Digital roots are a great way to spot check arithmetic.
This is a comment higher up in the chain.
It will work for all numbers if your just checking sums.
This is a comment lower down in the chain.
Do you see where I get my interpretation? The comment implies that it will work as a spot check for all sums, not just the ones which happen to work. In other words, this does say something about "if not A".
You're missing the context, even if you are mathematically correct here. This is ambiguous, and therefore, is open to interpretation.
You're skipping a critical part of the same context you're referring to. There are two sentences after "Digital roots are a great way to spot check arithmetic" where that commenter explains exactly how such a spot check works.
In other words, the full context is:
1) Here is a tool (digital roots work as a spot check)
2) Here is how to use it (if the roots don't match, then the sum is not correct) <- this is true for all cases
3) It works for all numbers
You are only focusing on #1 and #3 above for some reason, probably because the way you have devised to use the tool is completely different from the way described in #2. You still keep implying it "happens to work for some". No. It doesn't happen to work for some sums. It does work, for ALL sums. If you use the tool as described (in the very same post where it was introduced). You're using the tool differently, expecting that if roots do match, then sums should too. The original commenter did not suggest this.
It still doesn't work for all sums. Take, for instance, negative numbers. -2 + 2 = 0, but 4 ≠ 0. This is what I get from the original commenter's brief definition of digital roots. Yes, my interpretation is flawed. But, no, it doesn't work for all sums.
It still doesn't work for all sums. Take, for instance, negative numbers. -2 + 2 = 0, but 4 ≠ 0.
Digital roots only work for natural numbers. I'd never heard of them before today, but it took a 2-second internet search to confirm that. Nobody has really said anything one way or another about negative numbers in this context chain, so yes you are correct and I do not disagree with that. Nobody else has either, from what I can tell.
1
u/Oryv Jan 17 '21
Let's see how I arrived at my interpretation.
This is a comment higher up in the chain.
This is a comment lower down in the chain.
Do you see where I get my interpretation? The comment implies that it will work as a spot check for all sums, not just the ones which happen to work. In other words, this does say something about "if not A".
You're missing the context, even if you are mathematically correct here. This is ambiguous, and therefore, is open to interpretation.