3 ms·
I have a question about this Christian, assume that we can accurately model an atom with a computer and then we uploaded a human into the computer, wouldn't the
by 3pt14159 15y ago
I have a question about this Christian, assume that we can accurately model an atom with a computer and then we uploaded a human into the computer, wouldn't the computer then be able to either solve the problem or report that the problem is unsolvable? I understand the halting problem but isn't there some kind of meta check that a sufficiently complex system could output?
- rmcclellan 15y agoSure, having a virtual human try to solve the problem would be pretty good. However, even the virtual human would never be able to check the specification correctly for every possible program due to the halting problem. In particular, no matter what the specification was, a malicious user could create a program that mimics the virtual human's response and then does the opposite thing (it's the same basic proof that the halting problem is undecidable). By construction then, the virtual human would answer incorrectly when asked whether or not the program matches the specification. So, academically, even the "virtual human" approach doesn't work since it doesn't answer correctly for every single program. Practically, you're right, having a virtual human would be good enough for most uses. That said, I wouldn't want to use a virtual human for this due to ethical concerns :-).
- losvedir 15y agoThe problem is that even real live humans can't always tell if something will halt. For instance, you tell me if this loop ends: n = 4; goldbach = true; while(goldbach) { goldbach = isSumOfTwoPrimes(n); n += 2; You just have to prove the Goldbach Conjecture. :-)