From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

"The main application of de Sitter space is
its use in general relativity, where it serves
as one of the simplest mathematical models
of the universe consistent with the observed
accelerating expansion of the universe."

And Spock aka Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn though
turing machines and busy beavers don't lead
to interesting questions in in sci.physics.relativity.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Maybe the local rules of a turing machine
head slow down, because energy density gets
less and less. Energy migh even stop:

"Unique to universes described by the FLRW metric,
a de Sitter universe has a Hubble Law that is not
only consistent through all space, but also through
all time (since the deceleration parameter is q
= − 1, thus satisfying the perfect cosmological
principle that assumes isotropy and homogeneity
throughout space and time.

There are ways to cast de Sitter space with
static coordinates (see de Sitter space), so
unlike other FLRW models, de Sitter space can
be thought of as a static solution to Einstein's
equations even though the geodesics followed by
observers necessarily diverge as expected from
the expansion of physical spatial dimensions.

As a model for the universe, de Sitter's solution
was not considered viable for the observed universe
until models for inflation and dark energy were
developed. Before then, it was assumed that the
Big Bang implied only an acceptance of the weaker
cosmological principle, which holds that isotropy
and homogeneity apply spatially but not temporally." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_universe

Bye

olcott schrieb:

On 12/2/2025 5:42 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

Hi,

Pot Head Olcott, what are you smoking?
BB(5) is only S(5)=47,176,870 steps.

What about BB(googolplex ^ googolplex) ???

Why invoke Einstein who believe in a
10–100 million light-years wide universe?

Can you explain?

Instead of beliefs (mind closing things)
I have sets of mutually exclusive hypothetical
possibilities. When I can make these categorically
exhaustive then certainly one of them is true.

Bye

P.S.: Turing machines that don't terminate
AND extend the tape indefinitely are of
course other wordly, relative to Einstein,
if Einstein would have assumed that the

Universe does not expand. Einstein Universe
was indeed Static, non-expanding. And
expanding universe theory was formed after
Hubble (1929). And a turing machine could

expand in lockstep with an universe, right?

olcott schrieb:

On 12/2/2025 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:

On 12/2/25 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/2/2025 4:44 PM, dart200 wrote:

bruh it's get even weirder when the likes of scott aaronson try

to construct weird ass proofs to demonstrate when BB exactly becomes "to complex" and exceeds the bounds of "decidability" ...

which is just fucking absurd tbh

Busy beaver quickly consumes more memory than atoms
in the universe.

*known/observable* universe, not that fundamental math is

concerned with such considerations

Einstein proposed the possibility of a finite
yet unbounded universe. That would entail a
finite number of total atoms in the universe
and a bunch of empty space.

I read his paper before I finished high school.
The Busy Beaver cannot possibly make any
difference and should be discarded on that basis.

On the other hand the nature of truth itself
could make a difference whether or not life
on Earth continues to survive.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:

Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name should be there.

[...]
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, [..]

What is the relation of this to physics in general, and the theories of relativity in particular?

If there is no relation, it does not belong there. Please do not crosspost mindlessly.

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity so that the possible reason lands in the right place.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2