|
|
(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{machine|1RB2RA1LC_2LC1RB2RB_---2LA1LA}}{{TM|1RB2RA1LC_2LC1RB2RB_---2LA1LA}}{{unsolved|Does Bigfoot run forever?}} | | {{machine|1RB2RA1LC_2LC1RB2RB_---2LA1LA}}{{unsolved|Does Bigfoot run forever?}} |
| '''Bigfoot''' is a [[BB(3,3)]] [[Cryptids|Cryptid]]. Its low-level behaviour was first shared [https://discord.com/channels/960643023006490684/1084047886494470185/1163168233445130270 over Discord] by savask on 14 Oct 2023, and within two days, Shawn Ligocki described the high-level rules shown below, whose attributes inspired the [[Turing machine|Turing machine's]] name.<ref name="b">S. Ligocki, "[https://www.sligocki.com/2023/10/16/bb-3-3-is-hard.html BB(3, 3) is Hard (Bigfoot)] (2024). Accessed 22 July 2024.</ref> | | '''Bigfoot''' ({{TM|1RB2RA1LC_2LC1RB2RB_---2LA1LA}}) is a [[BB(3,3)]] [[Cryptids|Cryptid]]. Its low-level behaviour was first shared [https://discord.com/channels/960643023006490684/1084047886494470185/1163168233445130270 over Discord] by savask on 14 Oct 2023, and within two days, Shawn Ligocki described the high-level rules shown below, whose attributes inspired the [[Turing machine|Turing machine's]] name.<ref name="b">S. Ligocki, "[https://www.sligocki.com/2023/10/16/bb-3-3-is-hard.html BB(3, 3) is Hard (Bigfoot)] (2024). Accessed 22 July 2024.</ref> |
| <div style="width: fit-content; text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"> | | <div style="width: fit-content; text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"> |
| {|class="wikitable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" | | {|class="wikitable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" |
Line 21: |
Line 21: |
| |} | | |} |
| The transition table of Bigfoot.</div> | | The transition table of Bigfoot.</div> |
| | |
| | In May of 2024, Iijil [https://github.com/sligocki/sligocki.github.io/issues/8#issuecomment-2140887228 compiled] Bigfoot into a 7-state 2-symbol machine {{TM|0RB1RB_1LC0RA_1RE1LF_1LF1RE_0RD1RD_1LG0LG_---1LB}}. |
| | |
| == Analysis == | | == Analysis == |
| Let <math>A(a,b,c):=0^\infty\;12^a\;1^{2b}\;\textrm{<A}\;1^{2c}\;0^\infty</math>. Then, | | Let <math>A(a,b,c):=0^\infty\;12^a\;1^{2b}\;\textrm{<A}\;1^{2c}\;0^\infty</math>. Then, |
Line 50: |
Line 53: |
| </div></div> | | </div></div> |
| Using the floor function, it is possible to describe the behaviour of <math>b</math> and <math>c</math> using a function that is not defined piecewise: | | Using the floor function, it is possible to describe the behaviour of <math>b</math> and <math>c</math> using a function that is not defined piecewise: |
| <math display="block">\textstyle\begin{array}{c}f(m,n)=\Big(\frac{4m-3-4(\delta_1(m)-\delta_2(m)+\delta_4(m))-2(3\delta_3(m)+\delta_5(m))}{3}+n,2+\delta_1(m)+3\delta_3(m)+\delta_5(m)\Big),\\\delta_i(m)=\Big\lfloor\frac{x-i}{6}\Big\rfloor-\Big\lfloor\frac{x-i-1}{6}\Big\rfloor=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }x\equiv i\pmod{6},\\0&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}\end{array}</math> | | <math display="block">\textstyle\begin{array}{c}f(m,n)=\Big(\frac{4m-3-4(\delta_1(m)-\delta_2(m)+\delta_4(m))-2(3\delta_3(m)+\delta_5(m))}{3}+n,2+\delta_1(m)+3\delta_3(m)+\delta_5(m)\Big),\\\delta_i(m)=\Big\lfloor\frac{m-i}{6}\Big\rfloor-\Big\lfloor\frac{m-i-1}{6}\Big\rfloor=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }m\equiv i\pmod{6},\\0&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}\end{array}</math> |
| In effect, the halting problem for Bigfoot is about whether through enough iterations of <math>f(m,n)</math> we encounter more <math>m</math> values that are congruent to 2 modulo 6 than ones that are congruent to 1 or 4 modulo 6. | | In effect, the halting problem for Bigfoot is about whether through enough iterations of <math>f(m,n)</math> we encounter more <math>m</math> values that are congruent to 2 modulo 6 than ones that are congruent to 1 or 4 modulo 6. |
|
| |
|
| An important insight is that if <math>b</math> is odd and <math>c=2</math>, then after four iterations of <math>A</math>, that will remain the case. This allows one to define a configuration that eliminates the <math>c</math> parameter and whose rules use a modulus of 81.<ref name="b"></ref> | | An important insight is that if <math>b</math> is odd and <math>c=2</math>, then after four iterations of <math>A</math>, that will remain the case. This allows one to define a configuration that eliminates the <math>c</math> parameter and whose rules use a modulus of 81.<ref name="b"></ref> |
|
| |
|
| In May 2024, Iijil shared a 7-state, 2-symbol machine, {{TM|0RB1RB_1LC0RA_1RE1LF_1LF1RE_0RD1RD_1LG0LG_---1LB}}, that has the same behaviour as Bigfoot.<ref>P. Michel, "[https://bbchallenge.org/~pascal.michel/ha.html Historical survey of Busy Beavers]".</ref>
| |
| == Trajectory == | | == Trajectory == |
| After 69 steps, Bigfoot will reach the configuration <math>A(2,1,2)</math> before the [[Collatz-like]] rules are repeatedly applied. Simulations of Bigfoot have shown that after 24000000 rule steps, we have <math>a=3999888</math>. Here are the first few: | | After 69 steps, Bigfoot will reach the configuration <math>A(2,1,2)</math> before the [[Collatz-like]] rules are repeatedly applied. Simulations of Bigfoot have shown that after 24000000 rule steps, we have <math>a=3999888</math>. Here are the first few: |
| <math display="block">\begin{array}{|l|}\hline A(2,1,2)\xrightarrow{49}A(3,1,3)\xrightarrow{59}A(4,2,3)\xrightarrow{109}A(3,6,2)\xrightarrow{221}A(3,9,2)\xrightarrow{379}A(3,11,5)\xrightarrow{597}A(3,18,3)\rightarrow\cdots\\\hline\end{array}</math> | | <math display="block">\begin{array}{|l|}\hline A(2,1,2)\xrightarrow{49}A(3,1,3)\xrightarrow{59}A(4,2,3)\xrightarrow{109}A(3,6,2)\xrightarrow{221}A(3,9,2)\xrightarrow{379}A(3,11,5)\xrightarrow{597}A(3,18,3)\rightarrow\cdots\\\hline\end{array}</math> |
| There exists a heuristic argument for Bigfoot being [[probviously]] nonhalting. By only considering the rules for which <math>a</math> changes, one may notice that the trajectory of <math>a</math> values can be approximated by a random walk in which at each step, the walker moves +1 with probability <math display="inline">\frac{2}{3}</math> or moves -1 with probability <math display="inline">\frac{1}{3}</math>, starting at position 2. If <math>P(n)</math> is the probability that the walker will reach position -1 from position <math>n</math>, then <math display="inline">P(n)=\frac{1}{3}P(n-1)+\frac{2}{3}P(n+1)</math>. Solutions to this recurrence relation come in the form <math display="inline"> P(n)=c_02^{-n}+c_1</math>, which after applying the appropriate boundary conditions reduces to <math display="inline">P(n)=2^{-(n+1)}</math>. As a result, if the walker gets to position 3999888, then the probability of it ever reaching position -1 would be <math display="inline">2^{-3999889}\approx 2.697\times 10^{-1204087}</math>. | | There exists a heuristic argument for Bigfoot being [[probviously]] non-halting. By only considering the rules for which <math>a</math> changes, one may notice that the trajectory of <math>a</math> values can be approximated by a random walk in which at each step, the walker moves +1 with probability <math display="inline">\frac{2}{3}</math> or moves -1 with probability <math display="inline">\frac{1}{3}</math>, starting at position 2. If <math>P(n)</math> is the probability that the walker will reach position -1 from position <math>n</math>, then <math display="inline">P(n)=\frac{1}{3}P(n-1)+\frac{2}{3}P(n+1)</math>. Solutions to this recurrence relation come in the form <math display="inline"> P(n)=c_02^{-n}+c_1</math>, which after applying the appropriate boundary conditions reduces to <math display="inline">P(n)=2^{-(n+1)}</math>. As a result, if the walker gets to position 3999888, then the probability of it ever reaching position -1 would be <math display="inline">2^{-3999889}\approx 2.697\times 10^{-1204087}</math>. |
| ==References== | | ==References== |
| <references/> | | <references/> |
| [[Category:Cryptids]] | | [[Category:Cryptids]] |
Unsolved problem:
Does Bigfoot run forever?
Bigfoot (1RB2RA1LC_2LC1RB2RB_---2LA1LA
(bbch)) is a BB(3,3) Cryptid. Its low-level behaviour was first shared over Discord by savask on 14 Oct 2023, and within two days, Shawn Ligocki described the high-level rules shown below, whose attributes inspired the Turing machine's name.[1]
|
0 |
1 |
2
|
A
|
1RB
|
2RA
|
1LC
|
B
|
2LC
|
1RB
|
2RB
|
C
|
---
|
2LA
|
1LA
|
The transition table of Bigfoot.
In May of 2024, Iijil compiled Bigfoot into a 7-state 2-symbol machine 0RB1RB_1LC0RA_1RE1LF_1LF1RE_0RD1RD_1LG0LG_---1LB
(bbch).
Analysis
Let
. Then,

Proof
For now, we will work with the slightly different configuration
. Consider the partial configuration
. We first require the following shift rule:

Using this shift rule, we get

after

steps, followed by

four steps later. Observing that

becomes

in two steps leads to another shift rule:

From here, there are two different scenarios depending on if

is even or odd, given below as histories of transitions that use the aforementioned shift rules:
- If
, then what follows is:
Therefore, we have
- If
, then what follows is:
Therefore, we have

From this we know that Bigfoot's behaviour depends on the value of

modulo 12, and with

we have

. The following shift rules will be useful:

Only even values of

and

are relevant, so there remain six possible scenarios:
- If
, then in
steps we arrive at
, or
when considering the complete configuration. What follows is:
This means that if
, then we will reach
in
steps.
- If
, then in
steps we arrive at
, or
. What follows is:
This means that if
, then we will reach
in
steps.
- If
, then in
steps we arrive at
, or
. What follows is:
This means that if
, then Bigfoot will reach the undefined C0
transition with the configuration
in
steps. Otherwise, it will proceed to reach
in
steps.
- If
, then in
steps we arrive at
, or
. What follows is:
This means that we will reach
in
steps.
- If
, then in
steps we arrive at
, or
. What follows is:
This means that we will reach
in
steps.
- If
, then in
steps we arrive at
, or
. What follows is:
This means that we will reach
in
steps.
The information above can be summarized as

Using the definitions of

and

to transform these rules produces this:

Substituting

where

is the remainder for each case yields the final result.
Using the floor function, it is possible to describe the behaviour of
and
using a function that is not defined piecewise:

In effect, the halting problem for Bigfoot is about whether through enough iterations of

we encounter more

values that are congruent to 2 modulo 6 than ones that are congruent to 1 or 4 modulo 6.
An important insight is that if
is odd and
, then after four iterations of
, that will remain the case. This allows one to define a configuration that eliminates the
parameter and whose rules use a modulus of 81.[1]
Trajectory
After 69 steps, Bigfoot will reach the configuration
before the Collatz-like rules are repeatedly applied. Simulations of Bigfoot have shown that after 24000000 rule steps, we have
. Here are the first few:

There exists a heuristic argument for Bigfoot being
probviously non-halting. By only considering the rules for which

changes, one may notice that the trajectory of

values can be approximated by a random walk in which at each step, the walker moves +1 with probability

or moves -1 with probability

, starting at position 2. If

is the probability that the walker will reach position -1 from position

, then

. Solutions to this recurrence relation come in the form

, which after applying the appropriate boundary conditions reduces to

. As a result, if the walker gets to position 3999888, then the probability of it ever reaching position -1 would be

.
References