>>107134013
Still waiting on those three distinct primes, man. I don't think my reasoning skills are the issue here. If the answer you expect is "at least two different triplets match those conditions and Jane guessed the wrong one" it requires one of two things to be true.
A) You expect that the person answering the question will disregard the mathematical impossibility of their answer simply to answer in a way that meets your expectation of not using arithmetic.
B) You didn't realize that the premise was wrong when you wrote it because you presupposed there was more than one triplet, and now you're making excuses and telling the reader to look up the number themselves.
If you ask someone to answer why a tree is on fire without using science, it's technically not an incorrect answer to say "Well the sun god is all pissed off today and blasted it." That's more or less the question you're posing with an unwarranted sense of intelligence. Doesn't matter if it's a human or an AI, you're going to get someone curious about the answer and why you posed the question the way you did. Don't understand why you behave you can't understand this. If you're as smart as you're behaving like you are, I'd figure you welcome the conversation rather than be hostile.