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
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