4 ms·

>I'm pretty sure this would be interpreted as "The person has to flip coins until they have a 100 streak of only heads". I disagree. For example, Light has peo

>I'm pretty sure this would be interpreted as "The person has to flip coins until they have a 100 streak of only heads". I disagree. For example, Light has people die of getting run over a by truck. But the Death note does not interpret this is as "person repeatedly crosses the street until they get run over by a truck". Instead, events are (reasonably) manipulated such that a truck runs them over. Similarly, the coins would be manipulated to have 100 heads in a row. >I also have the feeling (not backed up by lore, but I think it would fit in the world), that bigger manipulations would take more energy from the respective shinigami, so while a shinigami might be able to manipulate luck enough to make someone win the lottery, finding prime numbers would be too draining. I wouldn't be surprised if this is true, but hey, what's a couple of Shinigami to save us some compute!

danShumway 7y ago
My impression is that the Death Note would only manipulate luck to a certain degree -- ie, if the odds of even occurring are greater than 1/x, just make it happen. That would allow you to get hit by a truck crossing the street, but not allow you to win a coin flip 100 times (7.8886091e-31 odds). You'd probably have to experiment to figure out what the threshold was. That being said... let's assume you're right. If the death note can manipulate odds to an arbitrary degree, you're thinking way too small right now. It would be much more efficient to write: "X opens a laptop text editor, closes their eyes, and hits keys randomly. They open their eyes and discover they have accidentally written an algorithm for quickly factoring large numbers. They copy and paste this algorithm into an encrypted email to light.iskira@gmail.com, then die by jumping in front of a bus." If X dies of a heart attack, you know your instructions didn't take and there's no algorithm for quickly factoring large numbers -- the problem was impossible. But then you can start modifying your query for, "an easy strategy for keeping cubits stable", or whatever you want to follow up with. If I have a fast-track to get at almost any (possible) invention I can think of, I'm not going to waste my time factoring large numbers!
- arugulum 7y ago
  >If the death note can manipulate odds to an arbitrary degree, you're thinking way too small right now. Right, what I feel might be the case is that the targeted output needs to at least be verifiable (hence see my second proposal). An argument could be made that unless the person has a way of verifying their action, there is no way to ensure that the desired outcome is achieved, so the instruction is invalid. (Separately, at least in your written example, it is possible for the person to be mistaken about the validity of their method!) On the other hands, actions that are (machine) verifiable fall right within the scope of the Death Note (insofar as the verification instruments are also reliable, and verification happens within 23 days). I emphasize machine verifiable because the Death Note has various rules concerning other people, which I won't wade into. If "X starts his car and his car engine explodes" is valid, then so should "X keys a random string of inputs into a machine, machine returns True, then X dies." So no we've limited the scope of DN-solvable problems to 23-day machine-verifiable problems. Now we just need to know what set of problems are 23-day machine-verifiable...
  - danShumway 7y ago
    > it is possible for the person to be mistaken about the validity of their method That's a good point. > are 23-day machine-verifiable Here's a followup question. Can a person be part of the machine? For example, I might rephrase my earlier entry to be: "X closes their eyes and types random keys, such that they form an algorithm for quickly factoring large primes. They email that algorithm to light.iskira@gmail.com and receive a confirmation that their algorithm is sound. At which point, they become so excited that they run into the street and are hit by a bus and killed." My worry with that is that if there is some kind of force behind the death note, it might decide to just manipulate me instead of the person writing the algorithm. I don't want an evil genie scenario where I just accidentally write "yes, it works", instead of "no, it doesn't." By extension, if we have a 23-day machine-verifiable problem, am I allowed to specify that the machine is not glitching or producing errors? In some cases, that might be more likely than finding the correct answer. Shinagami picking the most likely scenario that technically fits the criteria might be an effective way for them to reduce some abuse of the system.

danShumway 7y ago

My impression is that the Death Note would only manipulate luck to a certain degree -- ie, if the odds of even occurring are greater than 1/x, just make it happen. That would allow you to get hit by a truck crossing the street, but not allow you to win a coin flip 100 times (7.8886091e-31 odds). You'd probably have to experiment to figure out what the threshold was. That being said... let's assume you're right. If the death note can manipulate odds to an arbitrary degree, you're thinking way too small right now. It would be much more efficient to write: "X opens a laptop text editor, closes their eyes, and hits keys randomly. They open their eyes and discover they have accidentally written an algorithm for quickly factoring large numbers. They copy and paste this algorithm into an encrypted email to light.iskira@gmail.com, then die by jumping in front of a bus." If X dies of a heart attack, you know your instructions didn't take and there's no algorithm for quickly factoring large numbers -- the problem was impossible. But then you can start modifying your query for, "an easy strategy for keeping cubits stable", or whatever you want to follow up with. If I have a fast-track to get at almost any (possible) invention I can think of, I'm not going to waste my time factoring large numbers!

arugulum 7y ago
>If the death note can manipulate odds to an arbitrary degree, you're thinking way too small right now. Right, what I feel might be the case is that the targeted output needs to at least be verifiable (hence see my second proposal). An argument could be made that unless the person has a way of verifying their action, there is no way to ensure that the desired outcome is achieved, so the instruction is invalid. (Separately, at least in your written example, it is possible for the person to be mistaken about the validity of their method!) On the other hands, actions that are (machine) verifiable fall right within the scope of the Death Note (insofar as the verification instruments are also reliable, and verification happens within 23 days). I emphasize machine verifiable because the Death Note has various rules concerning other people, which I won't wade into. If "X starts his car and his car engine explodes" is valid, then so should "X keys a random string of inputs into a machine, machine returns True, then X dies." So no we've limited the scope of DN-solvable problems to 23-day machine-verifiable problems. Now we just need to know what set of problems are 23-day machine-verifiable...
- danShumway 7y ago
  > it is possible for the person to be mistaken about the validity of their method That's a good point. > are 23-day machine-verifiable Here's a followup question. Can a person be part of the machine? For example, I might rephrase my earlier entry to be: "X closes their eyes and types random keys, such that they form an algorithm for quickly factoring large primes. They email that algorithm to light.iskira@gmail.com and receive a confirmation that their algorithm is sound. At which point, they become so excited that they run into the street and are hit by a bus and killed." My worry with that is that if there is some kind of force behind the death note, it might decide to just manipulate me instead of the person writing the algorithm. I don't want an evil genie scenario where I just accidentally write "yes, it works", instead of "no, it doesn't." By extension, if we have a 23-day machine-verifiable problem, am I allowed to specify that the machine is not glitching or producing errors? In some cases, that might be more likely than finding the correct answer. Shinagami picking the most likely scenario that technically fits the criteria might be an effective way for them to reduce some abuse of the system.