I posted the link because it supports, rather than refutes, my point. A more thorough followup on your part might have revealed that fact to you.
His claims were wrong then and they are wrong now. He has not learned even when the computations were presented. I didn't follup as he kindly posted the link to the refutation of the claims.
I posted the link because it supports, rather than refutes, my point. A more thorough followup on your part might have revealed that fact to you.
Yes. His so-called documentation only documents what every Southack thread turns into: some group of rational people trying to sledgehammer a few elementary facts and snippets of logic into the head of a Stone Deaf type ...
... and eventually (being rational) giving it up.