If by algorithmic you just mean anything that a Turing machine can do, then your theorem is asserting that the Church-Turing thesis isn't true.
Why not use that as the title of your paper? That a more fundamental claim.
If by algorithmic you just mean anything that a Turing machine can do, then your theorem is asserting that the Church-Turing thesis isn't true.
Why not use that as the title of your paper? That a more fundamental claim.
The lack of mention of the Church-Turing thesis in both papers suggest he hasn't even considered that angle.
But it is the fundamental objection he would need to overcome.
There is no reasonable way to write papers claiming to provide proofs in this space without mentioning Church even once, and to me it's a red flag that suggests a lack of understanding of the field.