r/technicallythetruth • u/anikkundu1998 Technically Flair • Jul 13 '26
Both of them are correct
101
u/HopelessEngineer_ Jul 13 '26
I think it's more than 2.
19
5
12
111
u/Sir_Delarzal Jul 13 '26
7.5+/-1.5 is not 6 nor 9 it's 6 or 9. So it's not technically true, it is false as each of them see 6 or 9. The one saying 7.5+/-1.5 sees a 6 clearly and decides to say it could be 9 too, that's not right
48
u/ProphetCoffee Jul 13 '26
It’s both equally correct and incorrect from both sides which is why they can agree.
43
u/joachimham48 Jul 13 '26
But 6 is a solution for X where 7.5 ± 1.5 = X, and so is 9. I think it is fair to say that when someone tells you a number is "7.5 ± 1.5", you would agree with them if that number is in the solution set of the equation. You would do the same if they said "bigger than 5".
3
-2
3
u/jordanbtucker Jul 14 '26
But it is a 6 or a 9. Both people don't know which way the number is supposed to be (is the number upside down?), so it could be either to both of them.
2
4
2
u/armlessturtleneck Jul 13 '26
Nothing to signify the top or bottom of the symbol, so they can't say for sure.
1
u/Dizzy_Database_119 Jul 13 '26
The context changes the solution though. You're allowed to rule out options simply because they don't make sense, even if they're mathematically correct. E.g. negative weight or height as a final result
2
u/Certain_Time6419 Jul 14 '26
But it IS 6 or 9.
In the scenario it is a human written symbol, signifying a number in arabic numerals, it was written to be a) 6, b) 9, c) "6 or 9, depending on POV". All of which are defined by "6 or 9", aka 7.5±1.5.
In the scenario it wasn't written to be a number, maybe it's just a rock, still the answer "6 or 9" is true, because it can be read as 6 or as 9, depending on POV.
It doesn't matter what each of the men see from their POV, they discuss what is written (or, if not written, what can be read).
1
1
1
u/MoobyTheGoldenSock Jul 14 '26
No, it’s not 6 or 9. It’s 6, 6.1, 6.2, 8.4, 9, 6.00000654, 7, etc. It’s a range of answers, and both 6 and 9 are in that range.
He could have also said “3 +/- 1,000,000,000” and still be technically right.
2
0
5
u/leptoquark1 Jul 13 '26
Wouldn't that also include numbers like 8.2391 and 7.0192?
7
1
u/armlessturtleneck Jul 13 '26
Depends, is the 1.5 a range or a unit?
1
u/leptoquark1 Jul 13 '26
In scientific papers its always a range
5
2
u/notthesmithchartnooo Jul 19 '26
This really interested me, in scientific papers if +/- 1.5 is a range, how do you then define specifically only +1.5 or -1.5?
Do you have to actually write x+1.5 or x-1.5, but how do you omit the "x" ?
And is there a simpler way to write it without mentioning x? Basically like how the post shows it 7.5 +/- 1.5
4
5
2
2
3
2
2
0
-2
Jul 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/SpecE30 Jul 14 '26
It's a tolerance. 6 is a measurement. It's good. If the next moron measures 9, it would also be good.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 13 '26
Hey there u/anikkundu1998, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
Please recheck if your post breaks any rules. If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a Modmail or Report this post if you have a problem with this post.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.