Yup, I get it.
The riddle you proposed is unanswerable. Even if your theory is right, the numbers are too small for there to be a significant weight into one direction. Also your theory is just one of many "angles" you can use.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Theory works with small numbers too... Take 2, 4 and 7.
Raw distance (smaller value wins):
2 --> 4 = 2 <- closer by distance
7 --> 4 = 3
Ratio (value closer to 1 wins):
2/4=0.5
(7/4)-1=0.75 <- closer by ratio (edit: ok sorry this is bullshit but somehow it works.... xD)
(-1 because the ratio will be represented after the decimal point)
And when it comes to estimations I would say that the ratio/magnitude is more important than the pure numerical distance.
And well... in theory this means that 6 is closer 4 that 2 is, even though they are equally distant from 4. :D
Yes, but it is your theory. I might have another one for a different scenario. There wasn't enough information in the above riddle that leaned to any specific theory.
Yes of course. We don't have to argue about that. In the end, I just think out loud ... And there's a lot of nonsense to watch out for.