zlacker

>>jeremy+(OP)
I don't get why the BB(x) numbers should grow faster than A(x). They're harder to compute - true. They're more difficult to prove right - true. But I cannot find anything in the article that proves it actually grows faster than Ackerman numbers.

Unless you can always program A(x) in less than x steps on a Turing machine?

>>virapt+ot
No, BB is impossible to compute (as a sequence, that is). A(x) is not.