Software 247 denotes a set of sequential steps we can apply to demonstrate this fact. These steps must have meaning and obey the rules of mathematics, but what are these rules? Are they written down in a text book? It turns out there is no way to find this set of rules; it is a super- infinite task. We would need to reach into our infinite bag of numbers and pull out rule after rule, turning each into a mathematical model that explains numbers and logic and what can be done with them to form mathematical statements. The number of ways to do this is not just infinity, but two to the power of infinity. This is the number of ways to permute all possible mathematical rules. Your mind may be rebelling at this. Surely, if I have an infinite set of numbers I can just pluck all the numbers from my bag and then I am certain to have the solution. Unfortunately, it turns out there is no complete, consistent set of rules; no valid dictionary that maps all numbers to all of mathematics. That is Gédel incompleteness theorem. Despite a fundamental limit on mapping all numbers to all of mathematics, there might still have been an algorithm which could practically find solutions for a given arbitrary problem. Turing proved this is not the case. The Wiles Paradox Turing showed us there can be no general purpose, mechanical procedure capable of finding solutions to arbitrary problems. A computer program cannot discover mathematical theorems nor write programs to do so. Yet computers regularly solve problems and generate programs. That's what software compilers do. This seems to be contradiction. The solution to this apparent contradiction is to propose a boundary: a ‘logic limit’ above which computers may not solve problems. With a high boundary a general-purpose machine could solve most problems in the real world, though some esoteric mathematical puzzles would be beyond it. But if the boundary were low, many activities in our daily life would need some sort of alternative, cre