Too many requests You have exceeded a secondary rate limit.
Please wait a few minutes before you try again; in some cases this may take up to an hour. Signing in may provide a higher rate limit if you are not already signed in.
For more on scraping GitHub and how it may affect your rights, please review our Terms of Service.
Ironic how now normal browsing of GitHub and this AI assisted proof is marked as scraping.
kekqqq•41m ago
amosj•34m ago
pcstl•33m ago
im3w1l•19m ago
Would the following statement be correct?
"There is a turing machine that cannot be proven whether it will terminate or not. For any n we can construct a proof that it will run longer than n. But we cannot construct a proof that for any n it will run longer than n. Due to this particular turing machine, BB(k) cannot be determined for k large enough to admit that turing machine."
cobbal•9m ago
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=2725
GolDDranks•3m ago
Source: https://wiki.bbchallenge.org/wiki/Logical_independence
orangecat•3m ago
ogogmad•1m ago
hyperpape•9m ago
Every BB(n) is trivially computable, since any integer is computable. So for every BB(n), there is a computable sequence that grows faster than the BB numbers through n (annoyingly, given the word "grows", this can just be the constant sequence of BB(n) + 1).
So for any given computable number, the fact that it's computable gives no intrinsic reason to believe it's smaller than BB(n) for any particular n.
raincole•5m ago
ogogmad•20m ago
socializer•12m ago
That said, functionally, they're more or less a restatement of the halting problem, essentially "if the halting problem was a number". Also see Godel's incompleteness. A bit mind-blowing that you have numbers you can't "know" (i.e., compute or verify), but that's about it.
People have been working on them for fun, with no chance of any of this being applicable to anything, so throwing AI at it to produce new results seems a bit tone-deaf to me.