> If you wish to say you have a counterclaim to the idea mistakes can be blocked regardless if every program can be proven to halt which is based in mathematical reasoning you must be able to state or produce the claim in the actual mathematical reasoning itself ...
This is not a philosophy discussion, and Alan Turing already plowed this ground. The original claim "Bend - a language that blocks AI mistakes via proof [...]" is unsupportable.
> ... if every program can be proven to halt ...
But that's not so. You have introduced a qualifier that is known to be false.
> ... a chance to quote and discuss everything but actual mathematics.
Yes, I agree -- you should stop doing that. I keep referring to the original technical reason the original claim is unsupportable, others keep raising objections without trying to think through their positions.
It's not as though the Halting Problem is on the Millennium Prize Problem list, open to contradiction/reconsideration by some future challenge. It's a theorem, not a conjecture.
This is not a philosophy discussion, and Alan Turing already plowed this ground. The original claim "Bend - a language that blocks AI mistakes via proof [...]" is unsupportable.
> ... if every program can be proven to halt ...
But that's not so. You have introduced a qualifier that is known to be false.
> ... a chance to quote and discuss everything but actual mathematics.
Yes, I agree -- you should stop doing that. I keep referring to the original technical reason the original claim is unsupportable, others keep raising objections without trying to think through their positions.
It's not as though the Halting Problem is on the Millennium Prize Problem list, open to contradiction/reconsideration by some future challenge. It's a theorem, not a conjecture.