> 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 ques

> 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.