# Google+ Page // Facebook Page // Twitter Page

## 28 Comments

## Leave a comment

Profile pictures are tied to your email address and can
be set up at Gravatar.
Click here for recent comments.

(Note: You must have

If you make a mistake or the comment doesn't show up properly, email me and I'll gladly fix it :-).

(Note: You must have

**javascript**enabled to leave comments, otherwise you will get a comment submission error.)If you make a mistake or the comment doesn't show up properly, email me and I'll gladly fix it :-).

# Google+ Page // Facebook Page // Twitter Page

New to Spiked Math?

View the top comics.

View the top comics.

**New Feature:**Browse the archives in quick view! Choose from a black, white or grey background.
he kills shroedinger's kitten...i guess this answers the eternal question

oh! please excuse my ungeekyness! schroedinger!

wtf!!?? get it right google! schrödinger! (well, the ö sound basically counts as oe, right?)

the oe does mean ö, so don't worry about it, oe is acceptable on an

English keyboard.

Actually, the ö character was derived from oe (as was ä from ae, ü from ue and ß from sz). They used to put the e on top of the o in order to indicate the typical sound (rather than pronouncing it literally as an o and an e). Due to their calligraphy pens the vertical lines of the e became more dominant and the horizontal lines were almost invisible, producing two vertical lines above the o (or the a and u, for that matter). Later people became even more lazy and just wrote dots instead of lines. Bam!

I just read your comment in zoidberg's voice :D

I'm sure you know this but you don't need the axiom of choice to choose an element from an infinite set, only to simultaneously choose elements from an infinite collection of non-empty sets. PS, love your comic.

He kills the cutest one!

AGeekStory's got a point. If cuteness is a well-order on the set of cats, then you don't need the axiom of choice at all.

Giacomo: Yeah, well, that's because the fact that you can have a well-order on every set is equal to the axiom of choice (and Zorn's lemma, while we're at it). If you assume one, you can prove the other.

but it's not. it's not even linearly ordered.

but rn't we considering just one set??..i think the axiom only applies whn there r infinite no of sets..in other words we don't need the axiom for a finite no of sets..god can be so random sometimes!!

Pooky, the axiom can be applied with a finite number of sets, although, it is not required (but can be used anyway).

Disregarding that, look at the monsters... They're not from this earth. That must mean there's an infinite number of planets with kittens in the uni(multi)verse...

Yeah... that must be it... ( ????? )

I'm hoping God doesn't use the axiom of choice, or he could be in an infinite recursion...

Well, it can be proved terminating. Eventually, all cats will be gone :D

I wonder what he kills if I use the generalized continuum hypothesis...

Well here is another prove of god not existing.

Because he couldn't deal with such a problem.

Only if you accept the premises. God would not kill an innocent, fuzzy, cute little kitten just because you act in a certain way.

Shouldn't you be working on your dissertation?

All done. It was sent to the external yesterday :P

HOW RUDE.

German? :)

I've felt that there is somethin wrong about Axiom of choice. Thanks for opening my eyes ⌠›;

I always had a feeling domo kun could double as the angle of death

Which one does he kill? Hmm... Well let's find out. Someone do an axiom of choice.

In ZFC, a cat is a set.

Awesome comment! ZFC FTW!

Kittens form a finite set. Thus, arrange kittens by measure. There exists a kitten with maximal measure. This is the chosen one.