Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 01:23:17 PM

Quote from: mcdouglasx on Today at 01:15:07 PM

Is it so difficult for you to post an entire code?

YES - because the immediate response would be "how do I know you didn't rigged my code".

You already have the code.

It is your code. You just have to change one line. Everything else is untouched.

I guess this is the difficult part now? Cheesy

OMG - oh wow, we have the AI analysis. Nice! Did you also ask it why the method works better than your original version? Or is the actual empirical proofs being better than your own, a PROBLEM now? I mean... LOL indeed.

Fuck this, it doesn't make sense to engage with you any longer. I give up. It's totally useless. But I will still push my Scooby Doo ahead every time I see ~~you~~ anyone quoting you when trying to stupidify everyone around.

Everyone: Here is an apple.
You: No, that's a potato.

Everyone: Here's a potato.
You: No, that's an orange.

You're better off in my ignore list forever though. Actually, I should pity you because apparently this puzzle thing drove you to lose your sanity completely, and you're unfortunately not a singular case... Sad

Lol.

𝐸=𝑚𝑐2 to 𝐸=𝑚𝑐3

Einstein was wrong.

The verification using the hash prefix relies on robust cryptographic and probabilistic principles. Changing it to a check based on a random event (such as selecting 1 out of every 5000 cases regardless of the actual hash value) breaks the expected logical relationship and, consequently, the efficiency and consistency of the algorithm. This is equivalent to altering a fundamental constant in the formula, leading to unpredictable results and the loss of the theoretical foundation on which the method was based.
.