Talk:The Prisoner of Benda

The theorem
What's the theorem?

The algorithm is presented just after all the swaps are done to bring everyone back. It's shown for a split second as a full on written answer.


 * A simpler version is also shown in this article, written by Sandra I believe it was (check the history). Aki 15:56, 20 August 2010 (CEST)


 * I uploaded a screenshot of the theorem but am too lazy to put it in the article myself. it's not very high res but you can still read it very well if you zoom in a little. here. http://pool.theinfosphere.org/File:Prisoner_of_Benda_Theorem_on_Chalkboard.png

lol there's more on this page so far about hte theorem than there is about the plot. haha. Papaburger 17:01, 20 August 2010 (CEST)


 * I uploaded a bigger one and put it in there. Aki 17:22, 20 August 2010 (CEST)

Employees of the Years
The earliest Amy is known to have worked at PlanEx is now 2992 (age 13) several years prior to becoming Farnsie's grad student and lost the weight between 2997 and 3000 (unless the 2992 photo was reused despite weight loss). Fat Hermes has been there since at least 2993, so the young Hermes flashback in Lethal Inspection must be prior to this. This means that Bender definitely is older than he thought he was when he said he was four and remembered his birth, with a flashback that did not match and now must be assumed to have at least five years in between these two events. Finally, Scruffy has been there since at least 2995. I feel this whole "Bender's age" issue should be discussed. - Quolnok 16:23, 20 August 2010 (CEST)
 * I reacted to this as well. We can excuse Amy being there since age 13, but Bender's age is a strange matter. Ofcourse most can be solved with "he lied" or "he thought his first memory was by his birth but he was wrong". Move to the actual article? Aki 16:30, 20 August 2010 (CEST)

Proof
I transcribed the proof from this episode as best as I could - without the proper TeX plugin, it is kind of sketchy, but what the heck. The proof is sound, by the way; the only thing that lacks is the q.e.d. (quod erat demonstrandum), that Clyde verbally notes after completing the proof. (Goof?) -Kamikaze28 16:38, 20 August 2010 (CEST)
 * Nice work. The QED is as you say unnecessary since he claims it verbally, but it could easily have been there as well - not a goof in my opinion. I'll get the screenshot asap and put it in there. Aki 16:42, 20 August 2010 (CEST)