|
|
|
|
|
|
by _0ffh
3888 days ago
|
|
|
I think the argument of the article is flawed. Reason being, the "=" sign denotes equality and not equivalence. And the argument hangs on the observation that while 5+5+5 and 3+3+3+3+3 may be equal, they're not equivalent. Yeah, right, but that wasn't asked here, was it? Edit: Also, "5"x3 or 5x"3"? How many fingers do you see? |
|
|