Yes, the math works out—ig’f whfg n erfgngrzrag bs gur pynvz gung gur nofrapr bs rivqrapr vf rivqrapr bs nofrapr.
Ironically enough, I’m using this to prove that absence of “that particular proof” is not evidence of absence.
Hey, as long as you do your math correctly … :D
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Yes, the math works out—ig’f whfg n erfgngrzrag bs gur pynvz gung gur nofrapr bs rivqrapr vf rivqrapr bs nofrapr.
Ironically enough, I’m using this to prove that absence of “that particular proof” is not evidence of absence.
Hey, as long as you do your math correctly … :D