When we say that A=A

I believe this is often misunderstood.

"A" (this specific image you see with your eyes) =/= "A" (this specific image you see with your eyes).

Each time I type "A" generates a unique (distinguishable) ripple in the fabric of reality.

Now, you could say, and might say, and probably intend to say (this specific) "A" represents the "same" concept and or object that this (other specific) "A" represents.

But even saying that is quite precarious.

The concept and or object that "A" purports to represent is most likely not perceived identically between observers.

For example, one person (and or animal) will almost always believe that "A" (whatever it is) is either more, or less "important" than the next observer.

For example, I (the "author") probably think the words I am writing are "more important" than any of my "readers" and if I'm extremely fortunate, some "readers" might imagine these words are "more important" than I do. But it is almost impossible to gauge if anyone values these words EXACTLY the "same" as I do, especially when I will inevitably value them either more or less tomorrow, and then again either more or less the following day.

Not to mention the mostly unacknowledged epistemological and ontological underpinnings of "observation" itself.

Not to mention the fundamental "problem" of most people being incapable of making their definitions EXPLICIT.

The map is not the territory, therefore A =/= A

The concept of "sameness" is a trap.

Every object and every person and every concept is in a state of constant and subtle flux.