gRR comments on Formulas of arithmetic that behave like decision agents - Less Wrong

22 Post author: Nisan 03 February 2012 02:58AM

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

Comments (33)

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

Comment author: gRR 30 March 2012 12:29:19AM -1 points [-]

There is no recursive function that takes the Gödel number of a function and computes the value of that function.

Huh? Of course, there is - the Universal Turing Machine. You were probably thinking of the halting problem, but here we can just assume every function halts.

[The agent idea was naive though. I was young and stupid when I wrote the grandfather comment :)]

Comment author: Nisan 30 March 2012 01:14:12AM 0 points [-]

The agent described in the OP is definitely not a Turing machine that halts.

Comment author: gRR 30 March 2012 12:57:40PM *  1 point [-]

Hmm. The agent is a recursive function, so it is equivalent to a Turing machine that halts, no?

But I see your point. There is no simple formula, so if nothing else, it's inelegant.

Comment author: Nisan 30 March 2012 05:44:16PM *  1 point [-]

Whoops! I said in the OP that the precursor to A (before diagonalization) is a recursive function, but it's not. It's not computable because it has to check whether several propositions are theorems of Peano arithmetic, and also because of that existential quantifier in the definition of A. If A itself were recursive, then it would provably (in PA) cooperate or defect; but it cooperates or defects unprovably (in PA). I'll edit the OP to make it correct.

The rest of the post still works because all the functions are representable — they can be represented by formulas in arithmetic — even if they're not recursive. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

EDIT: Oy, they're not even "representable" in the technical sense. They're only definable.