That doesn't discourage me from the conviction that the concept is valid, until someone demonstrates a logically provable flaw in the logic of my premise. . It requires absolute rigour by any human wishing to gain the full precision the approach can provide. Initially, the scope of coverage will be significantly limited as the cost of that precision. That is the price one pays for developing an unambiguous language. Extensions to cover greater scope happen incrementally, and may even require restructures as new demands outgrow the capacities of earlier structures.
Similar developments occur over time with most software of advancing sophistication.
We may have misunderstood each other. Let me try to clarify my point of view. I can feel the fuzzy approach you are taking here. I did not at all intend to advocate the fuzzy approach. Yes, I did mean that.