Is the inverse busy beaver calculable?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Obviously "Largest $n$ that $BB(n)$ isn't larger than the input" is not calculable, otherwise while(iBB(i)<n)i++ solves the busy beaver;



However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfies", the proof above no longer works.



In this case is it solvable?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Obviously "Largest $n$ that $BB(n)$ isn't larger than the input" is not calculable, otherwise while(iBB(i)<n)i++ solves the busy beaver;



    However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfies", the proof above no longer works.



    In this case is it solvable?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Obviously "Largest $n$ that $BB(n)$ isn't larger than the input" is not calculable, otherwise while(iBB(i)<n)i++ solves the busy beaver;



      However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfies", the proof above no longer works.



      In this case is it solvable?










      share|cite|improve this question















      Obviously "Largest $n$ that $BB(n)$ isn't larger than the input" is not calculable, otherwise while(iBB(i)<n)i++ solves the busy beaver;



      However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfies", the proof above no longer works.



      In this case is it solvable?







      computability






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 20 at 11:33









      bof

      49.5k455117




      49.5k455117










      asked Nov 20 at 7:37









      l4m2

      1387




      1387






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfy"



          It should be easy to see that this function can't be a partial computable function. Well the simple way to see it is suppose that some program $P$ computed this given partial function. But now we can easily construct a program that computes a total computable function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ such that $f(x) ge BB(x)$ for all $x in mathbb{N}$.



          Here is how we compute $f$ on some given input $x$. If $x=0$, just return $BB(0)$ as output. If $x>0$, one can just simulate this program $P$ on all inputs (in a certain fixed manner). Now each time the program $P$ halts on some input, you record this input value. Let's denote this value as $t$. Now you just check the condition $t>f(x-1)$ every time. If this condition is true, then return the value $t$ as output. Otherwise just keep simulating the program $P$.





          So the above argument shows that there is no partial recursive function $g$ such that $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$ and $g$ is undefined on all other inputs (ones that are not of the form $BB(n)$). It seems that the intended question was whether there is some partial recursive function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ which "extends" $g$ in the sense that $f(x)=g(x)$ whenever $g(x)$ is defined. Don't confuse this function $f$ with the one in the first part of the answer (this is intended to be a different function).



          I think there should be such a function $f$. For example, we can define $f$ as follows: $(1)$ If there is no program (with blank/zero input of course) that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, then define $f(n)=uparrow$. $(2)$ Now Suppose there is a program that halts exactly on the $n$-th step. Now consider the program(s) of smallest length (it doesn't matter if there are two programs of smallest length) which halt on $n$-th step, and let's denote the length of such program(s) as $N$. We define $f(n)=N$.



          It seems that if we choose the specifics (such as definition of time and length of a program), then we can drop $(1)$ in above definition. For example, "normally" we assume that, for all $n$, there is always some program of length $n$ that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, on blank input. In that case, we will have $f$ as total and we will get $f(n) leq n$ (for all $n$).



          First, we can observe that the function $f$ extends $g$ because $f(x)=g(x)$ for all points where $g$ is defined. For example, consider the value $BB(n)$ (for an arbitrary $n$). Now, by definition, there is exists a program of length $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). Now under most reasonable definitions, I think, $BB$ should be a strictly increasing function. That means there is no program of length less than $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). If that was true then we would have $BB(m)=BB(n)$ for some $m<n$ (violating the strictly increasing condition). Hence the function $f$ extends $g$.



          Finally, here is a (very) rough sketch for the partial computable function $f$. We can proceed in iterations. In the $i$-th iteration we simulate all programs of length $leq i$ up unitl $i$ steps (on zero/blank input of course). Now consider any value $x leq i$. If there is some program of length $i$ or less that halts on the $x$-th step, then we can easily determine this. In fact, we can easily determine the value $f(x)$ based upon this. For example, generically, on $BB(n)$-th step we will simulate all programs of length $BB(n)$ or less exactly till $BB(n)$ number of steps. We will find that the smallest program that halts on this step is of length $n$ (and hence we will output $f(BB(n))=n$).






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I guess you assume it doesn't halt if no $n$ satisfy? (otherwise the proof don't make much sense)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 11:30










          • Yes, I assumed that you were trying to define a partial function $g:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ so that it returns $n$, when the input given to it is $BB(n)$. In symbols, $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. Otherwise, it is undefined (and hence the program $P$ computing it doesn't halt) on any other input. That's how I understood it. What I was describing in the answer was that the function $g$ can't be a partial computable function. If you were trying to define something else, then this answer might not apply.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 11:34












          • "Undefined behavior" can also return arbitrarily value (actually it's allowed to destroy the world, but it just have no ability to do so)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 12:11












          • I think what you are asking is that whether there is a partial computable function which "extends" the function $g$ mentioned above. I think the answer to this might be positive (unless I am making a mistake with sketch in my mind). I will update the answer later in that case.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 13:10











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006048%2fis-the-inverse-busy-beaver-calculable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfy"



          It should be easy to see that this function can't be a partial computable function. Well the simple way to see it is suppose that some program $P$ computed this given partial function. But now we can easily construct a program that computes a total computable function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ such that $f(x) ge BB(x)$ for all $x in mathbb{N}$.



          Here is how we compute $f$ on some given input $x$. If $x=0$, just return $BB(0)$ as output. If $x>0$, one can just simulate this program $P$ on all inputs (in a certain fixed manner). Now each time the program $P$ halts on some input, you record this input value. Let's denote this value as $t$. Now you just check the condition $t>f(x-1)$ every time. If this condition is true, then return the value $t$ as output. Otherwise just keep simulating the program $P$.





          So the above argument shows that there is no partial recursive function $g$ such that $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$ and $g$ is undefined on all other inputs (ones that are not of the form $BB(n)$). It seems that the intended question was whether there is some partial recursive function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ which "extends" $g$ in the sense that $f(x)=g(x)$ whenever $g(x)$ is defined. Don't confuse this function $f$ with the one in the first part of the answer (this is intended to be a different function).



          I think there should be such a function $f$. For example, we can define $f$ as follows: $(1)$ If there is no program (with blank/zero input of course) that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, then define $f(n)=uparrow$. $(2)$ Now Suppose there is a program that halts exactly on the $n$-th step. Now consider the program(s) of smallest length (it doesn't matter if there are two programs of smallest length) which halt on $n$-th step, and let's denote the length of such program(s) as $N$. We define $f(n)=N$.



          It seems that if we choose the specifics (such as definition of time and length of a program), then we can drop $(1)$ in above definition. For example, "normally" we assume that, for all $n$, there is always some program of length $n$ that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, on blank input. In that case, we will have $f$ as total and we will get $f(n) leq n$ (for all $n$).



          First, we can observe that the function $f$ extends $g$ because $f(x)=g(x)$ for all points where $g$ is defined. For example, consider the value $BB(n)$ (for an arbitrary $n$). Now, by definition, there is exists a program of length $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). Now under most reasonable definitions, I think, $BB$ should be a strictly increasing function. That means there is no program of length less than $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). If that was true then we would have $BB(m)=BB(n)$ for some $m<n$ (violating the strictly increasing condition). Hence the function $f$ extends $g$.



          Finally, here is a (very) rough sketch for the partial computable function $f$. We can proceed in iterations. In the $i$-th iteration we simulate all programs of length $leq i$ up unitl $i$ steps (on zero/blank input of course). Now consider any value $x leq i$. If there is some program of length $i$ or less that halts on the $x$-th step, then we can easily determine this. In fact, we can easily determine the value $f(x)$ based upon this. For example, generically, on $BB(n)$-th step we will simulate all programs of length $BB(n)$ or less exactly till $BB(n)$ number of steps. We will find that the smallest program that halts on this step is of length $n$ (and hence we will output $f(BB(n))=n$).






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I guess you assume it doesn't halt if no $n$ satisfy? (otherwise the proof don't make much sense)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 11:30










          • Yes, I assumed that you were trying to define a partial function $g:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ so that it returns $n$, when the input given to it is $BB(n)$. In symbols, $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. Otherwise, it is undefined (and hence the program $P$ computing it doesn't halt) on any other input. That's how I understood it. What I was describing in the answer was that the function $g$ can't be a partial computable function. If you were trying to define something else, then this answer might not apply.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 11:34












          • "Undefined behavior" can also return arbitrarily value (actually it's allowed to destroy the world, but it just have no ability to do so)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 12:11












          • I think what you are asking is that whether there is a partial computable function which "extends" the function $g$ mentioned above. I think the answer to this might be positive (unless I am making a mistake with sketch in my mind). I will update the answer later in that case.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 13:10















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfy"



          It should be easy to see that this function can't be a partial computable function. Well the simple way to see it is suppose that some program $P$ computed this given partial function. But now we can easily construct a program that computes a total computable function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ such that $f(x) ge BB(x)$ for all $x in mathbb{N}$.



          Here is how we compute $f$ on some given input $x$. If $x=0$, just return $BB(0)$ as output. If $x>0$, one can just simulate this program $P$ on all inputs (in a certain fixed manner). Now each time the program $P$ halts on some input, you record this input value. Let's denote this value as $t$. Now you just check the condition $t>f(x-1)$ every time. If this condition is true, then return the value $t$ as output. Otherwise just keep simulating the program $P$.





          So the above argument shows that there is no partial recursive function $g$ such that $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$ and $g$ is undefined on all other inputs (ones that are not of the form $BB(n)$). It seems that the intended question was whether there is some partial recursive function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ which "extends" $g$ in the sense that $f(x)=g(x)$ whenever $g(x)$ is defined. Don't confuse this function $f$ with the one in the first part of the answer (this is intended to be a different function).



          I think there should be such a function $f$. For example, we can define $f$ as follows: $(1)$ If there is no program (with blank/zero input of course) that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, then define $f(n)=uparrow$. $(2)$ Now Suppose there is a program that halts exactly on the $n$-th step. Now consider the program(s) of smallest length (it doesn't matter if there are two programs of smallest length) which halt on $n$-th step, and let's denote the length of such program(s) as $N$. We define $f(n)=N$.



          It seems that if we choose the specifics (such as definition of time and length of a program), then we can drop $(1)$ in above definition. For example, "normally" we assume that, for all $n$, there is always some program of length $n$ that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, on blank input. In that case, we will have $f$ as total and we will get $f(n) leq n$ (for all $n$).



          First, we can observe that the function $f$ extends $g$ because $f(x)=g(x)$ for all points where $g$ is defined. For example, consider the value $BB(n)$ (for an arbitrary $n$). Now, by definition, there is exists a program of length $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). Now under most reasonable definitions, I think, $BB$ should be a strictly increasing function. That means there is no program of length less than $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). If that was true then we would have $BB(m)=BB(n)$ for some $m<n$ (violating the strictly increasing condition). Hence the function $f$ extends $g$.



          Finally, here is a (very) rough sketch for the partial computable function $f$. We can proceed in iterations. In the $i$-th iteration we simulate all programs of length $leq i$ up unitl $i$ steps (on zero/blank input of course). Now consider any value $x leq i$. If there is some program of length $i$ or less that halts on the $x$-th step, then we can easily determine this. In fact, we can easily determine the value $f(x)$ based upon this. For example, generically, on $BB(n)$-th step we will simulate all programs of length $BB(n)$ or less exactly till $BB(n)$ number of steps. We will find that the smallest program that halts on this step is of length $n$ (and hence we will output $f(BB(n))=n$).






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I guess you assume it doesn't halt if no $n$ satisfy? (otherwise the proof don't make much sense)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 11:30










          • Yes, I assumed that you were trying to define a partial function $g:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ so that it returns $n$, when the input given to it is $BB(n)$. In symbols, $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. Otherwise, it is undefined (and hence the program $P$ computing it doesn't halt) on any other input. That's how I understood it. What I was describing in the answer was that the function $g$ can't be a partial computable function. If you were trying to define something else, then this answer might not apply.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 11:34












          • "Undefined behavior" can also return arbitrarily value (actually it's allowed to destroy the world, but it just have no ability to do so)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 12:11












          • I think what you are asking is that whether there is a partial computable function which "extends" the function $g$ mentioned above. I think the answer to this might be positive (unless I am making a mistake with sketch in my mind). I will update the answer later in that case.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 13:10













          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfy"



          It should be easy to see that this function can't be a partial computable function. Well the simple way to see it is suppose that some program $P$ computed this given partial function. But now we can easily construct a program that computes a total computable function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ such that $f(x) ge BB(x)$ for all $x in mathbb{N}$.



          Here is how we compute $f$ on some given input $x$. If $x=0$, just return $BB(0)$ as output. If $x>0$, one can just simulate this program $P$ on all inputs (in a certain fixed manner). Now each time the program $P$ halts on some input, you record this input value. Let's denote this value as $t$. Now you just check the condition $t>f(x-1)$ every time. If this condition is true, then return the value $t$ as output. Otherwise just keep simulating the program $P$.





          So the above argument shows that there is no partial recursive function $g$ such that $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$ and $g$ is undefined on all other inputs (ones that are not of the form $BB(n)$). It seems that the intended question was whether there is some partial recursive function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ which "extends" $g$ in the sense that $f(x)=g(x)$ whenever $g(x)$ is defined. Don't confuse this function $f$ with the one in the first part of the answer (this is intended to be a different function).



          I think there should be such a function $f$. For example, we can define $f$ as follows: $(1)$ If there is no program (with blank/zero input of course) that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, then define $f(n)=uparrow$. $(2)$ Now Suppose there is a program that halts exactly on the $n$-th step. Now consider the program(s) of smallest length (it doesn't matter if there are two programs of smallest length) which halt on $n$-th step, and let's denote the length of such program(s) as $N$. We define $f(n)=N$.



          It seems that if we choose the specifics (such as definition of time and length of a program), then we can drop $(1)$ in above definition. For example, "normally" we assume that, for all $n$, there is always some program of length $n$ that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, on blank input. In that case, we will have $f$ as total and we will get $f(n) leq n$ (for all $n$).



          First, we can observe that the function $f$ extends $g$ because $f(x)=g(x)$ for all points where $g$ is defined. For example, consider the value $BB(n)$ (for an arbitrary $n$). Now, by definition, there is exists a program of length $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). Now under most reasonable definitions, I think, $BB$ should be a strictly increasing function. That means there is no program of length less than $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). If that was true then we would have $BB(m)=BB(n)$ for some $m<n$ (violating the strictly increasing condition). Hence the function $f$ extends $g$.



          Finally, here is a (very) rough sketch for the partial computable function $f$. We can proceed in iterations. In the $i$-th iteration we simulate all programs of length $leq i$ up unitl $i$ steps (on zero/blank input of course). Now consider any value $x leq i$. If there is some program of length $i$ or less that halts on the $x$-th step, then we can easily determine this. In fact, we can easily determine the value $f(x)$ based upon this. For example, generically, on $BB(n)$-th step we will simulate all programs of length $BB(n)$ or less exactly till $BB(n)$ number of steps. We will find that the smallest program that halts on this step is of length $n$ (and hence we will output $f(BB(n))=n$).






          share|cite|improve this answer














          However, if we define inverse busy beaver as "$n$ that $BB(n)$ is the input; undefined behavior if no $n$ satisfy"



          It should be easy to see that this function can't be a partial computable function. Well the simple way to see it is suppose that some program $P$ computed this given partial function. But now we can easily construct a program that computes a total computable function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ such that $f(x) ge BB(x)$ for all $x in mathbb{N}$.



          Here is how we compute $f$ on some given input $x$. If $x=0$, just return $BB(0)$ as output. If $x>0$, one can just simulate this program $P$ on all inputs (in a certain fixed manner). Now each time the program $P$ halts on some input, you record this input value. Let's denote this value as $t$. Now you just check the condition $t>f(x-1)$ every time. If this condition is true, then return the value $t$ as output. Otherwise just keep simulating the program $P$.





          So the above argument shows that there is no partial recursive function $g$ such that $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$ and $g$ is undefined on all other inputs (ones that are not of the form $BB(n)$). It seems that the intended question was whether there is some partial recursive function $f:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ which "extends" $g$ in the sense that $f(x)=g(x)$ whenever $g(x)$ is defined. Don't confuse this function $f$ with the one in the first part of the answer (this is intended to be a different function).



          I think there should be such a function $f$. For example, we can define $f$ as follows: $(1)$ If there is no program (with blank/zero input of course) that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, then define $f(n)=uparrow$. $(2)$ Now Suppose there is a program that halts exactly on the $n$-th step. Now consider the program(s) of smallest length (it doesn't matter if there are two programs of smallest length) which halt on $n$-th step, and let's denote the length of such program(s) as $N$. We define $f(n)=N$.



          It seems that if we choose the specifics (such as definition of time and length of a program), then we can drop $(1)$ in above definition. For example, "normally" we assume that, for all $n$, there is always some program of length $n$ that halts exactly on the $n$-th step, on blank input. In that case, we will have $f$ as total and we will get $f(n) leq n$ (for all $n$).



          First, we can observe that the function $f$ extends $g$ because $f(x)=g(x)$ for all points where $g$ is defined. For example, consider the value $BB(n)$ (for an arbitrary $n$). Now, by definition, there is exists a program of length $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). Now under most reasonable definitions, I think, $BB$ should be a strictly increasing function. That means there is no program of length less than $n$ which halts exactly on this step (when given zero/blank input). If that was true then we would have $BB(m)=BB(n)$ for some $m<n$ (violating the strictly increasing condition). Hence the function $f$ extends $g$.



          Finally, here is a (very) rough sketch for the partial computable function $f$. We can proceed in iterations. In the $i$-th iteration we simulate all programs of length $leq i$ up unitl $i$ steps (on zero/blank input of course). Now consider any value $x leq i$. If there is some program of length $i$ or less that halts on the $x$-th step, then we can easily determine this. In fact, we can easily determine the value $f(x)$ based upon this. For example, generically, on $BB(n)$-th step we will simulate all programs of length $BB(n)$ or less exactly till $BB(n)$ number of steps. We will find that the smallest program that halts on this step is of length $n$ (and hence we will output $f(BB(n))=n$).







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Nov 20 at 14:41

























          answered Nov 20 at 10:17









          SSequence

          39028




          39028












          • I guess you assume it doesn't halt if no $n$ satisfy? (otherwise the proof don't make much sense)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 11:30










          • Yes, I assumed that you were trying to define a partial function $g:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ so that it returns $n$, when the input given to it is $BB(n)$. In symbols, $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. Otherwise, it is undefined (and hence the program $P$ computing it doesn't halt) on any other input. That's how I understood it. What I was describing in the answer was that the function $g$ can't be a partial computable function. If you were trying to define something else, then this answer might not apply.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 11:34












          • "Undefined behavior" can also return arbitrarily value (actually it's allowed to destroy the world, but it just have no ability to do so)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 12:11












          • I think what you are asking is that whether there is a partial computable function which "extends" the function $g$ mentioned above. I think the answer to this might be positive (unless I am making a mistake with sketch in my mind). I will update the answer later in that case.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 13:10


















          • I guess you assume it doesn't halt if no $n$ satisfy? (otherwise the proof don't make much sense)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 11:30










          • Yes, I assumed that you were trying to define a partial function $g:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ so that it returns $n$, when the input given to it is $BB(n)$. In symbols, $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. Otherwise, it is undefined (and hence the program $P$ computing it doesn't halt) on any other input. That's how I understood it. What I was describing in the answer was that the function $g$ can't be a partial computable function. If you were trying to define something else, then this answer might not apply.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 11:34












          • "Undefined behavior" can also return arbitrarily value (actually it's allowed to destroy the world, but it just have no ability to do so)
            – l4m2
            Nov 20 at 12:11












          • I think what you are asking is that whether there is a partial computable function which "extends" the function $g$ mentioned above. I think the answer to this might be positive (unless I am making a mistake with sketch in my mind). I will update the answer later in that case.
            – SSequence
            Nov 20 at 13:10
















          I guess you assume it doesn't halt if no $n$ satisfy? (otherwise the proof don't make much sense)
          – l4m2
          Nov 20 at 11:30




          I guess you assume it doesn't halt if no $n$ satisfy? (otherwise the proof don't make much sense)
          – l4m2
          Nov 20 at 11:30












          Yes, I assumed that you were trying to define a partial function $g:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ so that it returns $n$, when the input given to it is $BB(n)$. In symbols, $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. Otherwise, it is undefined (and hence the program $P$ computing it doesn't halt) on any other input. That's how I understood it. What I was describing in the answer was that the function $g$ can't be a partial computable function. If you were trying to define something else, then this answer might not apply.
          – SSequence
          Nov 20 at 11:34






          Yes, I assumed that you were trying to define a partial function $g:mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$ so that it returns $n$, when the input given to it is $BB(n)$. In symbols, $g(BB(n))=n$ for all $n in mathbb{N}$. Otherwise, it is undefined (and hence the program $P$ computing it doesn't halt) on any other input. That's how I understood it. What I was describing in the answer was that the function $g$ can't be a partial computable function. If you were trying to define something else, then this answer might not apply.
          – SSequence
          Nov 20 at 11:34














          "Undefined behavior" can also return arbitrarily value (actually it's allowed to destroy the world, but it just have no ability to do so)
          – l4m2
          Nov 20 at 12:11






          "Undefined behavior" can also return arbitrarily value (actually it's allowed to destroy the world, but it just have no ability to do so)
          – l4m2
          Nov 20 at 12:11














          I think what you are asking is that whether there is a partial computable function which "extends" the function $g$ mentioned above. I think the answer to this might be positive (unless I am making a mistake with sketch in my mind). I will update the answer later in that case.
          – SSequence
          Nov 20 at 13:10




          I think what you are asking is that whether there is a partial computable function which "extends" the function $g$ mentioned above. I think the answer to this might be positive (unless I am making a mistake with sketch in my mind). I will update the answer later in that case.
          – SSequence
          Nov 20 at 13:10


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006048%2fis-the-inverse-busy-beaver-calculable%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          How do I know what Microsoft account the skydrive app is syncing to?

          When does type information flow backwards in C++?

          Grease: Live!