6
$\begingroup$

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:

  1. 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.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ You could perhaps take a UTM that takes unary input of the form $0^n1$, and now you need just one additional write-1 instruction to make it simulate arbitrarily complicated TMs. $\endgroup$
    – Ville Salo
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 9:57

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Just some details for my comment. Your initial conjecture is false: for all but finitely many $k$, $\mathrm{BB}(k, n)$ is not dominated by any computable function.

Let $U$ be a universal Turing machine with $m$ states and $u$ write-$1$ instructions. Let $T$ be a Turing machine with $\ell$ states and $t$ write-$1$ instructions, such that on input $0^i 1$, $T$ writes the $i$th binary word $w$ on tape, walks to the beginning of the tape, and halts.

Now route the halting state of $T$ to the initial state of $U$. You get a Turing machine $T' = U \circ T$ with at most $\ell + m$ states and $t + u$ write-$1$ instructions, which we can use to simulate any other Turing machine by using suitable unary inputs.

So now if $f$ is a computable function, then there exists a word $w$ of length $s$ that codes (for the UTM $U$) a Turing machine that, given $n$ in binary, counts to $\sum_{i \leq 2^{2^n}} f(i)$ and then halts. With a string of about $2^{O(s n)}$ many zeroes followed by a $1$, we can then make $T'$ simulate the computation of $U$ on input $(w, n)$.

We can write down any word of the form $0^{2^{O(s n)}} 1$ with $2^{c s n}$ states for a constant $c$, just have a state for each $0$, and we need only a single write-$1$ instruction, so we get $\mathrm{BB}(1 + t + u, 2^{c n s} + \ell + m) > \max_{j \leq 2^{2^n}} f(j)$.

In particular $\mathrm{BB}(1 + t + u, 2^{c n s} + \ell + m) > f(2^{c n s} + \ell + m)$ for large $n$. Note that $1+t+u$ does not depend on the function $f$.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Side note: if instead of counting write-$1$ transitions in the machine's transition function (which I assumed was meant), we restrict to machines that are only allowed to write at most $k$ many $1$s during computations, then we do have a computable bound on computation time. $\endgroup$
    – Ville Salo
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ yes the point about k 1 during computations was made in the initial thread on Aaronson's blog. Also, worth noting that your construction can be used to give an explicit upper bound on which k this breaks down for, since one can construct Turing machines which give explicit t and u. $\endgroup$
    – JoshuaZ
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry one part I'm not clear on: When you write "with a single state you can double the amount of zeroes written"- how are you doing that? $\endgroup$
    – JoshuaZ
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 15:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah sorry I wasn't thinking straight, I had in mind that you "call" a state that walks to the right for $k$ steps, twice. That's of course not actually possible in the Turing machine model. This should not affect the number $1+t+u$. $\endgroup$
    – Ville Salo
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ I think your construction should still work but it may require a more careful thought about how to get it to write 00....01 . The real annoyance is that getting to write strings of that sort without increasing the total number of 1 state transitions may be tough, but I think one should still be able to get some fixed constant m+t+u that does something similar. Details may be tricky though. $\endgroup$
    – JoshuaZ
    Commented Sep 18, 2022 at 15:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .