Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable

On 08/05/2025 00:09, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 5:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 22:59, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 4:52 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 22:46, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
<snip>
>

If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executed program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
>

>
If is was true that it is not a faithful simulation
then you would be able to show exactly what sequence
of instructions would be a faithful simulation.

>
If it were false, you'd be able to chop out the unreachable code without any adverse effects. Can you?
>
<snip>
>

>
I already know the answer.

>
Then you already know why your simulation code fails to simulate correctly...

 When I say correctly I mean according to the
rules of the x86 language.

No, when you say 'correctly' my best guess would be that you mean it fits your expectations.

When you say "correctly" you mean break the rules
of the x86 language to match a misconception.

No, when I said 'fails to simulate correctly' I meant 'fails to simulate the behaviour it was asked to simulate'. You have already acknowledged that some of the code is reachable by the program when executed directly but not by the simulator. That's self-evidently broken.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within