Set $BB(k,n)$ to be the same definition as the Busy Beaver but where one is looking at all $n$-state machines, and the transition graph has at most $k$ "write 1" instructions. This may be a natural thing to look at because Nick Drozd has conjectured that roughly in general Busy Beaver machines should have more "write 1" instructions than "write 0." I initially conjectured that for any $k$, there will be a computable function $f_k(n)$ such that for all $n$, $BB(k,n) \le f_k(n)$. This is in fact true for $k=1$. And if this is true, it is barely true, since $BB(2n,n)=BB(n)$ so the $f_k(n)$ would need to have their values be very fast growing. Note also that the order of the quantifiers is important: $f_k(n)$ is a function which is chosen, after $k$. However, in this thread on Scott Aaronson's blog, Ben pointed out the following.
Theorem: Given an axiom system that formalizes arithmetic, there is a finite $K$ such that if it can prove a computable upper bound to $BB(k, n)$ for any $k > K$, then it is inconsistent.
This doesn't disprove the existence of computable $f_k(n)$, but it does seem to make them unlikely. So based on this my question is:
- For which $k$ are there computable $f_k(n)$?
Right now, it is plausible that even for $k=3$ there is no computable $f_k(n)$ of this sort.