You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gRR comments on An example of self-fulfilling spurious proofs in UDT - Less Wrong Discussion

20 Post author: cousin_it 25 March 2012 11:47AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (39)
Tags: adt decision_theory udt

Comments (39)

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

Comment author: gRR 26 March 2012 12:18:08AM 0 points [-]

Thanks, edited.

Comment author: cousin_it 26 March 2012 12:39:17AM *  1 point [-]

Why is S provable? As far as I can see, you can't easily prove it by Löb's theorem, because "if S is provable then S" is not apparent by inspection of A and U, because A could find a different proof earlier.

Comment author: gRR 26 March 2012 01:38:15AM 0 points [-]

I thought it is similar to your proof here.

Comment author: cousin_it 26 March 2012 01:44:17AM *  1 point [-]

In Lobian cooperation, the agents search for proofs of only one statement, never stopping early because they found a proof of something else. Your implementation of A doesn't seem to work like that. Or did I misunderstand and your version of A only looks for proofs where A()==1?

Comment author: gRR 26 March 2012 12:18:08PM 0 points [-] 
def U(): Enumerate proofs by length up to a very large N if found a proof that "A()==1 implies U()==5, and A()!=1 implies U()<=5" then return (A()==1 ? 5 : 0) if found any other proof of the form "A()==a implies U()==u, and A()!=a implies U()<=u" then return (A()==a ? u-1 : u+1) if(A()==2) return 10 return 0
Comment author: cousin_it 26 March 2012 12:46:45PM 1 point [-]

I see what you're trying to do, but can you explain why A would return 1?

Comment author: gRR 26 March 2012 01:06:58PM 1 point [-]

The intuition is that the proof of "A()==1 implies U()==5, and A()!=1 implies U()<=5", if it exists, would not depend on N, whereas any proof of "A()==2 implies U()==10..." would have to be longer than N, so by making N large enough...

The setup should make "if S has a proof of length < N, then S" apparent by inspection, answering your earlier objection: if S is (<N)-provable, then U() will find the proof (because finding any other proof first would imply U() is unsound), and then return (A()==1 ? 5 : 0), which requires A() to return 1, otherwise U() is unsound again.

Comment author: cousin_it 26 March 2012 01:17:10PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think A can assume soundness of the proof system, because soundness implies consistency. Or is there some way for A to reach the proof for A()==1 without using consistency?

Comment author: gRR 27 March 2012 12:13:46PM *  1 point [-]

But A can use consistency arguments when proving "Provable(S) => S", can't it?

Let S be "A()==1 implies U()==5, and A()!=1 implies U()<=5".
Then the following is provable by inspection: "if T is a moral argument with the shortest proof of length <N, then either T=S or ~T". From this it follows that "either Provable(S) => S, or there exists T, such that Provable(T) and Provable(~T)". From the second part everything provably follows, including "Provable(S) => S". Putting everything together, we get Provable(Provable(S) => S).

Comment author: cousin_it 27 March 2012 12:51:08PM 1 point [-]

I think this reasoning is valid:

  1. either Provable(S)=>S, or there exists T such that Provable(T) and Provable(~T)

  2. either Provable(S)=>S, or Provable(Anything)

  3. either Provable(S)=>S, or Provable(Provable(S)=>S)

But the last step doesn't seem to imply Provable(S)=>S. Or am I missing something again?

Comment author: gRR 26 March 2012 01:57:52AM *  0 points [-]

I thought it couldn't find any other proofs of length < N, because it would imply there was no proof of S. But this is not a problem if S is false... Ok, modification:

def U(): Enumerate proofs by length up to a very large N
if found a proof that "A()==1 implies U()==5, and A()!=1 implies U()<=5"
then if(A()==1) return 5 if found any other proof of the same form
then whatever A() return 0
if(A()==2) return 10
return 0

EDIT: Wait, this is not good, now if(A()==2) is unreachable...
EDIT2: No, not actually unreachable, but any proof for a statement of the form "A()==2 => U()==10..." must be of length > N, which is what was needed, I suppose. Still feels like cheating, but I'm not sure why...

Comment author: cousin_it 26 March 2012 07:56:48AM *  1 point [-]

What's the intended consequence of A()==2 in your implementation of U? Is it U()==0 or U()==10? And which of those would actually happen?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit