But then the original implication, "100% of real numbers are normal, so that's pretty strong statistical evidence", still doesn't make any sense, as it's essentially using "100%" to imply "strong statistical evidence" that the rationals don't exist, which obviously doesn't follow.
I got the impression that the comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek.
The joke lies in the fact that saying "100% of real numbers" isn't *technically* the same thing as saying "all real numbers", because there's not really a good way to define a meaning for "100%" that lets you exclude rational numbers (or any other countable subset of the reals) and get something other than 100%.
it was about half a joke. statistical evidence doesn't really exist for the type of problem since polynomialy computable numbers are countably infinite so you can't define a uniform distribution over then
