Re:Teageneration (or: why I don’t trust transporters) (2016)
by amelius on Saturday October 17, 2020 @05:57PM
(#24813734)
I suppose a 3d-printed object could carry a (steganographic?) copy of its own specification, so you could replicate it endlessly without degeneration.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Teageneration (or: why I don’t trust transporters) (2016)
by CrazyStat on Saturday October 17, 2020 @07:05PM
(#24814139)
Only if the specification is concise enough to fit in/on the object. If you're 3d printing a sphere or another shape that can easily be parameterized, great; if you're 3d printing a model of a brain I expect you'll have a hard time.
Re:Teageneration (or: why I don’t trust transporters) (2016)
by dTal on Sunday October 18, 2020 @05:05PM
(#24821125)
That doesn't sound entirely trivial? Like a physical quine.
Re:Teageneration (or: why I don’t trust transporters) (2016)
by amelius on Sunday October 18, 2020 @05:50PM
(#24821395)
Let S be the original specification.
Let F(S) be the specification with steganography applied. The steganography ensures that there is a Finv that can be induced from F(S) and such that Finv(F(S)) = S.
You print F(S).
The receiver scans the object F(S) and computes S.
From there you can repeat the process.