Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> "Solving the BB(3, 3) problem is at least as hard as solving this Collatz-like problem."

> How hard is this Collatz-like problem? Well, let's see if anyone can solve it :)

I thought John Conway already proved that all instances of the halting problem can be converted to a Collatz-like problem [1]. So one could say this about all BB values, not just BB(3, 3). Some will be easy, some will be hard, but all are reducible to Collatz-like problems IIUC.

[1] https://julienmalka.me/collatz.pdf




You are right that every TM can be converted into a Collatz-like problem using Conway's Fractran compilation. So technically the statement "Solving the BB(n, k) problem is at least as hard as solving a Collatz-like problem." is true in general.

However, the Collatz-like problems you will get from this completion will be gigantic, they will not have distilled the problem into a similar description of it's behavior, but instead created a more complicated way of observing that behavior. The Collatz-like problem I present here is a simplification of the behavior of this TM. If you observe the machine running you will see that it is effectively completing these transitions.

In other words, I am not arbitrarily choosing to convert this to a Collatz-like problem simply because it is possible. I am looking at the behavior of this machine and that behavior turns out to be Collatz-like naturally.

Of course none of this proves that my Collatz-like problem really is hard ... but as someone else here mentioned, being hard is not a mathematical thing, it is a belief we have about certain problems we cannot solve after considerable effort.


I think the point here is that it was not known whether all 3,3 halting problems are reducible to trivial Collatz-like problems. Unless someone is able to observe that sligicko's is actually trivial, then this provides a counterexample.


> I think the point here is that it was not known whether all 3,3 halting problems are reducible to trivial Collatz-like problems.

True, but it still isn't known either way. Nothing changed in that regard.


'trivial' isn't a mathematical concept. If no one has shown why this problem is trivial, it isn't trivial.


This problem isn't trivial, but neither are the ones we could already reduce BB(3, 3) to (via Conway's construction).


Some reductions via Conway's method give non-trivial Collatz problems even though other simple techniques show the halting question for those machines to be trivial; the Conway reduction sometimes reduces trivial Turing machines to non-trivial Collatz problems.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: