Just out of my own curiosity, I checked Wikipedia on Busy Beaver numbers: BB(10) > 3^^^3.
While the article admits that every finite sequence (such as n = 1...10) is computable, I think it is safe to call it intractable right now.
Hey, don’t laugh. That’s useful to know—now you know any Turing Machine less than 10 is bluffing when it threatens 3^^^^3 specks of sand in eyes.
Off the cuff, couldn’t it actually accomplish that if it just doesn’t terminate?
If it doesn’t terminate, then I think its threat would be an infinite number of sand specks, wouldn’t it?
now you know any Turing Machine less than 10 is bluffing when it threatens 3^^^^3 specks of sand in eyes.
How did you conclude that from a lower bound?
I don’t think the lower-bound will turn out to be all that off, and I tossed in another ^ as insurance. Jests don’t have to be air-tight.
Just out of my own curiosity, I checked Wikipedia on Busy Beaver numbers: BB(10) > 3^^^3.
While the article admits that every finite sequence (such as n = 1...10) is computable, I think it is safe to call it intractable right now.
Hey, don’t laugh. That’s useful to know—now you know any Turing Machine less than 10 is bluffing when it threatens 3^^^^3 specks of sand in eyes.
Off the cuff, couldn’t it actually accomplish that if it just doesn’t terminate?
If it doesn’t terminate, then I think its threat would be an infinite number of sand specks, wouldn’t it?
How did you conclude that from a lower bound?
I don’t think the lower-bound will turn out to be all that off, and I tossed in another ^ as insurance. Jests don’t have to be air-tight.