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

On 5/7/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

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'.

There is such a thing as incorrect questions.
The logical law of polar questions
When posed to a man whom has never been married,
the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
Is an incorrect polar question because neither yes nor
no is a correct answer.
All polar questions (including incorrect polar questions)
have exactly one answer from the following:
1) No
2) Yes
3) Neither // Only applies to incorrect polar questions
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/AO5Vlupeelo/m/nxJy7N2vULwJ

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.
 

It you would bother to pay enough attention you
would see the the sequences ARE NOT THE SAME.
You are essentially asking sum(3,2) to return the
sum of 5 + 7. Can you see how asking sum(3,2)
to return the sum of 5 + 7 is incorrect according
to the rules of arithmetic?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer