Probably looking pretty ignorant w. this question, but I read the following assertion about this verse tonight & wanted to inquire from the experts

1. The verb “repent” (metanoēsate) is second person plural and is in the active voice.
2. And “be baptized” (baptisthētō) is third person singular and is in the passive voice.
3. The Greek pronoun translated “your” (humōn) is in a second person plural.
Therefore, the grammatical connection is: “repent” (active plural) with “your” (active plural) as in “for the remission of your [humōn] sins” and not “be baptized” (passive singular) with “for the remission of your sins.
**I then read the following response (hence my question):
Significantly, the use of humon in "the forgiveness of your sins" is not the first appearance of humon in this passage. It is the second appearance. The first appears in let "each one of you be baptized." The antecedent to the first instance of the plural humon is clearly the singular verb, "baptized." Pronouns must agree in number and person with the antecedent they modify. And yet here we have a plural pronoun modifying a singular verb.
While an explanation for this anomaly is in order, it should not distract us from the larger point to be made: If the first instance of humon has a singular antecedent, why think the second instance of humon cannot have a singular antecedent? Indeed, the antecedent of a pronoun is usually the closest antecedent, and in this case, the closest antecedent of the second humon is the singular "baptized." It is without controversy that the first instance of humon modifies a singular verb, so why should there be any controversy over the claim that the second instance of humon also modifies the same singular verb?
My apologies for recent multiple threads


If there is error in any of the above assertions I would greatly appreciate anyone pointing it out (neither quote is mine). Absolutely love the spirit & info. on this forum!