"Two does not equal three, even for very large values of two." Means..?

The "for very large values of" gag has been around forever. At its simplest it is funny because it uses the language of a variable for what is obviously a constant, which is a mistake - hahaha! But when you have been studying number theory, infinities, infinitesimals etc for long enough then 1 = 2 , but only for sufficiently large values of 1, actually feels remarkably like the sort of thing you might find in a real proof.

Its a kind of joke. Obviously not e very good one, anyway its a misquote:

"Two plus two equals five, for very large values of two"

Is that any better?

Didn't think so.