I agree with that. Would you agree that the Church-Turing Thesis is different from the equivalence between the lambda calculus and Turing machines? I was trying

I agree with that. Would you agree that the Church-Turing Thesis is different from the equivalence between the lambda calculus and Turing machines? I was trying to argue that even if Church-Turing were somehow (magically) invalidated that the equivalence of the lambda calculus and Turing machines would still hold. Thanks for bringing up strong Church-Turing. It was interesting to read about it here (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/#StroWeakFormMaxiThes https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/#StroWeakFo...) I think I had a broader interpretation of Church-Turing than I should. I was thinking that if we somehow discovered a working oracle machine on Mars, it would invalidate Church-Turing. But that article says: > the thesis concerns what a human being can achieve when working by rote, with paper and pencil (ignoring contingencies such as boredom, death, or insufficiency of paper)