>>12282819>while in reality, everything you're aware of, and everything you've explained, is so trivial that any normal interlocutor would simply take it as a common reference point
Well yes, so one would assume, hence you must appreciate how incredibly damning it is that you appear to need them explained to you in excruciating detail. But you really had it coming because you waltzed into this thread like the arbiter of truth and then failed to have any argument prepared and failed to show any understanding of what you were arguing against. >You keep repeating the answer to a different problem
Ironic, since the very foundation of your argument is "we have to treat it like a completely different problem to which I do know the answer". 4/9 is the answer to the question with the boxes, as specified. If you want to forget about the boxes, find a different problem.
But just to humour you, let's say 4/9 wasn't the answer, and 2/5 was. Your analogy is still utter fucking dog shit (or should that be happy meal?) because there is absolutely ZERO confusion about the basic mathematical functions, or indeed, even advanced ones. The actual point of contention is whether you read "there are 3 boxes" to mean there are three boxes, or not, for whatever reason.