red75 comments on AI cooperation in practice - Less Wrong

26 Post author: cousin_it 30 July 2010 04:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (157)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 31 July 2010 10:37:40AM 2 points [-]

You don't specify the implementation of "proves(code, maxsteps)".

Nothing depends on the details of proof verifier, since it completely covers all proofs up to some length, a set of proofs which is completely defined by the logical language. The arguments of proves(-,-) determine its value (and it's even a primitive recursive function).

Comment author: red75 31 July 2010 06:04:11PM *  1 point [-]

On the other hand, pathological formal language can be constructed, that makes proof of "main()==1" arbitrary large (e.g. where 1 is represented by 3^^^3 symbols). Thus it is better to be proven that formal language isn't pathological, i.e there is no prover proves' that satisfies condition

\exists n1 \exists n2 \forall code (n1<n2 & proves'(code,n1)=proves(code,n2) )