Quinnfernal
[math] sometimes I think about the Busy Beaver Function and get kind of dizzy about scale
Quinnfernal
here's the deal with beaver
Quinnfernal
it's a function, that takes one integer as an input
Quinnfernal
and the output is, to simplify a bit
Quinnfernal
if you put in X
Quinnfernal
then the output is, if you made a turing machine - the basic fundamenttal form of computer programs - with X possible states
Quinnfernal
and put it on an infinite memory strip of 0's
Quinnfernal
the largest possible non-infinite number of 1's the program could write before halting
Quinnfernal
so like if you had a two-state machine it could be something like
Quinnfernal
State 1: If the pointer is on a 0, write a 1, move to the right, and enter State 2
Quinnfernal
State 2: Halt
Quinnfernal
the program would write 1 once, then halt, creating a total of a single 1 on the memory strip
Quinnfernal
but the more states you have, the more complex you can make the program, so it can fill more and more memory before halting
Quinnfernal
so that's what the Busy Beaver function is
Quinnfernal
BB(x) = the largest finite number of 1s you could design a turing machine to write to memory using X states
Snake-Kun
this is challenging my concept of what a mathematical function is
Quinnfernal
but here's what's interesting
Quinnfernal
if you write literally ANY other math function
Quinnfernal
say, f(x) = x^x^x^x^x^x * 100,000,000,000,000
Quinnfernal
literally anything
Quinnfernal
then for a high enough value of X, BB(X) will be bigger.
Quinnfernal
It is the Biggest Function.
Quinnfernal
Period.
Quinnfernal
here's some numbers to show what that looks like.
Quinnfernal
the values of BB(x) are only known with certainty up to 4.
Quinnfernal
BB(2) = 6
BB(3) = 21
BB(4) = 107
boo(f)
oh.
Quinnfernal
the busiest known beaver for BB(5) outputs 47,176,870 1's to memory before haltingg.
Snake-Kun
BB(5) = some terrifyingly huge number?
Quinnfernal
BB(6)'s value is unknown, but the lowest it can be is about
Quinnfernal
3.5 * 10^18267
boo(f)
i think i'm starting to conceptualize why this is called the Busy Beaver function
Snake-Kun
that beaver is very busy
Quinnfernal
BB(7)'s lower bound has been shown, as a simple variation of the BB(6) machine
Quinnfernal
to stand at 10^10^10^10^18705353
Quinnfernal
but in reality the value is probably MUCH higher than that
Quinnfernal
calculating the scope of BB(8) has to my knowledge never been seriously attempted
Quinnfernal
shut up plurk
Snake-Kun
so if you graphed it out
Snake-Kun
it would functionally just look like a line going straight up
Quinnfernal
it would just look like a vertical line yeah
Snake-Kun
with a tiny hook at the bottom if you zoomed in enough
Quinnfernal
but no matter what absurd function you made up to try and go higher, BB(x) will ALWAYS eventually overshoot it
Quinnfernal
just, with nearly all imaginable functions, "eventually" means "before 10"
Quinnfernal
the exact value of BB(x) for larger values is believed to be essentially impossible to calculate
boo(f)
significantly larger than a googolplex by several orders of magnitude
Quinnfernal
like, "if you made a computer the size of the universe and it ran for a trillion years it wouldn't be certain of the answer by the end"
Quinnfernal
I don't know how they proved that it's the Biggest Function but it's wild that we just, know what that is
Quinnfernal
and it's VERY big
Quinnfernal
numbers so big you need to dip into Knuth Notation to even try to express them
EsperBot
I imagine the proof is related to its definition as being the largest possible output from the number of states
Quinnfernal
probably
Quinnfernal
regarding knuth notation as long as I'm here
Quinnfernal
it goes like this
Quinnfernal
A x B = A + A + A + A + .... [B times]
Quinnfernal
A^B = A x A x A x A x ... [B times]
Quinnfernal
A↑↑B = A ^ A ^ A ^ A ^ A ^ .... [B times]
Quinnfernal
A↑↑↑B = A ↑↑ A ↑↑ A ↑↑ A ↑↑ A ↑↑ ... [B times]
Quinnfernal
A↑↑↑↑B = A ↑↑↑ A ↑↑↑ A ↑↑↑ A ↑↑↑ .... [B times]
Quinnfernal
these numbers get nonsensically big extremely fast
Quinnfernal
3↑↑↑3 is a stack of 3^3^3^3^... thatt's 7.6 trillion exponents tall
Quinnfernal
here's my suspicion of how the proof is shaped
Quinnfernal
roughly
Quinnfernal
- f(x) can be defined by a turing machine
Quinnfernal
- BB(x) is definitionally based on the definition of a turing machine
Quinnfernal
- BB(x)'s turing machine is defined as the maximal machine, so it's by definition producing a bigger result than f(x)
Quinnfernal
it can't just be that because the first line is provably false by diagonalization
Quinnfernal
but it's probably something like that
載入新的回覆