Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for
 unknowns and unknowable
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 21:41:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <vvh5ka$1gjtf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <b47c9e70d415c1e5e469aaab846f0bd05e4bcc51@i2pn2.org>
 <vvall0$o6v5$1@dont-email.me> <vvc33h$25atc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvcgja$1voc$1@news.muc.de> <vvd6pf$34l9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvdads$13pc$1@news.muc.de> <vvdcld$3arjo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvg6r9$15e69$1@dont-email.me> <vvg7uu$158tp$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvg8tk$15e69$4@dont-email.me> <vvgai8$158tp$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvgcme$15e69$9@dont-email.me> <vvgjdo$18i6e$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgkao$18q46$1@dont-email.me> <vvgknf$18i5r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvgl47$18q46$4@dont-email.me> <vvgm45$18i6e$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvgp6s$1a47o$3@dont-email.me> <vvh4ks$1gb9o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 04:41:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f36da193996cadd52a214445b52881fc";
	logging-data="1593263"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/n4Vc2E0Raguv5+VUwhAUT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZoJ2B8ZSJ9ZHe2/7jzbsRH0GZjQ=
In-Reply-To: <vvh4ks$1gb9o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-4, 5/7/2025), Outbound message

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