PS Depends on what conjecture we refer to here.

The counterexample seems to rely on correlations between edge deletions which makes no sense because the deletions should be independent (in the definition I'm seeing on Wikipedia).

I could be wrong here because I haven't read it in detail but on first sight, it looks like there are some serious issues with mathematical rigour here.

There's so much hidden in homonyms, it almost feels illegal to mention it.

Use Python. If you need concurrency, then use Go. If you need even more performance, use Rust (using unsafe Rust only for the parts that need it). For the highest performance stuff, maybe consider C for critical parts only.

C++ is not safe. It's a minefield of things that compile but are memory management mistakes. And then you're like "Look, I have a map of the minefield. If we just make sure we don't step on any mines, we are completely fine."

It sounds very similar to what happens with love. In my experience, at least, when you love someone you build up these circuits that care about the other person and you cannot break them down, it seems. You can ignore them but then there's this part of your brain you're ignoring.

So perhaps you could say you were/are literally in love with the idea.

Perhaps you can turn your idea around slightly into finding a language that finds a balance between formality and universality, rather than computers and humans. Because even though computers now speak our language they do not use it in a logical way at all (arguably because we humans don't).

And while mathematics is very formal it has a lot of trouble expressing ideas from different branches that aren't as formal. Things like fuzzy logics have been created and many things like that but they are still very much on the formal side.

Perhaps you could even derive an academic language for a specific field, perhaps standardizing between synonymous constructions. You could even use LLMs to accelerate the process. Maybe LLMs are a good thing that makes your work easier!

Of course if you want to enable people to make important decisions from their homes, you have two options, build a box around their homes too or accept that they are outside of the box and treat all of their activity as suspicious.

Just because your store can be broken into doesn't mean you can't take measures that make it much more difficult.

It's not that security mechanisms in a store are pointless, simply because you can't defend against the most advanced criminals.

You can make things much more difficult for criminals so they'll go to another store instead. Or at least they'll have to put in more effort as well.