I'm torn on the best way to answer. As a programmer, I absolutely agree it is too broad, but I'm not sure if it is easy for me to explain why it is too broad to a non-programmer.
Programming languages have a class of behaviors called "undefined behavior," or UB for short. If you do something with UB (such as using memory you don't have official rights to use), anything goes. The compiler can refuse to work, you can crash, you can launch nuclear missiles, or it could work seamlessly like nothing ever happened. If you get anywhere near this class of glitch, the capabilities are limitless.
I feel like I've seen this kind of question several times. I paraphrase it as, "Hey, check out this new insanely overpowered ability/creature in my world, which you can mathematically prove is more powerful than the rest of the world combined. I don't want to get into implementation details, but how do I stop it?" I've been wondering if we should start closing such questions.
One common place they show up is the singularity. So many questions are in the form "assuming computers are better than humans in every way shape and form, and can build themselves. How do humans keep up?" The answer is "they don't," until you get into implementation limitations for computers (such as FLOPS/watt) which have been swept under the rug by the initial wording. In such scenarios, they intentionally leave the capabilities of computers boundless, but force their humans to wrestle with their implementation details.