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