Talk:Jail system makes no sense

Hope is lost

here, it says:

 [..] We can only hope they are not so egregiously fallacious as to make your web browser burst into flames upon displaying them..

unfortunately, the hope is lost as it just happened and I had to reinstall my browser... --Pro465 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

[..] We can only hope they are not so egregiously fallacious as to make your web browser burst into flames upon displaying them..

I think it is just a joke, and how can a web browser burst into flames?! (unless the computer does) --None1 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I was joking too :)

but seriously, unless you mean this proof is a joke, this proof does not fall under any definitions of "rigorous". The sheer amount of misuse of symbols makes my brain hurt. --Pro465 (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean that both the proof and the sentence is a joke, and also this proof is wrong because it mistakes the = and == operators. --None1 (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

what do you mean by "it mistakes the = and == operators"? == won't solve the equivocation in this "article". --Pro465 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my previous claim is wrong. --None1 (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The article has two mistakes:

1. There may be multiple crimes, so one variable D is not good enough.
2. You can't set variables to whatever you want, because if you can you will be able to prove that 1+1=3, 1+1=0 or even 1+1==nothing!

--None1 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is full of mistakes (misunderstanding of equality and other math concepts). By definition, two objects are equal iff any unary predicate that holds for one of them also holds for the other, while in this article the equality is used arbitrarily and meaninglessly. Seems like the article is supposed to be a joke, and the author was inspired by Copyright makes no sense (which is also a joke, but a more meaningful one). --Hakerh400 (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't what this joke has to do with esolang. --None1 (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

its also turing complete

EVEN THOUGH it makes no sense, it is SOMEHOW turing complete. tommyaweosme BRING BACK THE OLDS SANDBOX (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion?

I am considering deleting this article for being a) offtopic and b) very incorrect. Thoughts? --ais523 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

i brought it up once and now you are considering deleting it. it stayed on this platform for months rent-free but now you suddenly want to delete it? ok tommyaweosme BRING BACK THE OLDS SANDBOX (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree to delete it. The esolang wiki is not about joking with implicitly overloaded operators. --None1 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

delete it --ChuckEsoteric08 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)