When here is someone enjoying theory fundamentals, I was always wondering why the solution for "halting problem" could not be to create a copy of the system -give it a run with suspected inputs and original system would observe the copy executing and at some time would stop that - quarantine simulation basically.

As for the game system, I think it is worth trying, I also have been trying and now naively think I have structure that might do that.

Regarding blending elements into more abstract higher level quality I think "design of experiment" approach might be utilized.

Basically it is a sum of energies of elements and interactions between them each weighted depending on considered quality. Each object would be set of qualities . Qn= x*A+y*B+z*C +g*A*B+d*A*C....+w*A*B*C

Funny thing is each culture or style might have different coefficients- as they face different environmental (and other) challenges thus values slightly different things.

Basically it is a sum of energies of elements and interactions between them each weighted depending on on considered quality. Each object would be set of qualities . Qn= x*A+y*B+z*C +g*A*B+d*A*C....+w*A*B*C

Thanks for this idea, I didn't thought from that side.

When here is someone enjoying theory fundamentals, I was always wondering why the solution for "halting problem" could not be to create a copy of the system -give it a run with suspected inputs and original system would observe the copy executing and at some time would stop that - quarantine simulation basically.

So what is the answer to the "will it finish" question in case it takes "too long"?

Maybe you didn't wait long enough, maybe it never finishes. You can wait longer, but after a while you're back to the same problem. You can never decide "it does not terminate", since then you'd give wrong answers for all programs that take longer to finish than the time you waited.

Sorry Alberth, I have a problem to quote.

I agree with you that this solution would not provide you ultimate answer whether input is OK.

But I think that program's purpose for user is in general different then finding the truth about it self and inputs.

Therefore some reasonable time can be identified because value of the output decreases with time spent waiting if you agree with me.

I agree with you that this solution would not provide you ultimate answer whether input is OK. But I think that program's purpose for user is in general different then finding the truth about it self and inputs. Therefore some reasonable time can be identified because value of the output decreases with time spent waiting if you agree with me.

Being a theory question, "any" is taken literally here, it means literally any program. Also, all your decisions must be correct.

The astonishing answer of the halting problem is that the answer is no, you cannot construct a program that analyzes any another program, and decides whether it finishes.

The groundbreaking step made here is that it was proven that there are limits to what you can do with logic. For a long time, people believed you could proof anything with logic, and have a nice black/white separated world with false/true things, but apparently, that world does not exist. The consequences are deep, in theoretical sense. Something that you cannot proof to be true, doesn't have to be false. You can have a true claim, and not be able to show it is true.

Of course, in a practical sense, things are very different. If you are not interested in termination property of all programs, but only the ones that run shorter than let's say 1 year, the problem is 'much' simpler, and yes, solutions for such sub-classes exist, and are being used in practice. The only 'problem' with that is that by changing the question (ie not "any" program, but just some relevant sub-set of it), you are not answering the halting problem question any more.

there are a limited number of parts, and thus a limited number of possible combos

This is what I'm going to avoid.

Again: I'm going to make not "predefined parts", rather "predefined rules", which allows to create any effect.

there are a limited number of parts, and thus a limited number of possible combos

This is what I'm going to avoid.

Again: I'm going to make not "predefined parts", rather "predefined rules", which allows to create any effect.

With respect, I'm not sure you're avoiding this. It sounds like there are elements or particles that are part of the spell design that are predefined. Are players capable of creating new elements/particles? New element types? Even if you give them a full scripting language to code their spells with, are they still using a predefined library, with predefined syntax? Or can they create their own things the rules affect? If you predefine things like 'move' and 'compress', can they create new things to do with particles that are independent from what you've pre-defined?

For examples: Can I create a spell that will turn my enemies' intestines into Chanel No. 9? (Points for anyone who gets that reference). Can I create a particle element that affects the display or controls of my targets? Can I create a spell that will shrink me down to the size of one of these elemental particles and ride them into my enemy's inventory?

While these examples may or may not be 'no,' I think that illustrates that there is some question in which there is not a specific rule that says 'you can't do that,' but there is a lack of sufficient parts in existence to make the thing happen.

Unless I'm wrong of course, and I just missed something.

This is of course not to say that your system will not have the effect of being wide open and only limited by the rules to most players, e.g. those who aren't just trying to prove that assets need to be designed. Within the boundaries that you set, and they can be quite wide, the system can be very very open, and produce the same feeling that one gets when having the freedom of a game designer (with a fraction of the headache). It's just odd, and distracting for people like me, to claim unlimited freedom when what you're describing seems to be unprecedented freedom.

tl;dr: even a sandbox has pre-defined sand.

With respect, I'm not sure you're avoiding this. It sounds like there are elements or particles that are part of the spell design that are predefined.

It's not a blocks as in Lego or whatever. Rather it's some kind of real-life chemical elements.

So, there is no things like "take a fire + take a ball = got a fireball".

If you predefine things like 'move' and 'compress'

There is no such things. Basically, you can just physically move elements one way or another, that's it. "Compress" means just to move some elements closer to each other.

Can I create a spell that will turn my enemies' intestines into Chanel No. 9? (Points for anyone who gets that reference). Can I create a particle element that affects the display or controls of my targets? Can I create a spell that will shrink me down to the size of one of these elemental particles and ride them into my enemy's inventory?

1. No, since there is no digestive system or any other real-life biology – it's not planned as a simulator.

2. Not sure I understand what do you mean – is it about affecting a UI (user interface)? If so – probably, no, since UI is not a part of the in-game world. (But thanks for the idea).

3. (shrink) Basically, you can, but as I see from current point of view, it will require a huge ton of energy to compress all of your body particles.

(going to someone's inventory) – I'm not yet sure how exactly inventory would work. I have several ideas – some where an inventory is the part of in-game world, some where it's not.

Again, I'm not going to make a fully-customizable game. There will be some rules and basic elements. In case of literally sandbox – it would be a gravity force and a sand particles.

So, basically, you can build a castle. But there is no predefined walls, or gates or towers – that's what I mean.