4 ms·
The author could have also mentioned, among the other not-32 heights, the distance from ascender to descender being 31.19 and explained how that's not it either
by exporectomy 6y ago
The author could have also mentioned, among the other not-32 heights, the distance from ascender to descender being 31.19 and explained how that's not it either. Instead, he just didn't mention it, as if he was trying to hide it because it was inconvenient to his narrative.
- setr 6y agoHe could have also mentioned that floor(cap-height + x-height + descender) also equals 32, but isn’t the answer either. And probably a few other arbitrary arithmetic combinations would work as well. But it seems it me it’d be much more efficient to just explain the real answer instead of telling you all the ways you could misinterpret it... which is exactly what he goes on to do.