ohnoNotAgain321

see also Stanisław Lem

Stop that, it’s silly.

You may wish to run a memory test program; it could be due to RAM faults.

so, something like:

a6 - b2 - c4 - d3 - e2 - f1

f5 - a4 - b3 - c2 - d1 - e6

e4 - f3 - a2 - b1 - c6 - d5

d3 - e2 - f1 - a6 - b5 - c4

c2 - d1 - e6 - f5 - a4 - b3

b1 - c6 - d5 - e4 - f3 - a2

?

Any computational system uses symbols, whether or not a person has analysed the system and defined those symbols; information is symbols.

Presymbolic computation appears to me to be an invented term. Any theoretical or actual system can be framed in computational terms when analysed, but the properties provided through the use of symbols will still exist in a system, whether or not that analysis has been performed. The paper you cite appears to me to lean in the direction of cybernetics and control theory, that would naturally be able to translate into terms aligned to information theory. The same rules will apply to any physical system, no matter how complicated you believe it to be.

Human understanding of cognition is not yet at a level that enables the creation of a program or system for general automated theorem proving. Much work has been required to create existing systems for very narrow problems. Technology has not reached a level where artificial intelligence systems can undergo the equivalent of millions of years of evolution to achieve an equivalence to general human intelligence; this may not even be achievable.

As for some “magic glasses” mathematical proving tool, it is probably inside the chocolate teapot on the other side of the sun.