Skip to main content
moved question from title to text
Source Link
YCor
  • 63.9k
  • 5
  • 187
  • 286

Do all non-computable functions grow faster than computable functions?

In Does the Busy Beaver function grow faster than the Tree function?Does the Busy Beaver function grow faster than the Tree function?, the informal proof hinges on non-computable functions such as Busy Beaver growing faster than computable ones such as TREE. Is this necessarily given? For example, a trivially non-computable function which grows slower than TREE would be the sum of reciprocals of Busy Beaver: $$\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{BB(n)}$$

In Does the Busy Beaver function grow faster than the Tree function?, the informal proof hinges on non-computable functions such as Busy Beaver growing faster than computable ones such as TREE. Is this necessarily given? For example, a trivially non-computable function which grows slower than TREE would be the sum of reciprocals of Busy Beaver: $$\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{BB(n)}$$

Do all non-computable functions grow faster than computable functions?

In Does the Busy Beaver function grow faster than the Tree function?, the informal proof hinges on non-computable functions such as Busy Beaver growing faster than computable ones such as TREE. Is this necessarily given? For example, a trivially non-computable function which grows slower than TREE would be the sum of reciprocals of Busy Beaver: $$\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{BB(n)}$$

Source Link
l0b0
  • 109
  • 4

Do all non-computable functions grow faster than computable functions?

In Does the Busy Beaver function grow faster than the Tree function?, the informal proof hinges on non-computable functions such as Busy Beaver growing faster than computable ones such as TREE. Is this necessarily given? For example, a trivially non-computable function which grows slower than TREE would be the sum of reciprocals of Busy Beaver: $$\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{BB(n)}$$