Timeline for Has it been mathematically proven that antivirus can't detect all viruses?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2019 at 7:00 | comment | added | forest | Evolutionary processes are not optimizing; they are satisficing. You cannot claim that the failure of an evolutionary system to develop an optimal strategy against an adversarial agent proves its impossibility. Also, I'm pretty sure OP doesn't care about the axiomatic system being used in the proof. No one would condemn you for using Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms, and pointing out its problems is a red herring. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 14:56 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | In addition to the shortcomings pointed out in previous comments, this answer (probably accidentally) implicitly relies on incorrect assumptions about the equivalence between biological and computer viruses. Just because both are called “viruses” doesn't mean that they have identical relevant properties. The name is a metaphor, not an accurate definition. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 12:35 | comment | added | kubanczyk | @schroeder Ah, this is a valid concern - I've edited myself to correct my omission. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 12:35 | history | edited | kubanczyk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 133 characters in body
|
| Jan 23, 2019 at 12:11 | comment | added | schroeder♦ | Whether or not proofs are possible is not the question. You have side-stepped answering the question. There was a reference made and the framing is made in that context. This is a non-answer. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 12:07 | comment | added | kubanczyk | @JeroenMostert Yes, I think I mentioned it too. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 11:49 | comment | added | Jeroen Mostert | Cars are impossible. Proof: billions of years of evolution have not yielded wheels. Q.E.D. This fails, of course, because the parallels between biology and engineering only go so far -- you don't even need to presuppose smart inventors for this. Likewise computing. We've spotted some cute parallels between replicating programs and biological viruses way back when, but that's as far as it goes, and actual replicating programs have become no more than theoretical curiosities, while malicious programs are dead yet kicking. Is the biological parallel still valid and insightful? I wouldn't assume. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 11:32 | comment | added | kubanczyk | @JeroenMostert I've just reported a fact. While you imply that fiddling with thoughts inside our heads would yield more satisfactory results, in this case the number of repetitions and the huge pools of specimen involved is good-enough for me. That is, I assume it's vastly more probable for a human brain to overlook something here, than for the entire biosphere checking it for so many generations. (But - yes! - in some other cases our thinking can be superior, of course. Good for us!) | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 11:18 | comment | added | Jeroen Mostert | Your argument goes a bit too much in the other direction -- there are obvious gaps in what biological evolution can practically achieve (no cow has jumped over the moon), and the absence of "solutions" to certain "problems" is hard to accept as absolute proof that something can't be done unless you demonstrate why we couldn't possibly do any better. In particular, the mechanisms by which viruses and anti-virus software are "evolved" and "selected" are quite different. Even the word "virus" has become a misnomer when it comes to current malicious software (which rarely copies itself). | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 11:10 | history | answered | kubanczyk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |