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