4 ms·
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 obser
by neilkk 3y ago
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.
- FartyMcFarter 3y ago> 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.
- neilkk 3y ago'trivial' isn't a mathematical concept. If no one has shown why this problem is trivial, it isn't trivial.
- FartyMcFarter 3y agoThis problem isn't trivial, but neither are the ones we could already reduce BB(3, 3) to (via Conway's construction).
- neilkk 3y agoSome 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.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]