My original objection was to the claim that a non-trivial program could be demonstrated to be &quot;provably correct.&quot; This statement is false. For non-trivial programs, it contradicts the simplest and most easily accessible interpretation of the Turing Halting problem and Gödel&#x27;s incompleteness theorems, both of which demonstrate that this is not possible.<p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Halting_problem" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Halting_problem</a><p>Quote: &quot;Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs <i>cannot exist</i>.&quot; (emphasis added)<p>&gt; Multiple people have told you that you are simply factually wrong ...<p>So as the number of people who object increases, the chances that I am wrong also increases? This is an <i>argumentum ad populum</i>, a logical error, and it is not how science works. Imagine being a scientist, someone for whom authority means nothing, and evidence means everything.<p>In your next post, rise to the occasion and post evidence (as I have done) instead of opinion, <i>or don&#x27;t post</i>.