**From:** Matt Mahoney (*matmahoney@yahoo.com*)

**Date:** Sat Jul 19 2008 - 11:43:38 MDT

**Next message:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: [sl4] trade or merge?"**Previous message:**Tim Freeman: "Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**In reply to:**Tim Freeman: "Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Next in thread:**Tim Freeman: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Reply:**Tim Freeman: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- On Sat, 7/19/08, Tim Freeman <tim@fungible.com> wrote:

*> Someone whose attribution was deleted allegedly said:
*

*> > Actually, the difficulty I had in mind was the seeming
*

*> impossibility of
*

*> > *proving* one's source code to another.
*

*>
*

*> From: "Stuart Armstrong"
*

*> <dragondreaming@googlemail.com>
*

*> Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:03:40 +0200
*

*> >If one SI had the details of how the
*

*> >other was historically constructed; if she has access to the full
*

*> >memory of the other, the physical makeup, follows her subroutines, and
*

*> >is convinced that the source code is robust against being overthrown
*

*> >by a secret command of the type above, then trust may be possible.
*

*>
*

*> Entity A could prove to entity B that it has source code S by
*

*> consenting to be replaced by a new entity A' that was constructed by a
*

*> manufacturing process jointly monitored by A and B. During this
*

*> process, both A and B observe that A' is constructed to run source
*

*> code S. After A' is constructed, A shuts down and gives all of its
*

*> resources to A'.
*

But A cannot know if S is its own source code. (I assume that S includes current state information needed to make a copy of itself). If it could know, then A could simulate itself (with infinite recursion, which is impossible).

-- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@yahoo.com

**Next message:**Matt Mahoney: "Re: [sl4] trade or merge?"**Previous message:**Tim Freeman: "Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**In reply to:**Tim Freeman: "Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Next in thread:**Tim Freeman: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Reply:**Tim Freeman: "Re: Proof by construction, again (was Re: [sl4] prove your source code)"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:03 MDT
*