## The largest number representable in 64 bits[]

Most people believe 18446744073709551615, or 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF in hexadecimal, to be the largest number representable in 64 bits. Which is indeed the case if we are talking about 64 bit unsigned integers such as represented by the datatype uint64_t in C or u64 in Rust. We can reach quite a bit further with floating point values. The 64-bit double floating point format finds its largest (finite) representable value in the 309 digit number 2^{1024}(1-2^{-53}) = 17976931...24858368.

What if we allow representations beyond mere datatypes? Such as a program small enough to fit in 64 bits. For most programming languages, there is very little you can do in so few bits. 64 bits is only 8 characters or bytes after all.

In the C language that only leaves you with "main(){}", which doesn't do much. But there are plenty languages that require no such scaffolding. For instance, on Linux there is bc, an arbitrary precision calculator language. It happily computes the 954242 digit number 9^999999 = 35908462...48888889, which can thus be said to be representable in 64 bits. We can imagine a similar language featuring the symbol ! for computing factorials, which makes 9!!!!!!! a much larger number representable in 64 bits.

Allowing such primitives feels a bit like cheating though. Would we allow a language that has the Ackerman function predefined, which sports the 8 byte expression ack(9,9) representing a truly huge number?

## No primitives needed[]

As it turns out, the question is moot. There are simple languages with no built in primitives of any kind. Not even primitives for arithmetic. Not even numbers themselves. Languages in which all those must be defined from scratch. One such language allows us to blow way past ack(9,9) in under 64 bits. But let's first look at another such language, one that has been particularly well studied for producing largest possible outputs. That is the language of Turing machines.

## Busy Beaver[]

The famous Busy Beaver function, introduced by Tibor Radó in 1962, which we'll denote BB_{TM}(n), is defined as the maximum number of 1s that can be written with an n state TM starting from an all 0 tape before halting. Note that if we consider this output as a number M written in binary, then it only gets credited for its length, which is log_{2}(M+1).

With 64 bits, we can fully specify a 6 state binary Turing machine, or TM for short. For each of its internal states and each of its 2 tape symbols, we can specify what new tape symbol it should write in the currently scanned tape cell, whether to move the tape head left or right, and what new internal state, or special *halt* state, to transition to. That takes 6*2*(2+⌈log_{2}(6+1)⌉) = 60 bits, leaving 4 bits to spare. 7 state TMs take 7*2*(2+log_{2}(7+1)) = 70 bits to describe in a straightforward manner, exceeding our budget. Just how big an output can we produce on a 6 state TM?

The best known result for 6 states is BB_{TM}(6) >= 10↑↑15, which denotes an exponential tower of fifteen 10s. Clearly, in this notation there's not that much difference between a number and its size in bits. Large as this number is, it's still pathetically small compared to the earlier ack(9,9). To surpass that, we need to move beyond the language of Turing machines, into the language of Lambda Calculus.

## Lambda Calculus[]

A 63 bit program in this language represents a number unfathomably larger than not only ack(9,9), but Graham's Number as well. It originates in a Code Golf challenge asking for the "Shortest terminating program whose output size exceeds Graham's number", answered by user Patcail and further optimized by user 2014MELO03. With one final optimization applied, this is the program:

010001010101011010000000010101101110110101010100000011100111010

It's the Binary Lambda Calculus encoding of term (λ 1 1 (λ λ λ 1 3 2 1) 1 1 1) (λ λ 2 (2 1)), where λ (lambda) denotes an anonymous function, and number i is the variable bound by the i-th nested λ. This is known as De Bruijn notation, a way to avoid naming variables. A more conventional notation using variable names would be

(λt. t t (λh λf λn. n h f n) t t t) (λf λx. f (f x))

The last 16 bits of the program---making up more than a quarter of its size---encodes the term λf λx. f (f x), which takes arguments f and x in turn, and iterates f twice on x. This is the standard way of representing numbers in lambda calculus, known as Church numerals. Church numeral n iterates a given function n times on a given argument. The program, which we'll name after the underlying growth rate, is thus

wCubed = let { 2 = λf λx. f (f x); H = λh λf λn. n h f n } in 2 2 H 2 2 2

## Proof of exceeding Graham's Number[]

Following the great suggestion of Googology user "BMS is not well-founded", let us start by defining a wCubed-customized Fast-growing hierarchy, a family that assigns, to each ordinal α, a function [α] (diverting from the usual f_{α} notation for improved legibility) from natural numbers to natural numbers. We'll treat all numbers as Church Numerals, so we can write n f instead of the usual f^{n} and write f n instead of f(n) as normally done in λ-calculus.

### Definitions:[]

- H h f n = n h f n
- H2 = H 2
- [0] n = 2 n = n
^{2} - [α+1] n = 2 n [α] n = H 2 [α] n
- [ωα+ω] n = [ωα+n] n
- [ω
^{i+1}(α+1)] n = [ω^{i+1}α+ω^{i}n] n

### Lemmas:[]

- 2 H 2 [ωi] n = H H2 [ωi] n =
^{(Def. 1)}n H2 [ω i] n =^{(n x Def. 4)}[ωi+n] n =^{(Def. 5)}[ω(i+1)] n - 3 H 2 [ω
^{2}i] n = H (2 H 2) [ω^{2}i] n =^{(Def. 1)}n (2 H 2) [ω^{2}i] n =^{(n x Lemma 1)}[ω^{2}i+ωn] n =^{(Def. 6)}[ω^{2}(i+1)] n - 4 H 2 [0] n = H (3 H 2) [0] n =
^{(Def. 1)}n (3 H 2) [0] n =^{(n x Lemma 2)}[ω^{2}n] n =^{(Def 6)}[ω^{3}] n

Lemma 3 gives wCubed = 2 2 H 2 2 2 = 4 H 2 [0] 2 = [ω^{3}] 2. In comparison, Graham's number is known to be less than the much much smaller [ω+1] 64. As it turns out, this proof becomes almost trivial in our custom hierarchy. We start with defining Graham's number as a Church numeral, exploiting the fact that in Knuth's up-arrow notation, 3 ↑ n = 3^{n} = upify (mult 3) n, and 3 ↑^{k+1} n = (3 ↑^{k} )^{n-1} 3 = (3 ↑^{k} )^{n-1} (3 ↑^{k} 1) = (3 ↑^{k} )^{n} 1:

**Definitions:**

- mult a b f = a (b f)
- upify f n = n f 1
- g n = n upify (mult 3) 3
- Graham = 64 g 4

**Lemmas (assuming n ≥ 3):**

- times 3 n ≤ n
^{2}= [0] n - upify [α] n = n 1 < 2 n [α] 1 = [α+1] n
- g n = n upify (times 3) 3 ≤
^{(Lemma 1)}n upify [0] 3 <^{(Lemma 2)}f_{n}n = [ω] n

By Lemma 3, Graham = 64 g 4 < 64 [ω] 64 = [ω+1] 64

## A Functional Busy Beaver[]

Based on the Binary Lambda Calculus, I recently proposed a functional Busy Beaver function BB_{λ}() that, besides greater simplicity, has the advantage of measuring program size in bits rather than states. Note how, similar to BB_{TM}(), the value of BB_{λ}() is not the program output considered as a number itself, but rather the output *size.* And in case of binary λ-calculus, the size of a Church numeral n is 5n+6.

We can try to compare growth rates of the two BB functions by how quickly they exceed Graham's number. The current best effort for BB_{TM}(), after many rounds of optimization, is stuck at 16 states, weighing in at over 16*2*(2+4) = 192 bits. The existence of a 29 bit Ackermann-like function and a 79 bit function growing too fast to be provably total in Peano Arithmetic, also have no parallels in the realm of Turing machines. Which suggests that BB_{λ} might grow a bit faster. This is borne out by all known existing values and lower bounds, suggesting the following

**Conjecture:** For all n, BB_{TM}(n) < BB_{λ}(⌈2n(2+log_{2}(n+1))⌉)

## But why Turing machines?[]

Although Scott Aaronson answers this question in his paper The Busy Beaver Frontier

But why Turing machines? For all their historic importance, haven’t Turing machines been completely superseded by better alternatives—whether stylized assembly languages or various codegolf languages or Lisp? As we’ll see, there is a reason why Turing machines were a slightly unfortunate choice for the Busy Beaver game: namely, the loss incurred when we encode a state transition table by a string of bits or vice versa. But Turing machines also turn out to have a massive advantage that compensates for this. Namely, because Turing machines have no “syntax” to speak of, but only graph structure, we immediately start seeing interesting behavior even with machines of only 3, 4, or 5 states, which are feasible to enumerate. And there’s a second advantage. Precisely because the Turing machine model is so ancient and fixed, whatever emergent behavior we find in the Busy Beaver game, there can be no suspicion that we “cheated” by changing the model until we got the results we wanted. In short, the Busy Beaver game seems like about as good a yardstick as any for gauging humanity’s progress against the uncomputable

one can argue that the mentioned properties:

- emergence of interesting behaviour on small sizes, and
- lack of cheating toward wanted results

hold just as much for binary λ-calculus as for Turing machines.