←back to thread

BusyBeaver(6) Is Quite Large

(scottaaronson.blog)
271 points bdr | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Scarblac ◴[] No.44406478[source]
It boggles my mind that a number (an uncomputable number, granted) like BB(748) can be "independent of ZFC". It feels like a category error or something.
replies(12): >>44406574 #>>44406590 #>>44407165 #>>44407378 #>>44407396 #>>44407448 #>>44407506 #>>44407549 #>>44408495 #>>44409048 #>>44410736 #>>44413092 #
Xcelerate ◴[] No.44407165[source]
It boggles my mind that we ever thought a small amount of text that fits comfortably on a napkin (the axioms of ZFC) would ever be “good enough” to capture the arithmetic truths or approximate those aspects of physical reality that are primarily relevant to the endeavors of humanity. That the behavior of a six state Turing machine might be unpredictable via a few lines of text does not surprise me in the slightest.

As soon as Gödel published his first incompleteness theorem, I would have thought the entire field of mathematics would have gone full throttle on trying to find more axioms. Instead, over the almost century since then, Gödel’s work has been treated more as an odd fact largely confined to niche foundational studies rather than any sort of mainstream program (I’m aware of Feferman, Friedman, etc., but my point is there is significantly less research in this area compared to most other topics in mathematics).

replies(5): >>44407329 #>>44407524 #>>44407535 #>>44407884 #>>44410775 #
1. throwaway81523 ◴[] No.44410775[source]
> It boggles my mind that we ever thought a small amount of text that fits comfortably on a napkin (the axioms of ZFC) would ever be “good enough” to capture the arithmetic truths or approximate those aspects of physical reality that are primarily relevant to the endeavors of humanity.

ZFC is way overpowered for that. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/39452/status-of-harvey-fr...

replies(1): >>44412554 #
2. Xcelerate ◴[] No.44412554[source]
I don’t understand your post. You’re linking to a discussion about the same conjecture I mentioned in another comment 11 hours prior to your comment. Did you mean to link something else?
replies(1): >>44416413 #
3. throwaway81523 ◴[] No.44416413[source]
I didn't notice your other post mentioning the conjecture. Anyway, one thing it might mean is that we humans have a very limited understanding of mathematics.