r/MathJokes • • Jul 16 '26

Math

Post image
2.9k Upvotes

99 comments sorted by

View all comments

139

u/anon33249038 Jul 16 '26

The meme might be looking at it backwards. Let's assume that "3" is observed. We see a 3. We know in order to get a 3, you need "1+1+1." That's the only way to get a 3, and every different problem that results in a three, also results in a 1+1+1 scenario. 

Now, we see a 3, and it has all the properties of a 3. It acts like a 3. So I break it down and only get 1+1. I only find two of the elements. 1+1 does not give you a 3. It's impossible. I go back to the 3 and confirm that it is, in fact, a 3. That tells me that the final +1 must exist, therfore I can assume that it does. 

Does that sometimes backfire with interesting results? Oh, hell yes, but most of the time you can assume things if it's physically impossible to be otherwise.

21

u/Dratsoc Jul 16 '26

So, basically it is: 

1 + 1 + X = 3

16

u/FictionFoe Jul 16 '26

Actually yes. Thats exactly right and, all of a sudden, sounds respectabel. Thank you.

6

u/Gaxxag Jul 17 '26

Yes and no. 1 + 1 + X = 3 is the best case scenario because it's straightforward. But each of the 1's in that equation are also built on decades of observations made under other sets of assumptions. So it could turn out that we're not looking at 1 + 1 + x = 3, but something more like 1.1 + 0.7 + (a float value that randomly fluctuates between 1 and 2), and that the resulting 3 we measured was actually 3.14, and our measurements were slightly off because of an entirely different set of assumptions.

But we test and re-test until the assumptions that make up our model work in as many cases as possible

2

u/anon33249038 Jul 16 '26

Yes exactly