If the original footage is so bad that “nonsense that people assume is part of the actual show” “could plausibly be there”, then the problem is not with the AI… it wouldn’t be the first time I’m confused by the artifacts in a low quality video.

What C does depends on the platform, the CPU, etc.

If the result actually differs due to compilers deviating in different architectures, then what we can say is that the language/code is not as portable. But I don’t think this implies there’s no denotational semantics.

And if the end result doesn’t really differ (despite actually executing different instructions in different architectures) then… well, aren’t all compilers for all languages (including Rust) meant to use different instructions in different architectures as appropriate to give the same result?

who’s to say what are the denotational semantics? Right? What is a ‘function’ in C? Well most C compilers translate it to an Assembly subroutine, but what if our target does not support labels, or subroutines?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding here, but my impression was that attempting to interpret the meaning of “what a function is in C” by looking at what instructions the compiler translates that to is more in line with an operational interpretation (you’d end up looking at sequential steps the machine executes one after the other), not a denotational one.

For a denotational interpretation of the meaning of that expression, shouldn’t you look at the inputs/outputs of the “factorial” operation to understand its mathematical meaning? The denotational semantics should be the same in all cases if they are all denotationally equivalent (ie. referentially transparent), even if they might not be operationally equivalent.