In the light of the mathematics above, it is really quite artificial to declare that 5 would be the correct answer. This is not an optimization problem, but wit

In the light of the mathematics above, it is really quite artificial to declare that 5 would be the correct answer. This is not an optimization problem, but with some misuse of language I am tempted to say that 100 is the global optimum, and only by balancing on a knife's edge is it even possible to approach the local optimum of 5. And 3 is the tip of a needle. So we could just say that arithmetics with less precision is better, here, because it reaches the global optimum quicker? Whereas higher precision arithmetic is "lingers" in the "orbit" of 5 a little longer.