> No, the idea of incalculable simply means that it can’t be enumerated using one program. As humans we can write different programs and it’s fine. I'm getting

> No, the idea of incalculable simply means that it can’t be enumerated using one program. As humans we can write different programs and it’s fine. I'm getting frustrated reading your comments. LLMs show that human beings are likely to themselves admit simulations by computer programs. So computability limits apply to human beings as much as to computers. I've never seen anyone misunderstand these topics in quite the way you have. > I wanted a different more satisfying answer, and busy beaver numbers are that answer Listen, you're wrong. This entire thread you've started is wrong. The Busy Beaver function is uncomputable precisely because the Halting problem is unsolvable -- that's how you prove it. It provides no additional insight into "undecidability" except for a bunch of misunderstandings you have that other people have been trying to point out to you.