HN Reader

People on the bbchallenge Discord server are keen to speculate on how many Turing Machine states are needed to surpass Graham's Number, which is vastly larger than the 2^^2^^2^^9 achieved by the latest BB(6) champion.

We know from the functional busy beaver [1] that Graham behaviour can come surprisingly early; a 49-bit lambda term suffices. There are only 77519927606 closed lambda terms of at most that size [2], compared to 4^12*23836540=399910780272640 unique 6-state Turing Machines [3].

With the achievement of pentation in only 6 states, several people now believe that 7 states should suffice to surpass Graham's. I would still find that rather surprising. A few days ago, I made a large bet with one of them on whether we would see proof of BB(7)>Graham's within the next 10 years.

What do people here think?

[1] https://oeis.org/A333479

[2] https://oeis.org/A114852

[3] https://oeis.org/A107668

So what is the richest logic whose proofs can be enumerated with only a five state TM?

I wonder if the visible universe is large enough to write down the exact value of BB(6).

It boggles my mind that a number (an uncomputable number, granted) like BB(748) can be "independent of ZFC". It feels like a category error or something.

It's known that BB(14) is bigger than Graham's number, but this new finding leads me to believe that BB(7) is probably bigger than Graham's number. Intuitively, the technology required to go from pentation to Graham's number feels simpler than the technology required to go from `47,176,870` to `2 <pentate> 5`.

> So I said, imagine you had 10,000,000sub10 grains of sand. Then you could … well, uh … you could fill about 10,000,000sub10 copies of the observable universe with that sand.

I don't get this part. Is it really rounding away the volume of the observable universe divided by the average volume of a grain of sand? That is many more orders of magnitude than the amount of mass in the universe, which is a more usual comparison.

>imagine you had 10,000,000_10 grains of sand. Then you could … well, uh … you could fill about 10,000,000_10 copies of the observable universe with that sand. I hope that helps people visualize it!

People can't visualize numbers that big. There's more ways to express numbers than just counting them. For example a single grain of sand has infinite states it can be in (there are an infinite amount of real numbers), so you could say a single grain of sand could represent BB(6). Combinations can grow exponentially, so that may be something useful to try and express it.

> Also, the left-superscript means tetration, or iterated exponentiation: for example, 1510 means 10 to the 10 to the 10 and so on 15 times.

I thought it was a typo. First time I encounter tetration.

Scott Aaronson | How Much Math Is Knowable? [Harward CMSA]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VplMHWSZf5c

Recently on HN (couple of months ago): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43776477

Any time I see such results from computation complexity theory, I realize that any current zeitgeist of "super-intelligent AI are gods" is complete bullshit.

You can convert every atom of observable Universe into a substrate for supercomputer, you can harness energies of supermassive black holes to power it, but running a humble BB(6) to halting state would be forever out of its reach.

> For those tuning in from home, here BB(6) is the 6th Busy Beaver number, i.e. the maximum number of steps that a 6-state Turing machine with a {0,1} alphanet can take before halting, when run on an initially all-0 input tape.

Oh! Of course! That sure clears things up for this non-expert. This is clearly a hardcore blog for people who have been doing this kind of research for decades. Kind of awesome to stumble upon something so unapologetically dense and jargony and written for a very specific audience!

If you want to learn about actual Busy Beaver results, I suggest reading https://www.sligocki.com/ instead

Unlike Aaronson, he actually is on the forefront of Busy Beaver research, and is one of the people behind the https://bbchallenge.org website