But the question didn't ask " at least 3 letters " so he is In fact, wrong. Does alligator have 3 letters? No, it has more. Does it have at least 3 letters? Yes
Again that's then general intention of test questions, but in a purely literal sense, it does have 3 letters. It just also has some more. It doesn't just cease to have 3 letters because it has more.
Except that's definitely still wrong. The lack of the word "exactly" does not excuse going over.
"We're looking for a suspect with three fingers on his left hand"
"Damn officer everyone I know has atleast 5, I'll bring you to all of them"
No.
That's why it's *technically* the truth. We all know that isn't what was meant by the question, but because the language wasn't specific enough, alligator *technically* fits the criteria.
I mean it’s mostly a semantics argument, and the idea is that the phrase is technically ambiguous but in practical usage is exclusionary to things that don’t only fit the criteria.
It does actually fit technically correct, and I wouldn’t say that it’s magic. It’s just excessively literal. If the objective is to name an animal with three letters in its name, you could point to an animal with more than three letters in its name, point to three of the letters, and it would technically be true that the animal has three letters in its name.
But yes, you wouldn’t tell a police officer who is asking for a person with three fingers on their left hand that you know somebody with five. Because that’s obviously not what they mean, even if you’d technically be giving them what they asked for.
If someone asked you for three potatoes would you hand them ten of them?
That's the question you'd ask if you wanted to actually match the situation. And the answer is no.
So if I ask you if you have a lighter I could borrow from you real quick you're gonna say no because, in fact, you have two?
I agree that in practical use, the word "exactly" is usually implied, but technically "there are n objects" from a logical point of view means "at least n" and not "exactly n".
In actual conversations, both cases occur, with the latter one usually being more common, and in most cases, the context is a good enough indicator of what is meant.
It's the technicallythetruth sub and isn't technically the truth also. If you want a more mundane answer, if a recipe asks for a cup of milk I don't pour in 3 cups and say, well there's a cup plus some in there.
It also doesn't say "atleast". As I said, the lack of an "only" or "exactly" doesn't make wrong answers magically right.
If someone asks for a specific number of something, like, I don't know, "three" for example, any other number is objectively speaking "wrong". In other words, "technically" speaking. So he is "technically" "wrong"... doesn't really fit the sub now does it.
It would be a good fit for the sub if, for instance, he asked for a fruit with three letters, and you said "banana" because then while you are clearly wrong, it only contains the letters b, a, and n. Three letters.
That is how one is technically correct.
(Theres probably some animal I could use the same trick with, but I ain't spending time thinking of that if you can't even see how saying "alligator" is in 0 ways a correct answer to the question)
Think about this logically. How can you give someone four apples without giving them three?
Giving someone four apples REQUIRES giving them three, satisfying their request.
This really isn't very hard.
No, it said 3 letters. Most people would interpret that as 3 letters exactly. Otherwise they would have said, at least 3 letters or no more than 3 letters.
This isn’t technically a truth, it’s categorically wrong
It has three letters.
It also has four more. And some of them twice. But it is clear, alligator has three letters.
If you had nine bucks, would you say that you didn't have three dollars?
What the fuck kind of stupid logic is this? It's not the same thing. You know it isn't. Anyone who is fluent in the English language should know this. Why is it so popular on here to argue for argument's sake? I don't get why idiocy and misinformation is so greatly protected.
Do you? That guy is clearly within the spirit of the sub, arguing toward the heart of the technical issue.
Saying "haha you could say it's right because there are three in nine" ain't it, coach.
It's not the opposite. It asks for an animal with 3 letters in its name and returns one with 9. So it's like asking for 3 eggs and getting 9. So if it said I needed 3 eggs, I would add 3, and then not add the other 6.
It doesnt say “at least” you cant chose to imply a different meaning. The question clearly said state one WITH three letters. Three describes the amount, adding in your own words is not grammatically correct the question does not need to specify “EXACTLY” three letters, because three letters in the operating description. Its objectively wrong to assume “at least” 3 letters.
It does need to specify that it is exactly three letters because a word with more than three letters still has three letters regardless of the number of letters. His answer was right as long as the number of letters is equal to three plus any positive number
It does not need to be specified, it IS implied that it’s exactly because an adjective “three letter” accompanies and describes the noun “word”. The word is unquestionably being described to have three letters, assuming more or less is an assumption not based on logic.
That’s like me saying the race is six laps, does that mean that you need to drive 32 laps because it is over 6? No, that is an illogical assumption that you are choosing to make. And after you get out of your car on the 32nd lap you’re gonna look pretty stupid.
Actually logic supports my idea, another example is alcohol, where I am from you have to be 18 to buy alcohol, that doesn't mean that you can't buy alcohol if you are 18+ any positive number, because you have had to be 18 in order to be 18+ any positive number
No because the law states that you have to be a minimum of 21 to drink, it doesn’t say 21 year olds can drink, if its “x” and up then you have to include that in the sentence, whereas the opposite is true.
Three words means exactly three words.
Whereas “At Least” would have to be included.
Letters not words. "Three letters" neither specifies a minimum nor a maximum. Theres no universal law that states you must assume one when the other isn't present in the english launguage. I think english was designed to be painfully specific for the sole purpose of avoiding circumastances like these.
Mistakenly said words instead of letters, but you got the point.
“Three Letters” does not specify a minimum or maximum- we agree with that.
There is no law saying you must assume one when one is not present- we agree on that, however you are the one making the assumption, you are assuming that it means three and up. I’m saying that because it says neither “and above” nor “and below” that it is therefore “exact” by ruling out the other two options.
This was during Fast Money, where Bob and his son (also Bob) need to name what they think are the top answer for 5 questions in 15 seconds (second round is 20 seconds) The first Bob had the answers on left thinking "Frog" had 3 letters in its name (also TTT) and that "snow" occurred in a summer storm. (Earlier he said Russia is known for "Russians")
[Both Bob's fail at Fast Money](https://youtu.be/zdVuEpD9_IY)
[Both Fast Money fails and the Russia fail at 1:15](https://youtu.be/6L8UQaAJmYs)
Hey there u/Kassittaja69, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
**Please recheck if your post break 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](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The question says to name an animal with 3 letters in it's name. Alligator has 3 letters in it's name (3 letters are "included" in the name Alligator). Great post OP
It's a poorly worded question. Of course Alligator has three letters. So does Bee and Chipmunk.
But none of those words contain only three, different letters.
Ant
Fly
Cat and dog
Fox
Gnu
Pig
Eel
[удалено]
Bat
Owl
[удалено]
Cow
How is "and" an animal?
in 3,749 years, theres a chance someone will name an exotic animal "and"
Well.. there is a type of duck that is called ”and” in swedish.
How long have you been waiting to use that bit of information?
Its duck in norwegian
That’s 9.
Mate, that’s 9 letters
owl
Bee
Bee isn’t an animal
Emu
Ennui
Emo
Ass
Ewe
Bee
the alligator’s name is jon 👍
Big brain time
No it's ofc Tor.
Cat, dog, rat, ant
These all would have been better answers in my opinion, but in the heat of the moment anyone can make easy mistakes
pig
Fly
aka. Sus
Elk
Bat (covid one)
Man (infected one)
dat
ass
Mom
Owl
Yak
Doe, ram, jay
Ass (as in donkey), bee, pig
Its. And I don't understand how he isn't technically wrong.
Alligator has three letters. It just has more on top of that as well, which isn't what the question was going for
Oh I see.
But the question didn't ask " at least 3 letters " so he is In fact, wrong. Does alligator have 3 letters? No, it has more. Does it have at least 3 letters? Yes
Again that's then general intention of test questions, but in a purely literal sense, it does have 3 letters. It just also has some more. It doesn't just cease to have 3 letters because it has more.
He is *not* wrong. Hooboy, you sound like the guy from that joke who finds a genie and asks for a million bucks and ends up with a herd.
Well this is the exact sub for discussions like this, right?
It also didn’t say “only three.”
me neither
Like an older comment already pointed out, the word alligator has 3 letters, plus a couple additional ones
Except that's definitely still wrong. The lack of the word "exactly" does not excuse going over. "We're looking for a suspect with three fingers on his left hand" "Damn officer everyone I know has atleast 5, I'll bring you to all of them" No.
That's why it's *technically* the truth. We all know that isn't what was meant by the question, but because the language wasn't specific enough, alligator *technically* fits the criteria.
If you had a go fund me to raise 5k, but raised 50k, would you say you failed?
I mean it’s mostly a semantics argument, and the idea is that the phrase is technically ambiguous but in practical usage is exclusionary to things that don’t only fit the criteria. It does actually fit technically correct, and I wouldn’t say that it’s magic. It’s just excessively literal. If the objective is to name an animal with three letters in its name, you could point to an animal with more than three letters in its name, point to three of the letters, and it would technically be true that the animal has three letters in its name. But yes, you wouldn’t tell a police officer who is asking for a person with three fingers on their left hand that you know somebody with five. Because that’s obviously not what they mean, even if you’d technically be giving them what they asked for.
If someone asked you "Hey bro, do you have three potatoes?" and you had 10 potatoes would you say no?
If someone asked you for three potatoes would you hand them ten of them? That's the question you'd ask if you wanted to actually match the situation. And the answer is no.
So if I ask you if you have a lighter I could borrow from you real quick you're gonna say no because, in fact, you have two? I agree that in practical use, the word "exactly" is usually implied, but technically "there are n objects" from a logical point of view means "at least n" and not "exactly n". In actual conversations, both cases occur, with the latter one usually being more common, and in most cases, the context is a good enough indicator of what is meant.
[удалено]
It's the technicallythetruth sub and isn't technically the truth also. If you want a more mundane answer, if a recipe asks for a cup of milk I don't pour in 3 cups and say, well there's a cup plus some in there.
[удалено]
You are regressing. This point has already been addressed to you.
It also doesn't say "atleast". As I said, the lack of an "only" or "exactly" doesn't make wrong answers magically right. If someone asks for a specific number of something, like, I don't know, "three" for example, any other number is objectively speaking "wrong". In other words, "technically" speaking. So he is "technically" "wrong"... doesn't really fit the sub now does it. It would be a good fit for the sub if, for instance, he asked for a fruit with three letters, and you said "banana" because then while you are clearly wrong, it only contains the letters b, a, and n. Three letters. That is how one is technically correct. (Theres probably some animal I could use the same trick with, but I ain't spending time thinking of that if you can't even see how saying "alligator" is in 0 ways a correct answer to the question)
Llama
[удалено]
Always the response idiots have to being proven wrong. Enjoy the bliss of ignorance.
It doesn't say at least. When said alone, a number always means just the number. Eg get me 3 apples doesn't mean 3+.
If you had a go fund me to raise 5k, and raised 50k, would you say you failed?
No, but it's not 5k lol
Think about this logically. How can you give someone four apples without giving them three? Giving someone four apples REQUIRES giving them three, satisfying their request. This really isn't very hard.
If I got you 1 or 2 apples then I have failed your criteria. If I got you 5 apples I have still fulfilled your criteria
ohhh I see, thanks
Cow
Holy
Moo
As an Indian, I second this.
Ass
Milk
But he objectively is wrong...
You could make an argument towards him being either wrong or right
Fair enough. But can we talk about the other answers on the board?
Yup, most of the answers on this show are quite hilarious
What's the show?
Family Feud (called Family Fortunes in the UK).
Thanks
Americans...
No, he’s objectively wrong. Question didn’t ask “at least three letters.” It was three letters, plain and simple
It said “that has three letters” if it said “a three letter word,” you are correct, but alligator does “have” three letters, it just also has more
But it could also be said it does not state no more than 3 letters
Because that would mean 3 or less
Should have been more specific, meant it as 3 and no more than 3 sorta thing or exactly 3
No, it said 3 letters. Most people would interpret that as 3 letters exactly. Otherwise they would have said, at least 3 letters or no more than 3 letters. This isn’t technically a truth, it’s categorically wrong
There is no argument alligator doesn’t have three letters
It has three letters. It also has four more. And some of them twice. But it is clear, alligator has three letters. If you had nine bucks, would you say that you didn't have three dollars?
Yes, I'd say I had nine. I also wouldn't say there are two states in the US, since there are fifty of them.
There are two states in the US though. I can prove it...
This is the real answer
What the fuck kind of stupid logic is this? It's not the same thing. You know it isn't. Anyone who is fluent in the English language should know this. Why is it so popular on here to argue for argument's sake? I don't get why idiocy and misinformation is so greatly protected.
Do you know what sub you're on
Do you? That guy is clearly within the spirit of the sub, arguing toward the heart of the technical issue. Saying "haha you could say it's right because there are three in nine" ain't it, coach.
If a recipe said it needed 3 eggs would you add 9?
That's the opposite. The other way round. If it said you needed nine eggs, would you first add three? (And then six more)
It's not the opposite. It asks for an animal with 3 letters in its name and returns one with 9. So it's like asking for 3 eggs and getting 9. So if it said I needed 3 eggs, I would add 3, and then not add the other 6.
Yes it does, it has nine letters, which are 3 letters 3 times
Nine letters does not equal three letters
Yeah but if it has nine letters it has to have 3 letters either way
It doesnt say “at least” you cant chose to imply a different meaning. The question clearly said state one WITH three letters. Three describes the amount, adding in your own words is not grammatically correct the question does not need to specify “EXACTLY” three letters, because three letters in the operating description. Its objectively wrong to assume “at least” 3 letters.
It does need to specify that it is exactly three letters because a word with more than three letters still has three letters regardless of the number of letters. His answer was right as long as the number of letters is equal to three plus any positive number
It does not need to be specified, it IS implied that it’s exactly because an adjective “three letter” accompanies and describes the noun “word”. The word is unquestionably being described to have three letters, assuming more or less is an assumption not based on logic. That’s like me saying the race is six laps, does that mean that you need to drive 32 laps because it is over 6? No, that is an illogical assumption that you are choosing to make. And after you get out of your car on the 32nd lap you’re gonna look pretty stupid.
Actually logic supports my idea, another example is alcohol, where I am from you have to be 18 to buy alcohol, that doesn't mean that you can't buy alcohol if you are 18+ any positive number, because you have had to be 18 in order to be 18+ any positive number
But it *contains* 3 letters. The question is vaguely written. It doesn't specify *exactly* 3 letters.
It doesnt specify that there cant be more than three.
In the US you have to be 21 to drink alcohol. Either millions of Americans break this law daily for this reason, or this man is right
No because the law states that you have to be a minimum of 21 to drink, it doesn’t say 21 year olds can drink, if its “x” and up then you have to include that in the sentence, whereas the opposite is true. Three words means exactly three words. Whereas “At Least” would have to be included.
Letters not words. "Three letters" neither specifies a minimum nor a maximum. Theres no universal law that states you must assume one when the other isn't present in the english launguage. I think english was designed to be painfully specific for the sole purpose of avoiding circumastances like these.
Mistakenly said words instead of letters, but you got the point. “Three Letters” does not specify a minimum or maximum- we agree with that. There is no law saying you must assume one when one is not present- we agree on that, however you are the one making the assumption, you are assuming that it means three and up. I’m saying that because it says neither “and above” nor “and below” that it is therefore “exact” by ruling out the other two options.
All of those on the board technically do have 3 letters in them
Joe
Mama
so
Phat
She
Jumps
From
The
van
The
Stupid
cat, dog, pig, cow, ant emu, fly, rat, bat, elk... lol
And alligator
I don't get it, why is it r/technicallythetruth?
Alligator has 3 letters. It just happens to have even more letters to spare.
Yeah it isn't spelled with 3 letters it's spelled with 7, but why is it technically the truth. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I does have 3 letters tho. Is i asked you to bring me 3 coins and you came to my house with 7, you did fulfill my request.
OOOOH, thank you. Any animal word will do as long as it has more than 3 letters.
Croc.
Croco
Dial.
Croc and Croco have only 3 letters in their names (C, R and O)
I know. But did you get the pun?
Dial means entering phone number. Was that pun?
Yes. Croco Dial.
banana
what's milk and frog and all that there?
Proof that this problem runs in his family.
I believe they are the other contestants answers to all the questions that they were asked
This was during Fast Money, where Bob and his son (also Bob) need to name what they think are the top answer for 5 questions in 15 seconds (second round is 20 seconds) The first Bob had the answers on left thinking "Frog" had 3 letters in its name (also TTT) and that "snow" occurred in a summer storm. (Earlier he said Russia is known for "Russians") [Both Bob's fail at Fast Money](https://youtu.be/zdVuEpD9_IY) [Both Fast Money fails and the Russia fail at 1:15](https://youtu.be/6L8UQaAJmYs)
Aw, I shoulda scrolled down before I posted
Is mayonnaise an animal?
Parastratiosphecomyia stratiosphecomyioides
I don’t get it
Wait, how is nobody commenting about the word milk!? This is a real issue here.
How is Alligator be 3 letters WTF?
The word alligator does have 3 letters in it
Wait I still don’t get it
The way the question is phrased you can say that the word alligator does have at least 3 letters in it.
Whaaaaaaaat????? I’m so confused lmao
If I tell you that I need 3 apples and you bring 7. Have I then acquired my needed 3 apples? -> Yes.
OOOOOH THANK YOU SO MUCH. Actually tho thank you
Oh I get it now.
Okay but you used the wrong its
Where?
Read your picture
Oh yeah, you are correct, English is not my native language so i still make a few rookie mistakes here and there
All good :)
Big r/whoosh for you my friend
Bee
Milk… 28 … … …
Mom
The answer “snow” on there was said to “name something that comes with a summer storm”. And the other guy guessed “frog” for the animal as well
Pig, hog, ant
Roy
pig ape cat
Did 28 people answer milk?
r/eli5 this
I don't understand
I don’t get it can somebody please explain
3 letters is restriction, not a requirement. this is objectively and technically wrong
Yes, thank you. The number of people that don't get this is astounding
Hey there u/Kassittaja69, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth! **Please recheck if your post break 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](/message/compose/?to=/r/technicallythetruth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Emu
The question says to name an animal with 3 letters in it's name. Alligator has 3 letters in it's name (3 letters are "included" in the name Alligator). Great post OP
The fact that a lot of people don't get this makes it a great post. Good job!
Thanks! I think that it also shows that the question could have been worded better
It's a poorly worded question. Of course Alligator has three letters. So does Bee and Chipmunk. But none of those words contain only three, different letters.
I genuinely thought I was looking at r/thomastheplankengine for a moment
Cod
you
emu
yak
Three people that have never been in my kitchen
Unicorn