you're the one making a claim, not me. it's incumbent on you to state what your claim is, to present your evidence, and---since it's not clear what your evidence proves---to qualify it.
i asked you to qualify your numbers. what exactly do they prove? you keep implying they prove that PrimeNumber7 = Quickseller, but that isn't clear.
~
i just feel like people ITT are trying way too hard to claim/imply there is proof of a connection. there just isn't. we all have the same suspicions, but that's not good enough. red tagging based on this seems abusive/retaliatory.
I think you're getting hung up on semantics, or maybe not hung up on semantics enough? I can't tell yet. Nutildah and suchmoon have provided an overwhelming body of circumstantial evidence.
Now I know this isn't a court room, no prosecuters are seeking the
death ban penalty, and no one is going to jail for any "crime." Nonetheless, I think it's fair to allow the same standards of prosecution that are acceptable in the US criminal courts. Circumstantial evidence is often allowed in court proceedings, and is often enough to make a connection to criminal acts, and will result in a conviction.
If this were a court room, we would have to leave it up to the jury to decide if the circumstantial evidence constitutes "proof." If you and I were on the jury together, I would find it odd that you insist on focusing on the "circumstantial" aspects of each individual piece of evidence rather than see how all of the pieces of circumstantial evidence tie together beyond what can reasonably be considered "coincidental."
Suchmoon has provided statistically significant circumstantial evidence. If you wish to play defense attorney, use the same parameters provided by nutildah and suchmoon to show how the evidence is overly coincidental. But continuing to point to each piece of evidence and insisting that it exist independent of each other piece of evidence is disingenuous, and not very convincing.