Maybe, this sentence, out of context. The rest of the post makes it abundantly clear that the ages of these things go:
mountains -> bones -> dinosaurs
The poster may either be a victim of Poe’s Law, in which case their “joke” wasn’t very funny, or they could be making the logical deduction as you describe but as a mistake. I thought it was the latter.
There’s no mistake, he’s just poking fun at the imprecise language used in the article. We all know what the author meant but only because English is more forgiving than math. I’m not saying I was rolling on the floor or anything, but it wasn’t that bad of a joke imo
The other reason I was initially confused, but reading this thread helped, is that by presence of bones in the cave they don’t just mean that there aren’t any bones lying around, brought in by cavemen or bears dying in the cave. They imply that the cave is basically not accessible normally and what would be found in it (bones, fossils etc), if there was anything, can only come from the time when those mountains were formed. I think… Maybe that was obvious for some people.
The original sentence is consistent with the assertion that the mountains had formed before the first boney ancestors of dinosaurs evolved. This is also consistent with the presented timeline.
The correction would mean that the mountains may be older or younger than dinosaurs, because they are only older than bones, and the article is deafeningly silent on the issue of whether dinosaurs had bones.
It’s a failure of literacy on the poster’s part, hence the downvotes.
“The mountains aren’t just older than dinosaurs” implies that they are older than dinosaurs but not not only dinosaurs. But I’d be lying if I said I never skipped words sometimes, so whatever.
It’s a failure of literacy on the poster’s part, hence the downvotes.
But he’s clearly being tongue-in-cheek? Is it time to bring the /s to lemmy?
It’s basically two booleans that don’t go together
Is the mountains older than the dinosaurs = false
Is the mountains older than bones = true
They should both be true, but the writer had the first be false, hence leading to all dinosaurs being boneless. I guess it’s a colloquialism in the English language, otherwise all y’all wouldn’t had downvote the poster for being pedantic
deleted by creator
You didn’t queue up twice when they were handing out verbal reasoning skills…
Mountains.age !> dinosaurs.age, thus mountains.age <= dinosaurs.age
mountains.age > bones.age
So dinosaurs.age => mountains.age > bones.age
And dinosaurs.age > bones.age
His logical reasoning skills are sound though, as is his sarcastic humor.
Maybe, this sentence, out of context. The rest of the post makes it abundantly clear that the ages of these things go:
mountains -> bones -> dinosaurs
The poster may either be a victim of Poe’s Law, in which case their “joke” wasn’t very funny, or they could be making the logical deduction as you describe but as a mistake. I thought it was the latter.
There’s no mistake, he’s just poking fun at the imprecise language used in the article. We all know what the author meant but only because English is more forgiving than math. I’m not saying I was rolling on the floor or anything, but it wasn’t that bad of a joke imo
Dang I didn’t even notice that logical inconsistency until you pointed it out. It should say “The mountains aren’t just older than dinosaurs.”
Of course you’re getting downvoted to hell because everyone either didn’t slow down to read it more carefully or can’t understand sarcasm.
deleted by creator
The other reason I was initially confused, but reading this thread helped, is that by presence of bones in the cave they don’t just mean that there aren’t any bones lying around, brought in by cavemen or bears dying in the cave. They imply that the cave is basically not accessible normally and what would be found in it (bones, fossils etc), if there was anything, can only come from the time when those mountains were formed. I think… Maybe that was obvious for some people.
The original sentence is consistent with the assertion that the mountains had formed before the first boney ancestors of dinosaurs evolved. This is also consistent with the presented timeline.
The correction would mean that the mountains may be older or younger than dinosaurs, because they are only older than bones, and the article is deafeningly silent on the issue of whether dinosaurs had bones.
It’s a failure of literacy on the poster’s part, hence the downvotes.
“The mountains aren’t just older than dinosaurs” implies that they are older than dinosaurs but not not only dinosaurs. But I’d be lying if I said I never skipped words sometimes, so whatever.
But he’s clearly being tongue-in-cheek? Is it time to bring the /s to lemmy?
All dinosaurs may have bones, but not all bones are from dinosaurs.
This is not the poster is pointing out.
It’s basically two booleans that don’t go together
Is the mountains older than the dinosaurs = false
Is the mountains older than bones = true
They should both be true, but the writer had the first be false, hence leading to all dinosaurs being boneless. I guess it’s a colloquialism in the English language, otherwise all y’all wouldn’t had downvote the poster for being pedantic
They didn’t. The bone like structures inside of dinosaurs are called fossils, and they’re closer to rock than bone