Can something be identical to the knowledge of something?

I think Tom that'd require us simply to rename "the knowledge of X" as simply "X"

Help a mental retard (me) someone

X is whatever you want it to be. However, for it to have meaning, you need to include a definition for it.
X is used in math.
X = X

Assuming that X is anything, can the anything in question be identical to the knowledge of the anything?

As far as humans are able to describe it.

One word: "of".

Esse est percepi (Berkeley) is one principle which supports your statement. If you look it up you will find discussion of its epistemological significance, but your somewhat unfocused posting regime tends to indicate that you don't do much research.
Chatting is one thing, philosophical analysis another.

Yea Fres. Now if it's no trouble I wonder if you's mind translating the OP for the benefit of any lunkheads in the crowd (me)

The key issue concerns the assignment of the term 'thing', which indicates 'a focus of human attention' to an aspect of what humans call 'the world'. Berkeley's principle 'to be is to be perceived' indicates the role of the perceiver in establishing 'thinghood', and since perception involves 'significance to the observer' that significance implies 'knowledge of utility of focus'.
Anthropology yields examples of how knowledge through socialization affects perception and 'thinghood'.E.g. Some cultures have two words for our single concept of 'water', one involving 'water you are allowed to drink' and the other 'sacred water' that you may not drink. This segmentation of 'the world' is not merely a cultural curiosity, but is also reflected in our own evolution of, say, the term 'elements' , from the historical four (earth, air , fire water) in accordance with what we call 'scientific progress'.
So, the full implication of the OP, opens up the full epistemological spectrum which investigates the interplay between 'existence' and 'knowledge' and their interplay through words for 'things' which sets up perceptual expectancies. And unless you are a materialist/naive realist, 'perception' is active not passive..

Thank you Fres for that clarification