Your argument is not an argument against comments, it's against any kind of description.
Your code works just as well if you assigned each function a unique number starting from 'func0' - that's how code obfuscators or minifiers work.
Unless the act of shoving comments into function names makes the compiler type-check them, you are still writing something that the compiler will ignore eventually.
If that was his argument I'd be happier with it. As described, his goal was to encode comments in the function name and describe caveats in test cases; none of those steps sound like 'write a javadoc'.
Javadoc and comments are both forms of code documentation. Perhaps we can generalise OP's point to the following:
"Most of the things programmers say about documentation of code are excuses for not writing any documentation at all"
I'm not going to use a library without documentation in favour of one that is documented. Above a certain minimum standard, it doesn't matter how 'clean' the code is if you don't understand why it exists. Cute naming simply doesn't make up for a lack of documentation, and avoiding documentation should be considered a cone of shame, not a badge of honour.
Your code works just as well if you assigned each function a unique number starting from 'func0' - that's how code obfuscators or minifiers work.
Unless the act of shoving comments into function names makes the compiler type-check them, you are still writing something that the compiler will ignore eventually.