&gt; This is either beneath you, or it should be.<p>I&#x27;m sorry, but &#x27;catnaroek is completely justified here. Multiple people have told you that you are simply factually wrong in your interpretation of the halting problem, <i>and</i> you are acting arrogant about it. If you tone back the arrogance a bit (&quot;Surely you knew this?&quot;, &quot;The misunderstanding is not mine&quot;) and concede that, potentially, it&#x27;s not the case that everyone else is wrong and you&#x27;re right, you might understand what your error is.<p>It&#x27;s a very common mistake and is frequently mis-taught, especially by teachers who are unfamiliar with fields of research that actually care about the implications of the halting problem and of Gödel&#x27;s theorems (both in computer science and in mathematics) and just know it as a curiosity. So I&#x27;ve been very patient about this. But as I pointed out to you in another comment, you are misreading what these things say in a way that should be very obvious once you state in formal terms what it is that you&#x27;re claiming, and it would be worth you trying to acknowledge this.