The Smallest Non-Computable Busy Beaver Number: Is it Knowable?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter johnkclark
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the computability of Busy Beaver numbers, specifically the first four computable numbers (1, 6, 21, and 107) and the 7918th number, which is finite but not computable as proven by Scot Aaronson. Participants express interest in identifying the smallest non-computable Busy Beaver number, with speculation that even the fifth number may not be computable. The conversation highlights the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems on the ability to ascertain the values of Busy Beaver numbers within established mathematical frameworks like Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Busy Beaver numbers and their significance in computability theory.
  • Familiarity with Gödel's incompleteness theorems and their implications for mathematical logic.
  • Knowledge of Turing machines and their role in defining computability.
  • Basic comprehension of set theory, particularly Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC).
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems on computability and mathematical logic.
  • Explore the concept of Busy Beaver numbers in greater detail, particularly the methods used to compute them.
  • Investigate the relationship between Turing machines and Busy Beaver numbers, focusing on their computational limits.
  • Examine recent advancements in the study of Busy Beaver numbers, including any new findings related to the 7918th number and beyond.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for mathematicians, computer scientists, and logicians interested in the boundaries of computability, as well as anyone studying the implications of theoretical computer science on mathematical foundations.

  • #31
stevendaryl said:
I don't know why you keep saying it. ... If you reject set theory and logic, then I don't see the point in your posting in this forum.
There is nothing to add.

As long as there is no common base, which has to be first-order logic unless stated otherwise, I can prove that a discussion is meaningless. Repeating false statements doesn't add facts. Furthermore a distinction like
johnkclark said:
But I tend to think truth is more important than proof.
doesn't make sense in mathematics, because mathematics doesn't search truth, only logical consistent conclusions, which we call proofs, and is philosophically highly undetermined here. For those interested in truth, I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth and the links therein - some of which led to other logical systems like constructivism.

Thread remains closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
69K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K