I understand; your analogy doesn't hold water.

No, it does. You're just choosing to go down the path of "all things exist for a reason" as an inherent truth of the universe. Which sure, fine. Agree to disagree. There's no accounting for stupidity.

Incorrect, I've merely answered with a non-numerical response.

No you haven't. You've answered with a set of numbers. That's a numerical response.

I'm referring to a hypothetical equation.

And how's that working out for you?

I'm trying to answer your criticism in maximally general terms.

And failing in a way that's as hilarious to me as it is embarrassing for you.

No, but those aren't terms that already have common definitions.

What's your point?

Your original example uses terms with common definitions, and a pretty incontroversial solution.

You're right. "A number" isn't a controversial solution. I'm not arguing you're solution is wrong, I'm arguing it's worthless and adds no information.

Your mistake is assuming that your question, as you've phrased it, is mathematically "meaningless"

Which question? You just fine with poorly phrased references to multiple matching past criteria? -1 for poor argumentation skills.

if you're now arguing that "60" means "blorf" or something,

I guess we'll never know, because of how meaningless the question is.

then I might agree with your original assertion.

So for the sake of the argument, let's say I am. So you now agree with me? What a ridiculously long way to go for nothing. -1 for being difficult and valueless at the same time.

Really? My answer is correct, but it's "meaningless" because "information theory"? Oh, please do tell!

I can quote you my rates for tutoring if you like. If you prefer self directed study, you could try googling it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

You either completely misunderstand information theory or are pulling stuff out of your ass hoping I won't recognize it.

Neither of those things are the case. Just gonna disregard this sentence as worthless.

Almost everyone would answer that 2+2 = 4;

No? That's also not relevant to the discussion at all. To relate this to the phrasing of the question at hand, you would have to frame it as:

"What's 2 + 2" as the question.

You're arguing that the following response is meaningful:

"2 + 2 = a number"

is that a meaningless answer now?

See how a numerical solution and saying "some number" aren't exactly the same thing?

Even if you phrase it in a more complex fashion:

2 + 2 = x: (where x > {negative infinity} and x < {positive infinity})

What is your specific application?

Unspecified! That's the whole glorping point you dolt.

If you're talking about a car, it might not matter to you

So then that.

if you're dealing with theoretical mathematics, it might matter a lot!

Then not that. See how easy it is to change the nature of things by lacking specificity? Like maybe presenting a question that's meaningless and has thousands of possible interpretations and solutions based on the intent of the asker??

Fuck sake man.

I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of your post.

I literally have better things to do with my life which I am now doing. Literally the funniest train ride of my life.

I never thought I'd have to defend an intentionally-incomplete-information question as meaningless to someone.

Enjoy the rest of your life. I'm sure you won't, but I always hope the best for people, even those with sever mental disabilities. :)