Without additional context, no. One has a word extra.
deleted by creator
Okay, treating this seriously. No: triple triple = 333 333 333. Triple triple triple = 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333.
Yes: triple triple triple is triple “triple”.
No, 27 isn’t 81.
Sometimes. We think a triple triple is going to be three triples, but in most cases a triple triple is just two triples. Jameson’s triple triple is distilled three times and then barreled three times. At In-N-Out a triple triple is triple burger and triple cheese. In crochet they call it a triple treble but in that case you do something four times and then do the same thing three more times. So that’s weird and it might depend on which side of the Atlantic you’re on. So I think what people think a triple triple is going to be (3 triples) is really a triple triple triple.
Double plus good.
“A triple triple” would be “triple, triple, triple”.
“Triple triple” without a preceding article is ambiguous and could be lots of things.
“Triple triple triple” could similarly be lots of things.
Punctuation is important.
“Triple triples” would convey three triples, and “triple triple” would convey two triples, IMHO.
But I’m not a linguist or grammar expert. I’m just posting my opinion, fairly confident some Lemmy pedant will come barging in like the Spanish Inquisition.
The trouble with triples …
Triple: x + x + x = 3x
Triple triple: 3x + 3x + 3x = 9x
Triple triple triple: 9x + 9x + 9x = 27x
deleted by creator
