Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:32:06 UTC No. 16462553

>>16462461
>a Turing machine that runs as long as possible without being infinite.
What's that mean?
Talk to chatgpt for 1000 years and then pull the plug to make it finite?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:06:09 UTC No. 16462663

>>16462461
What about attepting to crack 4MB RSA key?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:25:50 UTC No. 16462701

>>16462461
I have never heard this, but it also seems that we are missing some information here: for any turing machine we can create another one that does something once, undoes it, then proceeds to work as the previous one. so there cannot be a turing machine with the spec you just provided.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:36:20 UTC No. 16462718

>>16462461
Jesus, even worse than LHC project.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:31:01 UTC No. 16463887

Oh wait ok, so the goal of this is max intelligence with max efficiency.

Chat gpt requires a lot of energy and material to do its thing: is being distributed to x amount of users a major part of that, or is the learning, being asked, computing aperatus the major part?

Any way, OP this goal is, to make a very intelligent useful AI that doesn't require a lot of material and energy?

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:43:19 UTC No. 16464005

>>16463887
Goal is to find the least efficient computer programs possible that aren't infinite.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 20:05:14 UTC No. 16464020

>>16462663
trivial with the help of quantum computing

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 04:03:23 UTC No. 16464405

>>16462461
I remember the news about this. Laughed my ass off about the Coq abomination they used for BB(5). Anyways not real math.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 04:11:06 UTC No. 16464409

>>16464405
BB(643) will prove ZFC inconsistent ;)

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 05:18:48 UTC No. 16464450

>>16464005
there's no such thing as 'the' least efficient program, no program is immune to the addition of further useless steps. what is the missing info about this silly challenge? it better not turn out that OP did not understand the importance of some criterion and consequently did not mention it here.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:59:03 UTC No. 16464870

>>16464450
I don't understand it

"In theoretical computer science, the busy beaver game aims at finding a terminating program of a given size that (depending on definition) either produces the most output possible, or runs for the longest number of steps.[2] Since an endlessly looping program producing infinite output or running for infinite time is easily conceived, such programs are excluded from the game.[2] Rather than traditional programming languages, the programs used in the game are n-state Turing machines,[2] one of the first mathematical models of computation.[3]

Turing machines consist of an infinite tape, and a finite set of states which serve as the program's "source code". Producing the most output is defined as writing the largest number of 1s on the tape, also referred to as achieving the highest score, and running for the longest time is defined as taking the longest number of steps to halt.[4] The n-state busy beaver game consists of finding the longest-running or highest-scoring Turing machine which has n states and eventually halts.[2] Such machines are assumed to start on a blank tape, and the tape is assumed to contain only zeros and ones (a binary Turing machine).[2] A player should conceive of a set of transitions between states aiming for the highest score or longest running time while making sure the machine will halt eventually."

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 13:03:43 UTC No. 16464876

>>16464870
>and a finite set of states which serve as the program's "source code".
So that is, writing software or code, that once you write it that's it there's no more input, and you can't write a repeating pattern, so you have to write instructions that don't repeat too much, but that produce out put in continually new ways, until the newness of output is complete?

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 20:30:14 UTC No. 16465328

>>16464876
>>16464870
>>16464450
>>16464005
>>16463887
>>16462701
>>16462553
Learn what a Turing machine is. Holy shit.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 20:37:47 UTC No. 16465334

Short summary of replies to this thread so far:
>>16462553
>>16462718
>>16463887
>>16464450
>>16464870
>>16464876
Actual retards.

>>16462663
>>16462701
>>16464405
Confused idiots who couldn't even read a Wikipedia article or watch a Numberphile video.

Anyways, for those who aren't mentally deficient I'd recommend Scott Aaronson's article on the topic. It doesn't include the latest developments, but I'm not sure there has been anything substantial besides the BB(5) proof.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 01:52:28 UTC No. 16465588

>>16462553
Brightest /sci/ user

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 08:12:56 UTC No. 16465854

>>16465328
so, why is there a program that can win the challenge without someone adding an useless step to it and winning the challenge even harder?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:46:30 UTC No. 16466086

>>16465854
anyone? self-aggrandizing retards like >>16465334 or >>16465328?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 16:18:01 UTC No. 16466132

>>16465854
>>16466086
Learn what a Turing machine is, retard. JavaScript is not a Turing machine. Mayonnaise isn't a Turing machine either. Start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 20:06:45 UTC No. 16466347

>>16466132
How was that anon incorrect insuggesting, take the exact winning machine, make the same exact machine with just 1 extra step, and would it not be the new winner?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:00:24 UTC No. 16466418

>>16462461
Just pull one of these with the tape reel
Done
>but that’s le infinite
It’ll break eventually

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:33:26 UTC No. 16466454

>>16466347
nah, he wins the busy beaver challenge. he'll keep parroting "you don't know what a turing machine even is" until we give up. it won't take an infinite time but it will stretch as long as possible.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 22:09:25 UTC No. 16466514

>>16466347
Because that's not how a Turing machine works. It's not a program that you can add "and then print 1" to the end of. Jesus Christ, just read the wikipedia pages.

>>16466454
Explain to me in your own words what a Turing machine is.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 22:41:22 UTC No. 16466536

>>16462461
>I imagine most of you have heard of the busy beaver game.
This is a blue board, OP.

>>16464409
>BB(643) will prove ZFC inconsistent
The record for busiest beaver is already BB(919) in 22 hours.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Sparxxx

>>16465334
>t. incel

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 22:50:57 UTC No. 16466549

>>16466514
>Explain to me in your own words what a Turing machine is.
Obviously a machine that alan turning personally developed. there aren't many left considering he died 70 years ago

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 23:15:02 UTC No. 16466565

>>16466514
Okay is the spirit of the game, the cleverness of originality in which you can come up with a unique language of many symbols that interact with one another in many ways?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 05:21:52 UTC No. 16466831

>>16466565
That's closer. The symbols aren't a language and they aren't unique. The symbols and the state of the machine determine the behavior of the machine. The formal definition section of the wikipedia page on Turing machines uses a busy beaver as an example.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 07:38:20 UTC No. 16466899

>>16462461
Why is /sci/ acting as if they never heard about the busy beaver challenge neither understand basic concepts in it such as infinite tape Turing machines? Turning demographic? Dementing userbase? Bot invasion?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 08:17:27 UTC No. 16466922

>ferociously researched
This is such a degenerate discipline, what could possibly come out of such "research"? It would be okay if this was some dude's hobby, but this is what we do with the supposedly top brains.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 08:26:29 UTC No. 16466928

>>16466899
This place has been overrun by conspiracytards for a while. Plus American academia in general has turned so brown lately that this board is still probably a good representation of the level of discussion there.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 08:52:20 UTC No. 16466943

>>16466899
50/50 people baiting and genuine retards who wandered in here from other boards. Maybe a few bots but I doubt it

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 15:33:59 UTC No. 16467239

>>16466514
>Because that's not how a Turing machine works. It's not a program that you can add "and then print 1" to the end of. Jesus Christ, just read the wikipedia pages.
of course you can. I mean I can, you just have no idea. you have a turing machine that does something. add a new symbol, make it the start symbol, add actions that replace it with the former start symbol on the tape.
of course you'll continue grandstanding because you are just a troll still bitter about being untalented and thinking you are taking your revenge on your better by annoying them. consider suicide.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:09:49 UTC No. 16467812

>>16466831
>>16466928
This.

>>16466943
You are way too optimistic.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:10:50 UTC No. 16467813

>>16467239
You are a retard. Go ahead and make a 3 state busy beaver that outperforms the current best 3 state busy beaver. I'll wait.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:11:51 UTC No. 16467815

>>16466922
Read the wikipedia page, retard.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:31:47 UTC No. 16467832

>>16467815
NTA but wikipedia now has an iron dome of retarded managerial bots surrounding it, to the point that you can't even correct one digit of a 3 digit number on the most esoteric combinatorics articles—or even a single misspelled letter of the name of a fictional TV character that is spelled correctly in every other related article—without the edit being reverted. Wikipedia is trash and fuck you for citing it

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:35:24 UTC No. 16467835

>>16467832
Retard take

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:36:07 UTC No. 16467836

>>16467835
Retard take

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:41:44 UTC No. 16467846

>>16467836
Tell me what in that page is wrong and then post your alternative source. You can't because you're a retard.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 01:47:15 UTC No. 16467853

>>16467846
Retard, it's not a criticism of whatever specific article you posted, it's a criticism of wikipedia's general insularity and the autofellatory napoleon complex fascists who were so worried about political dissent (which I couldn't give af less about) that they ruined the entire point of the website, which was crowd sourcing. Fuck you.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 02:05:51 UTC No. 16467871

>>16467853
>Not science or math related
Leave, retard.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:15:21 UTC No. 16467917

>>16467871
Retard, not being able to crowdsource a single erroneous digit in a math article is literally math related. What are you even doing here in the first place?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:52:35 UTC No. 16467939

>>16467917
What "erroneous digit"? You're making shit up because you have a political bias against wikipedia. Fuck off to your containment board.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 04:28:15 UTC No. 16467967

>>16467939
Retard, the last edit I will ever help wikipedia with was simply correcting 223 to 225 in the van der waerden number article. Never again will I help that garbage bowl of fascist stupidity. So, no, you fuck back to your containment board, you fucking idiot.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 04:51:07 UTC No. 16467983

>>16467967
What relevance does that have to Turing machines or busy beavers, you fucking moron? Go back to your containment board.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 04:53:15 UTC No. 16467985

>>16467983
Go back to your containment board, you stupid shit.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 06:21:25 UTC No. 16468042

>>16467985
>/pol/cel is mad
Never expected that one.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 08:01:53 UTC No. 16468078

>>16467815
I have, retard, it's pointless trash, just like that thing where they made a really shitty PRNG (the Collatz conjecture) and they wonder how to prove that its sequence never ends.

It's actually typical and it works like this: they find an "interesting" problem that is difficult to prove conclusively, and that's it, that's the entire criteria, they'll waste time on literally any such problem like this and act like they're advancing research and when you tell them that their bullshit has no application they tell you "maybe one day it will, you don't know that". They're pointless wankers, the lot of them, and anyone who fails to see what a waste of time this all is is a midwit.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 12:51:58 UTC No. 16468234

>>16468078
Then you didn't read all of it or you missed the point entirely.

>Deciding the running time or score of the nth Busy Beaver is incomputable.[4] In fact, both the functions Σ(n) and S(n) eventually become larger than any computable function.[4] This has implications in computability theory, the halting problem, and complexity theory.[6] The concept was first introduced by Tibor Radó in his 1962 paper, "On Non-Computable Functions".[4]

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 14:33:26 UTC No. 16468299

>>16466899
kek, one look at the catalogue should've told you how much /sci/ knows about Science & Math.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:00:34 UTC No. 16468359

>>16467813
look, idiot, you said
>It's the aim[sic] of creating a Turing machine that runs as long as possible without being infinite.
to which I replied:
>it better not turn out that OP did not understand the importance of some criterion and consequently did not mention it here.
here >>16464450
now you come up with this 'three states' thing. turns out you indeed did not understand an important detail, although I am sure you do not understand anything about turing machines.
get lost.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:26:50 UTC No. 16468384

>>16468042
This is the science board, you stupipd piece of shit. You go back to /pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 16:42:45 UTC No. 16468395

>>16468234
NTA but I think what he's saying is that "computability theory, the halting problem, and complexity theory" are essentially philosophical mind games that add no value to the world.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 18:32:34 UTC No. 16468493

>>16468359
>Retard doesn't understand what a Turing machine is

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 18:33:35 UTC No. 16468494

>>16468384
You have to go back.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 18:35:21 UTC No. 16468497

>>16468494
Where the hell did you come from anyway?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 18:37:10 UTC No. 16468499

>>16468497
Go back to /pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 18:47:53 UTC No. 16468513

>>16468499
Go back to /pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 20:49:56 UTC No. 16468711

>>16468395
Thanks for retardsplaining.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:07:26 UTC No. 16468718

>>16468711
Why are you still posting here?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:11:08 UTC No. 16468796

>>16468718
>>16468513
You have to go back.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:15:03 UTC No. 16468799

>>16468796
Please just leave, you aren't a math or science poster.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:16:21 UTC No. 16468869

>>16462461
God damn, so the state cannot fund gender reassignment surgery for illegal immigrant prisoners but the busy beaver machine gets a fucking grant?
Its so over

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:17:26 UTC No. 16468871

>>16468869
>>16468796
You should be happier talking with each other somewhere else.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:18:43 UTC No. 16468873

>>16468078
This. /thread

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:21:21 UTC No. 16468875

>>16468871
Eat shit and fuck off to your "i have read it" echo chamber and whine about your trans rights being taken away if you cant handle a different opinion than the one
>IFL Science
Gave to you, you sub 70 iq retard

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:25:06 UTC No. 16468878

>>16462553
Can chatgpt solve any busybeaver?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:26:21 UTC No. 16468880

>>16468873
This isn't a math thread, it's a wikipedia shill thread. Notice that no interesting ideas or discussions have been proposed, only a child level statement about a child level mathematical object, followed by repeated links to wikipedia. The asshole who posted this thread should either say something novel about the subject, or kill themselves.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:26:34 UTC No. 16468881

>>16468869
>>16468799
Back to /pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:27:28 UTC No. 16468883

>>16468875
>>16468796
Boom

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:27:36 UTC No. 16468884

>>16468880
Take your meds.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:28:29 UTC No. 16468885

>>16468881
Why are you still posting in a math thread despite having never said anything interesting about math?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:29:30 UTC No. 16468890

>>16468884
Go back to /pol/

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:37:43 UTC No. 16468898

>>16468885
>>16468890
Why don't you understand what a Turing machine or a busy beaver is? Why is it other people's job to educate you? What could you possibly contribute to this thread except your ignorance? Why don't you fuck off and go back to /pol/ until you're willing to learn instead of shitting up threads on /sci/? Leave.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:40:30 UTC No. 16468901

>>16468869
What the fuck does any of that have to do with the Busy Beaver?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:46:29 UTC No. 16468910

>>16468898
Say something interesting or novel about BB that isn't cribbed from wikipedia or go back to wherever you came from. Simple as. You have added absolutely nothing of mathematical or scientific value to anyone dumb enough to read this thread.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:48:52 UTC No. 16468915

>>16468901
It doesn't but neither does anything you've posted so far, you fucking idiot

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 23:54:58 UTC No. 16468925

>>16468910
Tell me what you think a Turing machine is. I bet you're the moron that doesn't even understand that Turing machines have states.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:00:11 UTC No. 16468930

>>16468925
What causes the winning machine to finally stop, and why could they not add another arbitrary rule to prevent it from stopping where it did?

I read the wiki and tried to understand it, just layman terms:

The above can't be done because____________
There are a finite number of boxes, symbols, instructions, and once you get to the last instruction, you can't possibly have it repeat a combination?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:02:24 UTC No. 16468932

>>16468930
You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea how a Turing machine works. Leave or educate yourself.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:03:04 UTC No. 16468934

>>16468930
Don't answer a direct question to me without saying you're NTA, you stupid shit headed fuck

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:04:05 UTC No. 16468937

>>16468925
Fuck you, too. Don't post a wikipedia shill thread.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:05:35 UTC No. 16468941

>>16468932
Say something interesting about BB or kill yourself. Can I be any clearer?

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:07:08 UTC No. 16468945

>>16468881
Wasted digits on a retard.
Make a point or jerk off the man next to you on räddit

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:08:16 UTC No. 16468947

>>16468937
>>16468941
>>16468945
>Still doesn't understand what a Turing machine is
You should be ashamed that you think your ignorance is as good as knowledge. Fuck off.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:12:07 UTC No. 16468950

>>16468947
Why are you posting here if you have nothing interesting to say about the topic? You're a fucking moron.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:13:16 UTC No. 16468952

>>16468901
It does if you try and see the nuance.
>Willy-chop-off surgery for fence hopper rapists
First and foremost entirely useless
>generate an infinite amount of nonsense but its technically not infinite because we stopped at a point (infinite is not a real number or mark to hit)
Equally fucking useless

Its a (((reddit))) type of """"problem"""
Hence why people like picrel get so excited about it.

Try looking at the bigger picture for once in a while and youll be surprised how mjch sense everything makes.
Also, go to /pol/

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:16:08 UTC No. 16468955

>>16468950
Why are you posting here if you don't understand anything about the topic at all? Tell me what you think a Turing machine is and when you can't do it then fuck off.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:17:00 UTC No. 16468957

>>16468947
Dude. These are the quality of posters you attract to your retarded wikipedia thread
16468952
16468875

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:17:08 UTC No. 16468958

>>16468952
Take your meds.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:18:06 UTC No. 16468959

>>16468955
Tell me something I don't know about BB or Turing machines and I'll apologize. If you can't, fuck off back to pol

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:18:13 UTC No. 16468960

>>16468957
Tell me what you think a Turing machine is. When you can't do it fuck off.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:19:17 UTC No. 16468961

>>16468959
You don't know anything about Turing machines or busy beavers. That's why I keep telling you to fuck off. You're unwilling to do the bare minimum for participating in a conversation. Go back to /pol/ you fucking tourist.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:19:53 UTC No. 16468963

>>16468960
Tell me something I don't know about Turing machines; when you can't, fuck off

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:20:54 UTC No. 16468965

>>16468961
Go fuck yourself. You have added nothing of value to this thread and probably to this board. You're a fucking idiot.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:26:15 UTC No. 16468980

>>16468947
Ok go ahead and explain what a ruring machine is then and why the world needs it.
If you do understand you can make xour point fairly easily.
Go ahead, im ready to change my mind

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:27:24 UTC No. 16468983

>>16468963
Alright. Turing machines have states. I know you didn't know that because you don't know shit about shit. Now fuck off.

>>16468965
Stop talking to yourself and go back to /pol/.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:28:25 UTC No. 16468985

>>16468980
This is some next level retardation. Do you even understand that Turing machines laid the framework for the device you're posting on? Fuck off back to /pol/.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:29:20 UTC No. 16468987

>>16468983
You're a drooling imbecile. Why would you start a thread about BB when the only thing you know is that Turing machines have states? You're a fucking moron lol

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:30:30 UTC No. 16468991

>>16468958
>t cat ladies wife sitting on the cuck chair during kinky threesome
Lmao even

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:31:12 UTC No. 16468993

>>16468987
I didn't start this thread and I'm pretty sure that you're the same retard who doesn't understand that Turing machines have states. Why don't you explain what you think a Turing machine is? Is it because you can't do it?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:31:31 UTC No. 16468994

>>16468991
NTA but cats are the dominant species

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:31:48 UTC No. 16468995

>>16468959
Tell me what the trump machine is go back to /lgbtqmapiss+/

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:32:12 UTC No. 16468999

>>16468991
You have to go back.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:33:23 UTC No. 16469002

>>16468993
>I'm not a retard
>maybe you're a retard
No, just write something interesting about BB that isn't cribbed from wikipedia and I'll apologize and move on. But you can't, can you, because you're a fucking idiot who should go back to pol or wherever you came from

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:33:37 UTC No. 16469003

>>16468985
Lmao i think youre confusing that english faggot with konrad zuse the father of the computer

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:34:28 UTC No. 16469004

>>16468993
This is the quality of posts your thread attracts lol
16468995

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:43:36 UTC No. 16469012

>>16469002
>>16469004
Tell me what you think a Turing machine is. You can't do it because you're /pol/ tourists. Fuck off.

>>16469003
>He doesn't know that CPUs are based off of Turing machines

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:45:11 UTC No. 16469015

>>16469012
Tell me something I don't know about a Turing machine, or fuck off back to pol where you obviously came from. Simple as.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:45:13 UTC No. 16469016

>>16468999
Ok but what if i dont fergert?
Why does the world need this bullshit?

You realize the catholic monks did not found all of the universities and collect, translate and copy all of the books to research this kind of shit but to fprogress humanity.
Its onlynow that jews give out the resear h grants that pointless retarded stuff weapons of mass destruction and novel genders are legit fields of science.

Maybe you should just join a monastery and do something worthwhile with you life

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:01:31 UTC No. 16469043

>>16469015
>>16469016
You don't know anything about Turing machines. Why do you feel entitled to participate in this thread? Fuck off back to /pol/.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:11:35 UTC No. 16469057

>>16469043
Neither do you faggot or youd fucking throw it in my face, youre just a little /lgbtqmapiss+/ femboy, i urge you to go to /pol/ too the things you will learn there are extremely important.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:24:24 UTC No. 16469075

It appears 2 busy beaver turing machines are having a back and forth dispute, let's hope it's not infinite

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:34:02 UTC No. 16469082

"If a Busy Beaver machine has 3 states (let’s label them A, B, and C), it would use these states to decide what to write, how to move, and when to transition between states. Here’s a simplified example of a 3-state Turing machine that maximizes its output of 1s before halting:

State A:

If the current cell is 0, write 1, move right, and go to State B.
If the current cell is 1, write 1, move left, and go to State C.
State B:

If the current cell is 0, write 1, move right, and go to State C.
If the current cell is 1, write 1, move right, and stay in State B.
State C:

If the current cell is 0, write 1, move left, and go to State A.
If the current cell is 1, write 1, stay in place, and halt.
In this setup:

Starting from an all-0 tape, the machine would write several 1s on the tape, following each rule based on its current state and cell contents.
Eventually, it reaches a point where State C instructs it to halt.
This configuration maximizes the number of 1s on the tape before halting, given only 3 states to work with.
Each addition of a state (going from 3 states to 4, etc.) allows for exponentially more complex and longer-running outputs before halting."

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:35:25 UTC No. 16469085

OK so it does seem to be a logic problem and rules problem, but yeah once you allow for more states, the combinations just explode like factorial and exponential stuff

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:39:30 UTC No. 16469089

"The best-known 3-state Busy Beaver solution, which maximizes the number of 1s on the tape before halting, works as follows:

States and Rules
State A:

If the current cell is 0, write 1, move right, and go to State B.
If the current cell is 1, write 1, move left, and go to State C.
State B:

If the current cell is 0, write 1, move right, and go to State C.
If the current cell is 1, write 1, move right, and stay in State B.
State C:

If the current cell is 0, write 1, move left, and go to State A.
If the current cell is 1, write 1, stay in place, and halt.
Operation
Starting from an all-0 tape:

The machine goes through these instructions, switching states and writing 1s based on the current cell contents.
This configuration allows it to produce the most 1s possible (specifically, 6 1s) on the tape before it halts.
This solution highlights the exponential growth in complexity as states increase—each additional state enables much more complex behaviors and longer output sequences before halting." -chatdaddy

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:48:31 UTC No. 16469095

Pre-planning the State Transitions:
As you correctly pointed out, the key to maximizing output is anticipating where the machine will go and what it will encounter. The coder (or designer of the Turing machine) has to plan for future states that depend on the changes made earlier in the process. For instance:

The machine might leave a trail of 1s that will affect later states.
When the machine moves to cell 84828383, it has to have "learned" how to handle that cell based on previous steps, maybe moving to another cell (like cell 7327) to modify the tape in just the right way, ensuring that the machine doesn't halt prematurely and continues to generate more 1s.
Navigating Complex Cell Interactions:
The Turing machine is navigating a space that is continually evolving as it writes on the tape. It's a bit like a "breadcrumb trail" where each action affects future behavior. The complexity comes from designing a set of transitions that take into account the entire tape, considering where each 0 and 1 will be located at any given time, and planning future moves based on that evolving state.

To sum up, it's not just about writing a 1 wherever there's a 0—it’s about carefully coordinating the machine's movements and state transitions across the tape to maximize the output. The coder's job is to anticipate how each step will affect future steps and ensure that the machine doesn’t stop prematurely or fall into repetitive behavior. This is what makes the Busy Beaver problem such a fascinating challenge in computational theory.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 01:58:18 UTC No. 16469103

>>16469057
Educate yourself or leave.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:12:46 UTC No. 16469113

>>16469057
Fuck off and die. You're not here for science, you're here for your autistic little culture war.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:18:24 UTC No. 16469117

>>16469016
>muh monastery
>>>/his/

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:30:32 UTC No. 16469129

>>16469043
Your thread is you, a retard, shilling wikipedia.
You've offered no math or science and I hope you die in your sleep tonight; in fact I will pray for your death, personally, unless you can post a single interesting or novel fact about BB. Cards are in your hands.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:46:26 UTC No. 16469138

>>16469129
You have to go back. >>>/pol/

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 02:49:10 UTC No. 16469141

>>16469138
Please go back

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:28:23 UTC No. 16469324

>>16462461
Thanks for your stupid post that says nothing about anything

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:31:08 UTC No. 16469327

>>16462461
Interested in what?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:32:39 UTC No. 16469330

so OP
+ picked from wikipedia a topic he has no clue about
+ fails to answer questions related to important details he did not include (in our case: that the turing machine in question has to have a predefined number of states, apparently 3)
+ accuses everyone with childish taunts like 'I bet you don't even know turing machines are named after alan turing'
is that the sum total of this thread? and why is there no classification for this king of faggotry in the report form, but there is a threat in case you misclassify posts/threads?

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:38:55 UTC No. 16469333

>>16469330
You could report it as "extremely low quality" but in this case I think it's better to keep asking if OP has anything interesting to contribute about his own topic.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:10:19 UTC No. 16469354

Hellooo .....
Was there a point to this thread or is OP just a fucking moron who should die a very painful death

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 07:11:47 UTC No. 16469355

>>16469330
>question has to have a predefined number of states, apparently 3)
The thing is that each successive game Is one increase in the available states (number of programmable rules), so bb5, bb6, bb7
The more states, rules, options the programmer has, the more successive continous result outputs can be made, so the number of 1's that can be typed (which is the goal, using 4 states/instructions how many 1's can be written. And so getting up to bb7 they are trying to see how many 1's a simple computer can be programmed to produce on its own after only writing 7 rules it must follow, 7 rules and it's on its own to read and write, to write the most before the combinatorial limits of 7 rules + 0 or 1 options, + left or right dimensionality direction runs out

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 11:45:57 UTC No. 16469496

>>16469103
No u

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:02:25 UTC No. 16469700

>>16469141
>>16469330
>>16469333
>>16469354
Leave, tourists.
>>>/pol/

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:34:37 UTC No. 16469715

>>16469700
Do you have anything interesting to say about Turing machines and BB? Or did you just come here to talk about politics and wikipedia, neither of whcih are on topic.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:48:01 UTC No. 16469725

>>16466536
>They have one child who graduated from college[3]
Grim

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:58:09 UTC No. 16469730

>>16467967
Kek, looks like you and some other autist had a brief revision battle there. I'm confused, why was it so contentious? Shouldn't is be relatively straightforward to look at the source material to determine whether it was 223 or 225?

Also you are not wrong about wikipedia being shit. It's overrun by the worst of all moderators which is really saying something. But no alternatives exist. Best usage is to only use wikipedia to discover more references to topics as most search engines suck now. LLMs also serve similar purpose

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:04:04 UTC No. 16469739

>>16468078
>They're pointless wankers, the lot of them, and anyone who fails to see what a waste of time this all is is a midwit
Who cares? Most humans waste their time on far more pointless endeavors. There's no real objective criteria anyways at the end of the day. Some people are going to spend their free time playing sports, some watching sports, some people will spend their time twerking, others will spend it watching twerk compilation videos. Some will goon all day, some will try mastering their woodworking skills, some will try advancing frontier fields of mathematics, others will work on the little weird problems like collatz or BB, or participate in the big num bakeoff. Its all relatively harmless and its a weird thing to be upset over. I much prefer Paul who spends time on busy beavers over Todd the gangbanger who robs and kills people, or John the tik tok prankster who harasses people in public for his ebin content.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:07:18 UTC No. 16469745

>>16469730
>Shouldn't is be relatively straightforward to look at the source material to determine whether it was 223 or 225?
Yes, that's why wikipedia is so shitty now. It used to be a democracy of anonymous contributors; now it's a social credit system defended by bots. Honestly tragic.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:07:47 UTC No. 16469746

>>16468930
There's limited number of states and symbols. Once it halts, the machine stops. As an anon said several days ago now, it is not a programming language. Its a turing machine. You can't just arbitrarily say "okay it does all that then adds +1. You'd need to encode that, which you are limited in

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:22:15 UTC No. 16469767

>>16469715
This is pure projection. You need to go back.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:23:15 UTC No. 16469768

>>16469730
>>16469745
>>>/pol/

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 17:38:39 UTC No. 16469782

>>16469767
>>16469768
All you've contributed here are links to /pol/ and wikipedia lol. You're an imbecile and I hope you get a 3 day ban.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:45:57 UTC No. 16469878

>>16469782
That's ironic, tourist. You haven't contributed anything at all except your ignorance. Go back >>>/pol/

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 02:12:24 UTC No. 16470296

>>16462461
The truth is this "challenge" is just something for amateur Computer Scientists to jerk themselves off to.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 02:24:58 UTC No. 16470312

>>16470296
Do you also hate lepidopterists with the same passion?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:50:57 UTC No. 16470969

>>16469782
Incorrect. Now tell me what you've learned this thread. I and other anon's have posted details and descriptions of Turing machines and busy beavers so you have no excuse not to have learned anything. Your politically motivated distrust of wikipedia and your clear inability to work a search engine are not valid excuses. What have you learned, tourist? My money is on "nothing at all".

Do you know where the people who don't know shit and refuse to learn are supposed to post? >>>/pol/

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:54:01 UTC No. 16471136

>>16470969
I've learned nothing so far. Now will you ever say anything interesting about BB? Or will you keep spamming links to pol and wikipedia while role playing as a schizo who thinks van der waerden numbers have a secret political motivation? My money is on the latter.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:59:44 UTC No. 16471143

>>16471136
>I've learned nothing so far
Do you know where the people who don't know shit and refuse to learn are supposed to post? >>>/pol/

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:12:43 UTC No. 16471153

>>16471143
I'm waiting for you to learn me something, chief.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 19:45:24 UTC No. 16471170

>>16471153
Read the thread, retard, or read the links you've been provided, or learn how to operate a search engine. There's a reason we have a containment board for you "people" >>>/pol/

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 20:07:12 UTC No. 16471189

>>16471170
Other than the claim that BB(5) is now proven, which I didn't know, there's nothing in the thread a child wouldn't already know. Your contribution has been particularly vapid and pointless.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:57:31 UTC No. 16471300

>>16471189
>Hurr durr why can't you just add a line of code?
>Because it's a Turing machine
>Hurr durr every child knows that
You are a retard. Go back to your containment board >>>/pol/

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:19:59 UTC No. 16471317

>>16471300
Let me guess. Now you're roleplaying as a schizo who thinks all anons are the same poster gangstalking you lol

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:09:56 UTC No. 16471998

>>16471317
Let me guess. You still haven't learned a single thing. Guess where you belong >>>/pol/

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:19:49 UTC No. 16472106

>>16470312
No, but you're comparing an empirical science to a mathematical field. Nobody, and I really do mean nobody, in the field of mathematics likes these dumb "computer-aided" proofs.

Perhaps a real mathematician will come along and solve all these Collatz problems one day so we can watch these CS idiots get clowned on.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:38:06 UTC No. 16472128

>>16472106
Sure, SAT stuff is deeply unsatisfying proofwise, in terms of progress and esthetics, but it's also very empirical in terms of motivation, like camping out in a bush for two years in the hopes of filming a bird of paradise dance through a telescope.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:50:17 UTC No. 16472148

>>16466899
Most posts on the thread are bots, I don't know why they attached to this thread I suspect it's the inclusion of a link or the inclusion of word "cryptid"

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:02:21 UTC No. 16472172

>>16472128
The thing is mathematicians dont want to "camp out in the bushes". Mathematics is about building on each other's work, and stuff like a 20 thousand line Coq proof isnt useful or comprehensible to anybody.

Math justifies itself in part because of beauty, but also because if you generalize existing ideas you can apply existing math to more situations, so think the leap from basic probability to statistics.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 19:11:43 UTC No. 16472246

>>16472172
Classical and modern history both disagree with your presumption about the habits and interest of mathematicians. Euler, for example, compiled and published a list of what are now called Mersenne primes, out to the limits of factorization at the time, adding no theory and generalizing nothing. You could fill an encyclopedia with examples like this.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 22:23:36 UTC No. 16472468

>>16472148
Meds.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:56:39 UTC No. 16474525

>>16468898
>Why is it other people's job to educate you?
Because other people made the thread and presented it to me, so they should be able to explain themselves.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 01:38:11 UTC No. 16475523

>>16474525
I'm the anon the other retard was replying to. He's an idiot. If you're new, just type Sage where it says Options if you want to reply to a thread without putting it back to the top of the list.