Timeline for Program reasoning about own source code
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2016 at 5:08 | comment | added | vzn | this also reminds me of AGI because there is some anthropomorphism of a presumably intelligent entity "reasoning" & there is some near-discussion in that literature | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 17:43 | comment | added | vzn | there is some connection to genetic algorithms/ genetic programming etc | |
| Jan 17, 2016 at 14:26 | comment | added | Nikos M. | see my updated answer with references to self-programming machines/automata which relate to the later part of your question | |
| Sep 10, 2015 at 13:34 | vote | accept | Holden Lee | ||
| Sep 9, 2015 at 5:42 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCSTheory/status/641486846225199104 | ||
| Sep 7, 2015 at 21:20 | answer | added | Nikos M. | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 7, 2015 at 19:12 | answer | added | NietzscheanAI | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 6, 2015 at 1:39 | comment | added | Holden Lee | I'll check an answer in a few days (it's my habit to wait a bit to give everyone who wants to a chance to chime in). | |
| Sep 5, 2015 at 22:15 | comment | added | Joshua Herman | @MartinBerger can you merge my statements into yours so you can get the answer credit? At this point neither of us would and the person that is asking the question would not give anything a check mark. Either that or the question is too vague. | |
| Sep 5, 2015 at 6:04 | comment | added | Martin Berger | @HoldenLee As to "P=Q", the established terminology is "homogeneous meta-programming", which is opposed to "heterogeneous meta-programming" where P $\neq$ Q. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 21:33 | comment | added | Holden Lee | Edited - let me know if this is better. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 21:33 | history | edited | Holden Lee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 589 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2015 at 20:51 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 9, 2015 at 3:03 | |||||
| Sep 4, 2015 at 20:36 | comment | added | Kaveh | I think the question is not very clear. You should have a look at the programming languages like Python, Java, and those mentioned by Martin in his answer and clarify the question so either it is clear that they meet what you are looking for or if not why not. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 20:35 | comment | added | Kaveh | Note that in principle all language which can implement an interpreter for themselves can do things you are requiring. In a more mathematical way, the recursion theorem holds for any strong enough model of computation. Some programming languages just make it easier by having it built in. Same for reasoning: you can implement any reasoning system inside these languages. Of course one cannot expect to reason everything, e.g. the halting problem for the programs. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 20:24 | comment | added | Kaveh | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_programming) | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 19:55 | history | edited | Holden Lee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2015 at 19:11 | comment | added | Martin Berger | Why do you need the language to act as a theorem prover to establish that "the outcome of running Program p is foo"? The language could simply run p! Indeed, that's what's happening. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 17:38 | answer | added | Martin Berger | timeline score: 15 | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 15:26 | answer | added | Joshua Herman | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 15:00 | history | asked | Holden Lee | CC BY-SA 3.0 |