<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Skelet #17 and the fifth Busy Beaver number · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2407.02426/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2407.02426/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Skelet #17 and the fifth Busy Beaver number — mentioned by LegionMammal978</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44410048</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2407.02426:44410048</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2025 03:07:03 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;While that question depends on what you count as an &amp;#x27;enumeration&amp;#x27;, there&amp;#x27;s the related question of &amp;quot;What&amp;#x27;s the richest logic that cannot prove the halting status of all 5-state TMs?&amp;quot; That is, what&amp;#x27;s the richest logic that some 5-state TM&amp;#x27;s halting status is independent of? I&amp;#x27;ve pondered that version of the question a bit, but I couldn&amp;#x27;t get very far due to my lack of expertise in first-order logic. What I do know is that Skelet #17 [0] is one of the toughest machines to prove non-halting on a mathematical level [1], so any theory sufficient to prove that Skelet #17 doesn&amp;#x27;t halt is likely…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2407.02426/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CO</category></item></channel></rss>
