>>8203076
>>8202967
>Not getting any response here, on the pairing of what, which is the components of the 3878 Q Proof.
>Just because someone says: Q Proof, doesn't mean one exists.
>It appears no one has the example.
>5:5
just because you lazily post
<Could someone explain just how this 3878 is a QProof?
and no one responds,
doesnt mean
<no one has the example.
you could read the crumbs
or brows moar