[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 88 KB, 558x677, discuss.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7669945 No.7669945 [Reply] [Original]

discuss.

>> No.7669948

>>7669945
Shut up.

>> No.7669951

Right answer is true. Are you retarded OP?

>> No.7669952

>>7669945
Two are red. (2 == 1) = false.

>> No.7669954

>>7669945
Oh look, semantics are at it again. For those who don't get it, it's true that at least one of the triangles is red, but not that exactly/only one of the triangles is red.

>> No.7670081

>>7669945

> ooh look I can play semantics im so smrt hurr derr

Faggot shit like this is why I hate university.

>> No.7670085

>>7669945
true. it's false only if you introduce pragmatics.

>> No.7670088

Two r red xDDD xDD Fugging xDD GUISE :DD

>> No.7670091

>>7669945
True and false.

>> No.7670094
File: 38 KB, 604x437, 1447315140541.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7670094

>>7670088

>> No.7670104

>>7669945
truth conditionally true. pragmatically false.

>> No.7670168

the color we see is the net result of the wavelengths we see. If you're looking at a physical print of the image then maybe the two red triangles ARE everything BUT red. and maybe the blue triangle IS more red than the others because it has absorbed the red wavelengths rather than reflecting them. But if you're looking at this on an RGB screen than i have no idea how to begin to answer this question.

>> No.7670178

well maybe the red triangles AREN'T any color. Only a series of code that is interpreted to tell the screen to produce a series of wavelengths that appears red.

>> No.7670207

>>7669952
it doesnt say "exactly one is red", so (2>1) = true

>> No.7670213

>>7669945
One OF (all) the triangles below is red. Implying 1/x = red. THEREFORE IT IS FALSE.

A triangle below is red = TRUE.

>> No.7670219

>>7670168
One triangle emits wavelengths of 400-484THz. There, simple enough for you?

>> No.7670235

>>7669945
its true, you cannot argue that one isn't red. if you think you can use semantics to claim false you are probably in middle school and raise your hand a lot more than anyone else

>> No.7670335

>>7669945

Yes, one of the triangles below is red.

Also one is blue and another one is red.

>> No.7670339

>>7670219
>wavelength
>frequency units

REEEEEEEE

>> No.7670344 [DELETED] 

Define "one of"

>> No.7670358

>>7670344
There exists an element of the set satisfying a property
Or
There exists a unique element of the set satisfying a property

The questioning is ambiguous

>> No.7670364

>>7670358
It's crystal fucking clear you literal autismo. Mathfags I swear...

>> No.7670372

>>7670339
....620-750nm* Sorry to upset you autist.

>> No.7670376

You have three boys. Derek, Derek and Roy. One of these boys' names is Derek. TRUE UE UE UUUUEEE

>> No.7670383

>>7670376
Then again, if you asked them, which one of you's names is Derek?

TWO BOYS WOULD SAY "ME."

Conundrum.

>> No.7670386

>>7670364
In the first case, the correct answer is "True" and in the second, it is "False"
The phrase "one of the triangles" is zeugmatic.
Suck my homeomorphisms lmao desu senpai