« first day (274 days earlier)      last day (950 days later) » 
08:00 - 18:0018:00 - 00:00

6:00 PM
ψ'_1(ω)[3,b] = ψ'_1(3) + ψ'_1(3)
 
for me ψ'_1(ω)[3,b] worked out to Ω_1*2^5 which can start the system of creating loads of ω 32 times, and that's just a really small portion of ψ'_0(Ω_2)[3,b] and your number uses ψ'_0(Ω_9)[n,Ω_9] wow I'm getting a sense that it grows much much quicker than TREE(n)
 
I get, diagonalizing along [3,b],
ψ'_1(ω)
= ψ'_1(3) + ψ'_1(3)
= ψ'_1(3) + ψ'_1(2) + ψ'_1(2)
= ψ'_1(3) + ψ'_1(2) + ψ'_1(1) + ψ'_1(1)
= ψ'_1(3) + ψ'_1(2) + ψ'_1(1) + ψ'_1(0) + ψ'_1(0)
= ψ'_1(3) + ψ'_1(2) + ψ'_1(1) + ψ'_1(0) + Ω_1 + Ω_1
> (Ω_1)∙2^5
 
ow yes I kept collapsing both numbers, (a+b)[n,c]>a[n,c]+b[n,c]
 
Hehe, so it also "saves" those terms on the left, which blow up even more later, since eventually that 3 goes up...
The fun part is when you generalize this to things like Ω_ω
 
Don't
 
6:12 PM
Or Ω_(Ω_(Ω_...))
 
Ahhhh
 
And then you get inaccessible cardinals.
More or less, the inaccessible cardinal does recursion over Ω_x
 
Wait you reach inaccessible cardinals?
 
No, my program stops short of Ω_ω
 
or fixed points of y = Ω_y
 
6:15 PM
Let I = first inaccessible
Usually we have:
ψ'_I(0)[0,b] = 0
ψ'_I(a+1)[0,b] = ψ'_I(a)+1
ψ'_I(a)[0,b] = ψ'_I(a[0,a])
ψ'_I(a)[n+1,b] = Ω_(ψ'_I(0)[n,b])
From there, we get ψ'_(I+1) being recursion of addition's of ψ'_I
Pretty normal type stuff.
@fejfo Before today, what do you think is the largest computable ordinal you've ever encountered?
 
I can't follow anymore, how does all of this compare to tau, the ordinal at which the slow growing hierachy catches up to the fast growing hierachy
tau
should I try to explain it or do you know what I'm talking about?
 
@fejfo Your tau is the Bachmann-Howard ordinal
BHO = ψ'_0(Ω_1^Ω_1^Ω_1^...)
Infinite tower of Ω_1's
Indeed, BHO is much much smaller than ψ'_0(Ω_9)
I'm not immediately sure how to write the BHO in my notation without calling upon exponentiation...
 
I've watched these videos: youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3A50BB9C34AB36B3 in which he explains BH differently, he also defined an other tau I think
 
@fejfo I haven't been through his videos, but I know the BHO is where sgh ~ fgh.
Oh, no
My bad
 
Ok I will try to tell you what I rember
 
6:24 PM
BHO is not where sgh ~ fgh
tau = ψ'_0(Ω_ω)
 
I though f(BHO)~=g(epsilon_0) (with g=sgh)
 
@fejfo :P Sorry, my memory ain't perfect.
2
A: A slower ordinal collapsing function and the Bachmann-Howard ordinal.

DeedlitI will start by analyzing $\psi_1$. Some early values: $\psi_1(\alpha,0) = \omega^{\omega^{1+\alpha}}$ for $\alpha \le \varepsilon_0$. $\psi_1(\omega_1 + \alpha, 0) = \omega^{\omega^{\varepsilon_0+\alpha}}$ for $\alpha \le \varepsilon_1$. $\psi_1(\omega_1(1+ \alpha) + \beta,0) = \omega^{\omeg...

From this, we know that ψ'_0(x) is equivalent to the standard OCF at particular large ordinals.
 
he defined tau with tree-ordinals (defining ordinals on only their fundamental sequences)
α∈T_n if:
1)α=0
2)α=β+1 β ∈T_n
3)α: T_(n-1)→T_n (alpha is a function that takes a member of the previous set to collapse down to a smaller member of the current set)

T_0 is the set of integers
T_1 is the set of countable ordinals that is to say functions that take an interger and create a smaller ordinal
T_2 are the smallest uncoutable ordinals functions that take an ordinal and create a smaller uncountable ordinal
 
@fejfo T_1 is the set of computable ordinals?
oh, okay :I
Uh... well okay.
Would you like to hear the standard construction of Madore's psi function? (ordinal collapsing function)
 
with this you can define a version of the fgh inwhich T_n+1 are used to create huge T_n much like regual ordinals create huge numbers
@SimplyBeautifulArt sure
 
6:33 PM
@fejfo well yeah. From what I can tell, he basically took upon the idea of what inaccessible cardinals and all that do.
This isn't Madore's psi function, but its a simplified version.
 
Great, that's the simplified version...
C(α)_0={{0,1}} ?
 
Let S(n) be all of the binary sequences of length N. How many sequence in S are repeating? Repeating means that it consists only of a subsequence of length N/2 or less. (Partial repeats are OK) @El'endiaStarman @flawr @feersum @anybodyiforgot
Example: 001001, 0010010 are OK, 0010011 is not
 
x ∈ C(α)_n if

x ∈ {0,1}
x ∈ C(α)_k
x = a+b
x = Ω_a
x = ψ_a(c)

k < n
a,b,c ∈ C(α)_k
c < α
@fejfo =P
 
and ψ_a(c) is your insane function?
 
x ∈ C(α) if x ∈ C(α)_n for some n < ω
 
6:40 PM
basically C(α)=C(α)_ω ?
 
ψ_ß(α) is the minimum ordinal with the following properties:
x ∉ C(α)
Ω_ß < x< Ω_(ß+1)
∀y [y < x → y+y < x]
@fejfo Basically yeah.
@fejfo ψ'_ß(ω^α) ~ ψ_ß(α)
 
∀y [y < x → y+y < x] are these ordinals like:ω ω*ω ω^ω ...?
 
@fejfo Yup.
In particular, they are ordinals of the form ω∙α
Madore's OCF is practically the same, except change "+" to "+,*,^"
The three basic arithmetic operations
 
I never understood what is so much more basic about ^ than ↑↑
 
@NathanMerrill it probably depends on the factors of N, right? If N is prime the only repeating sequences are 000...0 and 111...1
 
6:47 PM
Madore's simplest OCF does not include the operation Ω_a, rather, it has x ∈ {0,1,Ω} for the initial values.
@fejfo That people usually aren't introduced to ↑↑?
One can also quickly generalize this. By throwing inaccessible cardinals into the mix, you get what I described before.
For a quick choice of fundamental sequences, you can focus on C(α)_n.
 
but in a mathematical way there is no real thing that means ^ is more fundamental than ↑↑ too me it just seems like +,*,^ was cut of at a random point but sure lets focus on the collapsing function
 
@fejfo Oh yeah. Did I mention that things like ↑↑ aren't usually defined for transfinite ordinals?
The problem is that you run into fixed-points, which sucks.
 
@flawr No. Partial repeats are OK
 
don't you run into fixed points of other operations too? ω=1+ω ω²=ω+ω² ω^ω=ω*ω^ω, ...
 
@fejfo Sure, but there's a natural way to surpass those fixed-points without doing much special.
 
6:53 PM
I get that
 
@NathanMerrill write a program to generate the first few numbers and plug them into OEIS? :D
 
Usually we can get past by adding a +1 to the end of something
e.g. ω^(ε_0+1)
 
yes, but back to the collapsing function, I think I need some examples
 
But,
ω↑↑(ω+1) = ω^(ω↑↑ω) = ω^(ε_0) = ε_0 = ω↑↑ω
@fejfo What sorts you want to work on?
 
those greek symbols appearing in this room seem to be spreading like a disease
 
6:56 PM
like maybe which kind of ordinals appear in C(ω)_1 ?
 
@fejfo {0,1,1+1,ω,Ω_1,ψ_0(0),ψ_0(1),ψ_1(0),ψ_1(1)}
Where ω = Ω_0
I think I'm gonna take a nap for now...
Cya!
 
I will go to sleep not to long from now to then
 
@fejfo Oh yeah, and feel free to try and produce a code that outputs something larger than TREE(3), or rather its approximation H(3,ω^(ψ'_0(ω^(Ω_1^(Ω_1^(Ω_1))))+1)).
^ The above approximation is crude, and may be invalid. I was just guesstimating.
 
7:16 PM
guesstimating, I like that :D
@NathanMerrill wrote a quick program: Try it online!
nothing on OEIS =/ that probably means my program is wrong XD
But I found this (completely unrelated) pdf which is also quite cool cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL14/Rinaldi/square.pdf
 
7:32 PM
@flawr Bah. On a phone which doesn't natively open PDFs
@flawr I'm trying to test your repeating function. How do I pass in a list?
 
main = print $ isRepeating [0,1,0,0,0,1]
 
Thanks
Hmmm... It seems pretty solid
And OEIS doesn't even have anything if you divide all the terms by 2
 
7:48 PM
Just made it a lot more efficient
 
What's interesting is that most of the jumps is a doubling +2
But not all of the time
 
I just tried to come up with a recursion. Let r(n) = #number of repeating binary sequences of length n
It is sufficient to consider only even n (as the odd n are just the same)
r(2*k) = r(2*(k-1)) + #{repeating sequences with period k}
so r(2*k) = r(2*(k-1)) + r(k)
does that make sense?
(and r(2*k+1) = r(2*k))
let us check:)
 
@flawr why *2?
In my mind, if you have an existing sequence, there's only 1 way to extend it
 
that is just for expressing even numbers n = 2*k
 
Ah OK
 
8:05 PM
hm this recursion does not match my program
d'oh: {repeating sequences with period k} != {repeating sequences of length k}
{repeating seqs, w/ period k} = {sequences of length k} \ {repeating sequences of length k}
so r(2*k ) = r(2*(k-1)) + 2^k - r(k)
damn, it is still not correct, but works for the first 9 terms ....
@NathanMerrill Do you see a flaw in my thoughts?
 
sorry, back
perhaps it doesn't take into consideration duplicates?
like if you have a sequence that is a repeating sequence for two distinct subsequences
I can't think of an example, so that may not be possible
 
doesn't a repeating sequences have have to repeat some prefix?
lets say we have the sequence a = [a1,a2,a3,a4,a5]
then it is repeating if and only if:
 
found one: 01100110
oh, nevermind
 
a = [a1,a1,a1,a1,a1] or [a1,a2,a1,a2,a1]
Ah I think I misunderstood you!
@NathanMerrill I did not count this as repeating!
 
8:21 PM
wait, really?
just tested it online, and it returned true
 
I assumed a sequence is repeating if and only if there is a prefix of this sequence such that the whole sequence is just that prefix repeated over and over again
WTF:)
 
print $ isRepeating [0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0]
 
Ah well it is just 0110 repeated :D
 
right
I had thought it was also 011 repeating
but I missed the two zeroes in the middle
 
but 01011010110 would not be counted as repeating by my program
 
8:24 PM
why not?
 
it is hard to construct a counterexample:)
would you consider 11011010110 as repeating?
 
so a repeating sequence is just one (contiguous) piece cut from the infinite repetition of some substring?
 
of at least length 2 * len(substring)
 
if yes, we can really assume that a repeating sequence is just repeating a prefix of length <= n/2
yeah right!
 
8:31 PM
yes, but simply counting all prefixes of length n/2 doesn't work
because [0] and [0,0] are indisguishable at length 4
 
right!
so first, do you agree that r(2*k+1) = r(2*k) ?
 
yep.
wait...maybe?
yes.
(I was thinking about 001001001, but 00100100 is already repeating)
 
all repeating sequences of length (n-2) can be extended to repeating sequences of n, do you agree?
 
yes.
although I think it far easier to say you can extend any sequence of length n to n+1
 
ok, that works too
 
8:36 PM
so, all we are considering are subsequences of length (n/2) that aren't repeating
 
next: the repeating sequences of length n that were not already "contained" in the sequences of length (n-1) are sequences with period n/2
 
right
minimal period n/2
 
that means if n is odd we get no new sequences, since there are no sequences of non-integral period
 
don't worry about the odd n. We've already agreed that its equal to the former
right
 
so we need to count the the number of sequences of period == n (and not shorter)
 
8:39 PM
yes.
 
I'd say that theses are just all sequences of length n MINUS the repeating sequences of length n
 
that's not strictly true
because [00100100] is repeating, but we want it included for [0010010000100100]
 
so we accept repeating sequences as long as their length does not divide n, right?
 
right
 
8:43 PM
the length of their period
not their length
 
@SimplyBeautifulArt \o
@NathanMerrill ah right, that is actually what I meant!
 
Woohoo, milkshakes are a little too enjoyable. Brain freeze! :P
 
no that is not correct
 
What're we doing today gentlemen?
 
 
8:48 PM
You mean to have k in the summand?
:P
 
Yep:)
Let us check....
ok my recursio nabout the sequences of period n is probably wrong as well
2 hours ago, by Nathan Merrill
Let S(n) be all of the binary sequences of length N. How many sequence in S are repeating? Repeating means that it consists only of a subsequence of length N/2 or less. (Partial repeats are OK) @El'endiaStarman @flawr @feersum @anybodyiforgot
 
9:08 PM
@SimplyBeautifulArt ^
 
@flawr This isn't hard is it?
Just some inclusion-exclusion counting.
 
@feersum I have too big of a mess in my head right now :)
@feersum Can you elaborate?
 
Like 2^n - sum(2^k for k|n, k<n) + sum(2^(ab) for ab|n, a != 1, b != 1, ab <n) - ....
OK it's kind of messy to describe.
 
I added a table for n=1,2,3,4
 
9:31 PM
Example in code form:
import sympy, itertools
lcm = lambda a, *b: sympy.lcm(a, lcm(*b)) if b else a
def f(n):
    a = 2**n
    if n < 2: return a
    if sympy.isprime(n): return a - 2
    factorization = sympy.factorint(n)
    ff = [n / p for p in factorization]
    for i in range(1, len(factorization) + 1):
        a += (-1)**i * sum(2**lcm(*comb) for comb in itertools.combinations(ff, i))
    return a
It can probably be made more efficient by using the structure of a factorization more.
 
Jackpot: @NathanMerrill Now it seems to work: tio
thanks to @WheatWizard's formula!
now you could try to find an explicit formula!
 
My program wouldn't actually work but yeah...
 
@feersum What language is this? python?
 
Yes.
lcm should be gcd
Then maybe it would be right.
 
I'll have to check tomorrow, I should have gone to bed a while ago :)
Anyway, it was nice discussing with you all, have a nice day/evening/whatever.
 
9:52 PM
17
Q: Manufactoria: generate the slowest possible accepting program

Keith RandallWrite a Manufactoria program that will accept the empty input tape. But don't do it quickly! I mean, write the program quickly, but don't let it run quickly. The slower the program, the better, as long as it terminates eventually. The example program below takes 3:51 (the "total time" reporte...

:O sounds like something I wanna try out
 
A key limit (which the answers allude to but don't explicitly mention) is the max tape size is 50.
 
Oh, thanks
Hm...
It'll be hard beating the top answer...
 
10:24 PM
@feersum What a strange limitation... I usually don't work with things like that
 
11:01 PM
@flawr Nice!
 
08:00 - 18:0018:00 - 00:00

« first day (274 days earlier)      last day (950 days later) »