I didn't get very far in this before I encountered this: $27 × 37 = 999$, then the comment
This equality makes sense in the mainstream of mathematics by saying that the two sides denote the same integer and that × is a function in the Cantorian sense of a graph.
Question: What is meant by "...Cantorian sense of a graph"? The article goes on to compare a function with a graph, but does this mean graph in the sense of a Cartesian coordinate system? (I don't even know what tags to give this question.)
I took a quick look, and it's the "graph" in the sense of the underlying relation for the mathematical definition of a function, i.e., the complete data table that gives the output for each input. (It's named after graphs, which are pictorial representations of the data. Not every graph can be effectively visualized as a graph, using both senses of the word. Hopefully that confusing sentence clarifies things :-) )
The point being made in context is that the multiplication function has a graph that is infinite (you'd need to memorize the entire multiplication table!), but multiplication can be described by a finite procedure. The first is impractical to store, the second can be encoded in a computer.
This is getting at the idea of what it means for two things to be "the same." In the function-as-a-graph sense, $27\times 37=999$ is true because that's the number in that position of the multiplication table -- you didn't do anything. In the function-as-computation sense, that equality means that if you follow a given multiplication algorithm, that's the answer you'd work out.
These are known as extensional vs intensional points of view, I believe. It has to do whether you ignore the internal (syntactic) representation or not.