[sbf501]

Its funny how the comments section of this question on stackexchange.com are people complaining to @jonk that his answer is irrational when he's just reciting material, yet they double down on their position despite his objection. Doesn't help that @jonk is kind of arrogant, but my point is... people.

[Dylan16807]

"Your document is at least 40 years younger than E-series components and all the odd/even numerology was not an issue." is a pretty strong criticism! It doesn't matter if jonk is reciting material if he's citing the wrong material.

[sbf501]

Huh. Did I not expand a comment somewhere? Because I didn't see anyone citing the correct material.

[Dylan16807]

Neither do I. I'm not sure if that claim is right or wrong but it doesn't seem properly resolved.

[sbf501]

Agreed. I don't think a 40 year old document can be trusted. (Side-eye at the US constitution. :)