> The answer to what I'd say if this were about primes and a program which blocks outputting them in pure mathematics, despite there being infinitely many, woul

> The answer to what I'd say if this were about primes and a program which blocks outputting them in pure mathematics, despite there being infinitely many, would be ... [ snip ] ... Q.E.D. Now I get it. I should have realized at the outset that this outcome lay in the future. You are here to pointlessly argue, not discuss nor debate. > At the very least, you could see how I'd still be awaiting to hear the actual mathematics you're using. Yes -- notwithstanding that I have posted links to that exact evidence from multiple sources. The problem is not a lack of evidence, the problem is that you refuse to read it. On that topic, here is a link to Alan Turing's 1936 paper -- 36 pages long: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf Andrew Wiles conclusively (dis)proved Fermat's Last Theorem. If you disagree, and since you have demonstrated a willingness to disagree with anything, I would have to post a link to the evidence, not the evidence itself, because the (dis)proof is 129 pages long. As I post this, I'm trying to imagine the corpus of mathematical knowledge you're unwilling to accept, because it won't fit into a finite-sized Hacker News post -- relativity, both special and general, quantum mechanics, dozens of others. I'm also trying to imagine someone whose literacy filter consists of "Tl;DR!"