|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
JimT wrote:
> 1) Rachael was tricked out as well as the technology could to be a 'human'. If
> Deckard was a replicant, using the same technology, he should not have been able
> to to detect she was a replicant
No, it means that if Deckard ran the tests on himself, he should have
discovered he was a replicant.
> (See Tarski's theorem - Rachael's status
> 'should' be undecidable using equivalent technology.)
That only applies to math, i.e., formal logic.
You could think of it like an NP problem - it's hard to make human-ness, but
it's easy to check. And the closer to human-ness you create, the longer it
takes to check. I mean, if you want silly math comparisons. ;-)
> 2) Forgot the Hauer replicant's name, but he breaks one of Deckard's fingers for
> each of his companion's dying at Deckard's hands. This is a gesture of infinite
> humanity and irony from a replicant. Makes no sense unless the Hauer replicant
> believed Deckard was human, echoing human belief that the life of a replicant
> isn't worth the little finger of a human.
Everybody believed Deckard was a human, including the cops. Why wouldn't the
other replicants?
What I can't figure out is why anyone would create a replicant for this
purpose, and where did the Decker prototype come from with the memories of
how to hunt replicants?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |