I was one of the close voters. I thought it was a really interesting question. However, any way I stack it up, it seems to me that it belongs somewhere else.
Let's start with asking about analyzing academic articles with literary methods. And we should be specific here: it's a scientific article. In my view, this is a non-starter, simply being a question of using the wrong tools for the job. Scientific papers are just not written to have literary value and they should present no ambiguity. Any to be found in them is the result of poor authorship, nothing more. You might as well ask whether it's okay to analyse a list of ingredients on the side of a food can with literary techniques.
Moving on to this exact instance, I'm not even sure that "literary methods" is what you're asking for here. You're asking "why" Turing put this ambiguity in his paper. There is no need to turn to literary methods to do this, and many answers have not. This is a question about the history of Turing's work and that is reflected in the answers it has received.
Next, let's consider whether we should consider it in terms how language impacts the scientific method. This is a very interesting field of study and one that's close to my own heart. However, academic treat this discipline very squarely as one of Sociology and Philosophy. There are of course links between social science, philosophy and literature, and authors like Derrida have contributed across all three fields. But most in the field belong to University Philosophy and Social Science departments and would agree that's where this subject belongs. There are already SE sites for those.
Finally, what if we're looking at this as a matter of ambiguous language in a scientific paper, trying to get to the bottom of what an author actually indented? In that case I would argue you were better off consulting experts in the same academic field. There are multiple SE sites dealing with computer science, and one each for the physical sciences.
Questions like this are good questions. But just not for this SE.