No, that’s not correct. What you claimed, and what I responded to, is (ad literam quote) “impossible problems can be defeated.”
Only if you, like, didn’t read any of the surrounding context. If you are not capable of distinguishing “this is slight poetic license for a thing that I just explained fairly clearly, and then immediately caveated”, I think that’s a you problem.
Perhaps so: it would be a reader problem if they aren’t interpreting the vibe of the text correctly. Just like it would be a reader problem if they don’t believe they can solve impossible (or “impossible-seeming”) problems when confronted with solid logic otherwise.
And yet, what if that’s what they do?[1] We don’t live in the should-universe, where people’s individual problems get assigned to them alone and don’t affect everyone else.
Only if you, like, didn’t read any of the surrounding context. If you are not capable of distinguishing “this is slight poetic license for a thing that I just explained fairly clearly, and then immediately caveated”, I think that’s a you problem.
Perhaps so: it would be a reader problem if they aren’t interpreting the vibe of the text correctly. Just like it would be a reader problem if they don’t believe they can solve impossible (or “impossible-seeming”) problems when confronted with solid logic otherwise.
And yet, what if that’s what they do?[1] We don’t live in the should-universe, where people’s individual problems get assigned to them alone and don’t affect everyone else.
Or would do, in the middlegame and endgame, as I have claimed above?