andrel wrote:
> On 30-3-2010 10:56, Invisible wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>>>> No, but your assumptions are.  Just because you were born in 1986 
>>>>> doesn't mean you are 24 years old...
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, I forgot the possibility of relativistic time dilation...
>>>
>>> I would suspect that almost exactly three quarters of people born in 
>>> 1986 are 23, not 24.
>>
>> Well, he specifically mentioned December, so...
> 
> So he is 23 now and will turn 24 in december. Sometimes I have a feeling 
> that you are playing silly on purpose. Let's hope so.

He said that his age *is* the sum of the digits now, and will *stop* 
being so in December, so that would make him 24 now, wouldn't it?

Post a reply to this message