you link to every single noun in the article, it just looks silly. I'm going to remove some of the useless wikilinks. Keyok 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Still working on this. Would dearly love someone else to, also. Keyok 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd LOVE to see the whole of Wikipedia ENDLESSLY cross-linked, completely blue, where clicking on any word takes you somewhere else. But of course, that would be against the general vibe of the real Wikipedia. Ah well. --BlueNight (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted a number of extraneous wikilinks that seem to have drifted back in, but there's probably still plenty of room for cleaning 69.241.105.242 (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated

I've gone though this page with a "fine tooth comb" and tried to make it more understandable. I've removed some things without refs and I've upgraded it by:

• wikilinking lots more stuff
• providing references for more stuff
• extending some quotations to make them more comprehensible
• adding in the "simple answer" demand to Deep Thought which results in a two-digit answer
• rewritten bits
• put quotations in the more attractive "cquote2" format
• put in some more Adams' numerology
• make it clear how 'apocryphal' some of Adams' "definitive" statements are
• a bit of the "42 Logical Positivism Avenue" sketch
• justified the scrabble set
• added in the Marvin bit
• standardised the spelling and case of The Ultimate Question and The Ultimate Answer
• standardised the spelling of forty two (from forty-two, Fortytwo, fortytwo and Forty-two)
• improved the intro para as per wikipedia demands

Right.. The only quote I can't find an ACTUAL reference for is...

can someone find that one please?

also...

When I'm doing a direct quote from the scripts, am I right to use the scripts spelling of Hitch-Hiker's or should it be changed to the wikipedia standard Hitchhiker's?

 BRIANTIST  (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I found it on h2g2 - BBC - h2g2 - 42. Retrieved on 2007-09-04.

[edit] Strange section

The FLAMARION bridge club were at Milliways

I don't get what the section "Douglas Adams' ἀπόκρυφα" is trying to say. Also, "wildly inaccurate" is different from "definitively inaccurate". "Definitively inaccurate" means that if you compare a statement with a fact, it's the fact that is wrong, not the statement. E.g. "tourists make a good meal of the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal" versus "tourists make a good meal for the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal". The first sentence is from the Guide, the second is a fact -- in the subsequent 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)

The quote is, about the book that it is "wildly inaccurate, contains much that is apocryphal (ἀπόκρυφα)". The point is that Douglas Adams - in real life - was deeply inaccurate about the origins of his concepts and there are many versions that claim to be "definitively inaccurate". The statement in the opening paragraph explains that DNA was presented with readers theories and dismissed them all, that's what the section of "apokrupha" is about. Douglas spent a lot of time in Greece and there are many Greek-style concepts in the books (the Circling Poets of Arium, for example). Please don't treat the book as if it were a internally-referenced religious text! The words used have meanings outside the novels themselves, perhaps you need to do a little more reading? Ask yourself what Hactar was told when the computer asked what "Ultimate" meant, perhaps? 86.142.238.124 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"wildly inaccurate" is a quote from the second paragraph of the first episode of the radio series (p18 of the scripts book); the "definitivly inaccurate" quote you have made is from Fit The Tenth (p195) 86.142.238.124 20:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is often said that a disproportionate obsession with purely academic or abstract matters indicates a retreat from the problems of real life. However, most of the people engaged in such matters say that this attitude is based on three things - ignorance, stupidity and nothing else" (p192) 86.142.238.124 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visions of 42 dancing in my head

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)

It was Cultural references, deleted for being enencylopedic.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just checking

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)

43? come on, thats not nearly as funny as 42! Icemotoboy 23:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Card symbols

What are all these card symbols, ♠♣, doing in the article? Han-Kwang (t) 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue. Let me check the history. Might be vandalism. *Cremepuff222* 00:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find the edit that added all of the symbols, so I've removed them by hand. Sorry if I did something wrong. *Cremepuff222* 00:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought of vandalism too, but they have been in the article for quite a while, so I thought it might be some inside joke. Here is one of the edits: [1], some 250 edits back in the history. Maybe a mistake? Han-Kwang (t) 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The card symbols were footnote markers, linking to the grey box just underneath that explains things like googleplex etc. Not a very nice way of doing it, but without the markers the explanation box just looks wrong. Carre 09:01, 24 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)

Only a month late on a reply from me :) Yes, there are many better, cleaner, tidier ways to do this without spoiling "proper" references and citations. Indeed, I gave the templates to use and an example article below, in the GA review section. Unfortunately, the GA review didn't result in any corrective action on the part of the nominator, and changes by others have been reverted, smacking of WP:OWN. <shrug> Carre (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

To explain the fails:

[edit] Prose

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.

[edit] MOS

Several issues here:

• Use of hyphen vs. endash or emdash.
• Use of leading article (The) in section headers (actually, I'm not that keen on this policy, and without the "The", some of the section headers wouldn't look right, so I'm inclined to just note this one here, and put it down to WP:Ignore all rules).
• Letter from Douglas section header - use of 1st name is not encyclopaedic.
• Excessive wikilinking... do we really need to WL Earth, programmer, consortium, mouse, psychiatrist, nonsense and so on? I think not. As for the wikilink to Chris Langham's conviction: ironic, maybe. Relevant? no. Quite apart from, of the 3 words piped to the link, 2 are in WP:WTA and the other is misspelt!
• More on wikilinks, as a recent edit summary put it - the cutesy, unrelated internal links have to go - for example, Slartibartfast muses: muse in this sense is a verb, and the only relationship with the Greek Muses is the etymology of the verb. There are others like that.
• Footnote markers (the card shapes). As the previous section in this talk page notes, and the repeated removal and readdition showing in the edit summary demonstrate, this isn't the best way of handling footnotes. How about trying {{hcref}} and {{cnote}} instead? You can look here for an example of how they can be used without disturbing <ref></ref> formats (note I only give that article as an example of the use of cnote and hcref, not as an example of a GA, cos it isn't one and is unlikely ever to be!).

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!

[edit] References

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.

[edit] Focused

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.

[edit] Stable

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.

[edit] Images

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)

[edit] The fact that Arthur Dent died in the club "42"

is very understated in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You might want to mention...

...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)

To the casual thinker, causality means that the question determines the answer. In fact, it is often the other way around. If I ask a "who" question, I already know the answer to be either a specific person, or a character type. If I ask a "when" question, I already know the answer involves time.

The answer is the fact, and the question indicates the specific aspects of the answer being sought. When, in high school, I discovered a new way of finding prime numbers, for example, I put the answer on display in the school science fair. However, the science fair is not the place for accidental discoveries; because I asked the wrong questions to frame the answer, I was not advanced to the next level of the science fair, which was more about the questions than the answers.

So, in answer to your question, it is possible for the answer to have been perfectly accurate without the question having been asked or conceived. As far as adding it to the article, IMHO it is less a matter of encyclopedic fact than epistemological discussion. As such, I personally think it should remain on this talk page. --BlueNight (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 54

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)

In the books, that question arises when two of the characters attempt to discern the Question via a Scrabble board. The fact that it multiplies to 54 and yet the answer is 42 is just a joke. Mathx314 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's exactly why. Fuzzy (talk) 08:59, 17 February 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);
}

[edit] Spooky

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)

[edit] Another theory on how the answer was concieved...

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)

[edit] Statement mentioned twice on article

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)

[edit] Who is Gordon McQue

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)

section removed as no adverse comment received --Brian R Hunter (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The True Meaning of 42

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)

42 is "four two" spelled out in numbers so although you have a nice idea it falls down in the detail

--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)

[edit] Dice Theory

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)

It's the typical kooky rambling this book seems to attract. It should be removed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing, in-universe, essay

These three tags have appeared on the article recently. Can we discuss, improve as needed and then remove the tags?

• The article makes sense to me. It discusses a concept, presented in a major work of fiction, that has escaped into popular culture, and has since appeared in many other works by unrelated authors.
• It does not seem to be written in-universe but does it assume more knowledge of the book than it should?

--Brian R Hunter (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In the section "The search for The Ultimate Question", it's difficult to see when/if it's reference of a real person/entity or an in-fiction entity, it mostly just goes in and out of the fiction. It's confusing with sentences like "Arthur and Ford are simply forced to accept "What a Wonderful World" the Earth is." that's have just been popped in here and there. too many short paragraphs with no coherence. _→AzaToth 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distance between corners of a 3d rectangle with sides 2, 3, and 7

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
xxxxxx7.87400787401181101968503444881 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenRayfield (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting absurd. If you go to the 42 (number) page, you'll find dozens of mathematical properties associated with 42. You'll find the same properties associated with any other comparably sized integer. Truly, there is nothing special about 42, which is precisely why Douglass Adams chose it. Eebster the Great (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very badly written

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)

Please, if you want to improve the article, fix some of the spelling and punctuation mistakes, as I'm sure they are there. If you think major edits are necessary, please mention specifically what should be changed on the talk page. If you're actually just here to complain, the least you can do is sign your post. Eebster the Great (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] google

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)