The Busy Beaver question asks: what is the longest that a Turing machine program of n states and k colors can run when started on the blank tape before halting? The function that maps from (n, k) to the longest run length is uncomputable and grows faster than any computable function.
Variations of the Busy Beaver function (BB) can be obtained by changing the termination condition: what is the longest that a Turing machine of n states and k colors can run before doing such-and-such? The Blanking Beaver function (BLB) arises from running programs until the Turing machine tape becomes blank, and the Beeping Busy Beaver (BBB) function arises from running programs until they reach a condition known as quasihalting.
Here are the latest and greatest lower bounds that have been discovered for early values of these functions:
(I claim that all the small values are the true values, but that’s for a separate post.)
These numbers suggest several plausible hypotheses:
- BLB grows faster than BB.
- BBB grows faster than BB.
- BBB grows faster than BLB.
(2) and (3) are both known from computability theory to be true. This has to do with the termination conditions. At any given step it’s possible to determine whether or not the machine is currently halted and whether or not the tape is currently blank. In other words, they are decidable predicates. Determining whether a machine will eventually halt or whether the tape will eventually become blank requires an unbounded search for a decidable predicate, and that search is semidecidable: if the condition eventually holds, it will turn up, but otherwise it won’t.
In contrast, checking whether a machine is currently quasihalted or not is already semidecidable, and solving this in general is equivalent to the halting problem. Checking whether a machine will eventually quasihalt thus requires an unbounded search for an uncomputable predicate, and this means that BBB is a super-uncomputable function. Just as BB grows faster than any computable function, BBB grows faster than any function that is “just” regular-uncomputable.
Computability theory is a theory, and that theory makes predictions, and one of those predictions is that BBB, as a super-uncomputable function, should grow really, really fast. Thus these empirical results about Turing machine program behavior serve to confirm the theory’s predictions.
What about BB and BLB? These functions are equicomputable, and one can be solved given an oracle for the other. Computability theory doesn’t make a prediction about which one grows faster. All known empirical results suggest that BB < BLB, but as Bruce Smith pointed out, we can’t even prove that BLB ≤ BB!
Provability is important from a mathematical point of view. But the Busy Beaver problem was originally posed as a competition to see who could come up with the longest-running program. Searching for long-running Turing machines is like prospecting for gold, and it requires making predictions about where the winning programs might be found, even if these predictions cannot be backed up wth proofs. I made a few predictions myself, and they turned out to be correct.
Here are the best values that had been discovered through the end of 2021:
This is the situation with which I, as a searcher, was faced. I had searched for 2-state 4-color blank-tape and quasihalting programs up through several hundred million steps, and that was the best I had found. Were these the true values? It seemed unlikely to me that BBB(2, 4) < BB(2, 4). Again, computability theory tells us that the super-uncomputable function should grow uncomputably faster than the regular-uncomputable function. There’s no good reason why it shouldn’t start early, so I figured it probably did.
Things were not so clear with BLB. Again, there’s no proof even that BLB ≤ BB, so maybe BLB(2, 4) < BB(2, 4). But my previous discovery of the BLB(4, 2) champion gave me an unshakeable hunch that there was still more to find.
It’s not always easy to discern justifiable faith from blind fanaticism. I certainly didn’t want to waste a bunch of time searching for something that never existed in the first place, so I set a limit beyond which I would not bother searching. I reasoned as follows: The ratio BLB(4, 2) / BB(4, 2) works out to about 306,350. If BLB(2, 4) / BB(2, 4) holds the same ratio, then we should have something like BLB(2, 4) ≈ 1,204,863,521,400, or 1.2 trillion. Rounding up, that means searching within 2 trillion steps or so.
This was really a grasping-at-straws kind of estimate, totally made up, with no good reason to believe that it would hold. So imagine my surprise when the estimate turned out to be accurate! A new BLB champion turned up to prove that BLB(2, 4) ≥ 1,367,361,263,049. That same program quasihalts too, but earlier, establishing that BBB(2, 4) ≥ 1,367,354,345,128.
Here is the updated results table through mid-January 2022:
According to this table, BLB(2, 4) > BBB(2, 4). This wouldn’t too different from the 4-state 2-color case, where as far as we know BLB(4, 2) + 1 = BBB(4, 2). It’s just that a single program is the champion for multiple classes, and the various termination conditions are hit at different steps.
We know that BB and BLB are equicomputable, and so, I figured, maybe they maintain some kind of relationship in their growth. But BBB is uncomputable even with respect to these uncomputable functions. BBB grows faster than BLB, and historically Busy Beaver searchers have always understimated how fast BB grows. Putting these facts together, I decided that it the true value of BBB(2, 4) must be even further out.
To find the BLB(2, 4) champion, I used a simulator written in Idris. It’s pretty fast, but I felt I had reached the limits of what it could do. And so I turned to a simulator written by Shawn and Terry Ligocki. That simulator, which was used to discover many historical BB candidates, does some sophisticated runtime analysis and is able to provide a massive speed-up in certain cases. If those kinds of programs existed in the 2-state 4-color space, this simulator would find them.
And it did! On 24 January 2022, I found a program that quasihalts in 67,093,892,759,901,295 steps (about 67 quadrillion). This was more like how I had expected things to look based on what I knew from theory.
I reported this value to Shawn Ligocki along with the search parameters used. He then pushed his simulator even further, and on 7 February 2022 he reported a 2-state 4-color program that quasihalts in 205,770,076,433,044,242,247,859 steps (about 205 sextillion). That is where the record stands today.
2-state 4-color Champion Programs
||1,367,361,263,049||Current BLB(2, 4) champion|
||67,093,892,759,901,295||Former BBB(2, 4) champion|
||205,770,076,433,044,242,247,859||Current BBB(2, 4) champion|
- Why should the BLB / BB ratio hold?
- How likely is it that BLB(5, 2) > 47,176,870?
- How likely is it that BBB(4, 2) = 32,779,478?
- Why would a simulator only be able to provide speed-up in “certain cases”? Which cases?