3 ms·
>To preempt the inevitable question in the comments section: yes, we did run these Turing machines for a while, and no, none of them had halted after a day or s
by hexane360 8y ago
>To preempt the inevitable question in the comments section: yes, we did run these Turing machines for a while, and no, none of them had halted after a day or so. But before you interpret that as evidence in favor of Goldbach, Riemann, and the consistency of ZFC, you should probably know that a Turing machine to test whether all perfect squares are less than 5, produced using Laconic, needed to run for more than an hour before it found the first counterexample (namely, 32=9) and halted. Laconic Turing machines are optimized only for the number of states, not for speed, to put it mildly.
Does anyone know of any speed-optimized tests of ZFC currently running? I'd expect that they're not using Turing machines. . .
- quickthrower2 8y agoThat'd make for a bad-ass proof of work.
- zitterbewegung 8y agoHow would you create an arbitrary hard version of the problem? Or scale its hardness?
- jabgrabdthrow 8y agoShh, coins !
- quickthrower2 8y agoWell 1 coin. If you are lucky. Unspendable.
- sshine 8y agoThe coins in Bitcoin's genesis block are also unspendable.
- hawkice 8y agoI mean, there might not be a point in optimizing a mechanical search of all possible contradictions in ZFC. Surely any contradiction would be ridiculously complex, and probably doesn't exist. No human-achievable amount of optimization will distinguish between those two.