Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Halting problem and energy signature of computer programs

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Skybuck Flying

unread,
Nov 17, 2022, 10:55:31 PM11/17/22
to
So far my argument was that if a computer program can detect itself then it can also detect the parasite code of Alan Turing and remove it, deactive it, terminate itself etc.

Then somebody else wrote that this reduces the problem to "logical equivalence".

There are some problems with this argument:

1. First of all it, like Alan Turing, forces certain rules unto the problem like Alan Turing does:
"Turing Completeness", "Turing Machine" basically "Turing's World/Universe/Fantasty/Wild DisneyLand".
First show yours, then I will build mine around it <- order/time rules !
Ignores einstein's time travel and the real universe.

Basically give me your program first and then I will "transform it".

Virus first then Virus Scanner vs Virus Scanner first then Virus.

2. Informatics is based/embedded in the real world/real universe as far as we know. There is a minimum ammount of energy necessary to store bits and to use/transform bits.

All energy into a computer and out of a computer can be considered information, like electricity/leakage, heat, noise, electro magnetic waves etc.

Therefore ignoring these effects inside Alan's Touring Completeness world is dangerous and hackers will make short work of stealing information and even manipulating it.

The computer program most likely has it's own energy signature, it's likely that all computer programs have their own unique energy signature, therefore if a computer program knows it's own energy signature it can detect faul play/parasite code/modifications/transformations etc.

And thus an original computer program can stop the parasitic program from functioning :)

3. Lastly this argument forces "logical equivalence" onto the problem, basically forcing your own rules onto the problem, especially the "logical" part of the argument seems to hint/force at seperation of the machine/logic from the real world and forcing it into some kind of definition of a logical world, perhaps Alan's Tourings Completeness world ?

4. Perhaps argument 3 was part of argument 1 anyway, ultimately lastly: quantum mechanics might also blow futher holes in existing informatics, including Alan Tourings statements as well as cryptography ! ;)

So beware ! ;) =D

Bye,
Skybuck =D
0 new messages