I asked some LLMs all the questions stated in section 3, and they found an answer without diverging. So the entire premise seems speculative: just try out the LLMs to find how they act instead of 'straw-man'-ing what their response is.

In addition, how does the example in 3.1 about answering one's wife's question about her weight even fall within the bounds of "have a high relevance/effect (e.g., economic, scientific, strategic, societal, existential, pivotal, etc.... ) in human existence"..?

I was excited by the buildup and the link between philosophy and math, but the publication seems terribly hobby-ist and lacking of peer-review.