= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bakkot comments on Prisoner's Dilemma (with visible source code) Tournament - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (232)
(I didn't downvote you.)
It's quite straightforward to write an algorithm which accepts only valid proofs (but might also reject some proofs which are valid, though in first-order logic you can do away with this caveat). Flawed proofs are not an issue - if A presents a proof which B is unable to verify, B ignores it.
There's someone who consistently downvotes everything I ever write whenever he comes onto the site; I'm not sure what to do about that.
A proves that A is inconsistent, then proves that A cooperates with every program that A proves is Reasonable and that B is reasonable.
B accepts A's proof that A is inconsistent, and the rest follow trivially.
I'm not sure I understand. A is a TM - which aspect is it proving inconsistent?
A proves that the logic A uses to prove that B is Reasonable is inconsistent. It is sufficient to say "If I can prove that B is Reasonable, B is Reasonable".