Please this question has a very obvious answer and there's only a valid argument for like 2 of these options. Literally everyone I know came up with the same objectively wrong answer so please restore my faith in humanity
Please allow me to have faith in humanity
- Thread starter Jediweirdo
- Start date
- Views 1,595
- Replies 29
It's 1 long hole.
We would choose 3 holes if we were talking about your... 3 straws
We would choose 3 holes if we were talking about your... 3 straws
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2022
- Messages
- 7,140
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Wired
- Website
- m4x1mumrez87.neocities.org
- XP
- 21,908
- Country
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2022
- Messages
- 7,140
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Wired
- Website
- m4x1mumrez87.neocities.org
- XP
- 21,908
- Country
Are we talking about assholes? Sign me up.
That’s also what we called them in my trade.
If a straw has two holes because it has two sides, then so does a piece of paper. Or any imaginable material, no matter the thickness of the material.
As long as there’s two sides, there’s two holes.
With that logic, can there ever not be 2 holes? Let's say you have a ball and poke a hole into it. Is it 2 holes because the hole is on both the inner and outer of the ball or 1 hole because the ball only has a single hole on the outside that never reaches the other side of the outer part of the ball.
My point was more pointing out the ridiculousness of the question. A bit like asking if water is wet. It just depends how you define wetness, or in this case a hole.
A ten miles tunnel have 2 entrances but at the end of day is only a hole, the tunnel have a hole and two entrances.
you don need to "define" use the actual and agreeded definition, for english I think is the webster dictionary. in Spanish we have an institution dedicated to maintain the concepts and definitions of words and language, is called Real Academia Española.
Post automatically merged:
you don need to "define" use the actual and agreeded definition, for english I think is the webster dictionary. in Spanish we have an institution dedicated to maintain the concepts and definitions of words and language, is called Real Academia Española.
That would imply you take a cylinder and drill a hole through it, which is why I would go with "no holes" option.
Assuming the ball is hollow… Correct. That’s 4 holes. You had to go through the material twice, therefore it’s four holes. Just because the ball is singularly made of one piece of the same material doesn’t mean it’s just one pass through. You passed through twice, meaning 4 holes.
Assuming the ball is solid, incorrect. It’s two holes. You only made one pass through the solid material, meaning there are only 2 holes.
Also, I agree. The question is absurd. Everyone knows I’m right. /s
Last edited by rcpd,
This is a perfect example of why people need to agree on the definitions of the words they are using before they try to debate or argue.
If everyone sees the word "hole" and gets a different definition, we were never talking about the same thing in the first place, and that turns an argument or debate into a fight.
Let us define what "hole" means. THEN we can move forward.
If everyone sees the word "hole" and gets a different definition, we were never talking about the same thing in the first place, and that turns an argument or debate into a fight.
Let us define what "hole" means. THEN we can move forward.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A @ Aglae Pheryl:Is anyone familiar with former forum opg.life ? I missed the transition to the new forum over the week end (was scuba diving in the sticks with no internet connection). If anyone in touch with any members please pm me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
AncientBoi:
And a part of my immediate family passed also. Sending my good suit to the cleaners for the funeral Saturday -
-
(
