&gt; In your next post, rise to the occasion and post evidence (as I have done) instead of opinion, or don&#x27;t post.<p>I have already done so. Did you read my comment about existential vs. universal quantifiers? Can you respond to it?<p>This was the original claim:<p>&gt; It&#x27;s false -- the Turing Halting problem (<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>) demonstrates that one cannot establish that a non-trivial program is &quot;provably correct.&quot;<p>This is the statement you quoted from Wikipedia:<p>&gt; Quote: &quot;Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.&quot;<p>Do you agree or disagree that the quantifiers in these two statements are different? Do you agree or disagree that &quot;the Turing Halting problem demonstrates that one cannot establish that every single non-trivial program is either &#x27;provably correct&#x27; or &#x27;provably incorrect&#x27;&quot; is a <i>different claim</i> than the one originally made?