First, let’s distinguish the reliability, amount, correctness of knowledge, and similarity between what people know.
In your example, they both know the same peice of information, that 2+2=4. One person cannot tell me a fact that the other couldn’t. They would both only know the fact that 2+2=4 (in real life, people would know more than this, but that is not the question).
Both people know the same amount of information. They both know 1 fact, the fact that 2+2=4
Both people have the same correctness of knowledge. Either the fact that 2+2=4 is correct, and they are both right, or it isn’t, and they are both wrong.
What’s left is the reliability of the knowledge. The person who learned it from the university can claim that they are more reliable as a source of the information “2+2=4.” They can give a more convincing argument by saying that they learned it from the Dean of Math. The other person would say that they learned it by seeing some guy count money, which is less reliable, because what if the person didn’t know how to count.
@6rant6 You aren’t really answering the question. If someone builds houses, they are more likely to know more about construction. If someone learned it from school, they are more likely to know about other, more complex math. You are correct by saying that. However, the question is asking about when people have equal knowledge of something. They would both know the exact same facts about the exact same thing. The question is asking that if this is the case, does the source of the information matter.