Opus Magnum - the worst machine I could fit on one screen

Specifically to fit on one screen, all of the arms and glyphs have to be placed on the 8x15 play area visible at 1600x900 resolution without moving the screen or minimizing any of the trays. The programming has to fit on the screen as well, so you can only use 6 arms, and each one has to have instructions only defined for cycles 1-29.
But once it gets going, things can move off screen.
Worst here is defined only in terms of cycle count on completion. It has to complete, in theory. Since the game is Turing complete, you can certainly implement some awful computable functions, but given the constraints I went for just barely worse than exponential.
I failed, because this is substantially worse than exponential! Upon further analysis, the machine is performing tetration. The Nth output takes at least 1.85 ^^ (7N+1) cycles to drop.
More detail at / this_machine_will_even...

[@spookynerd_jpg4223]

The sheer dedication to mathematically perfect inefficiency is legitimately impressive.

[@jimisticks5216]

Thank god this machine exists so I don't have to feel so bad about my own inefficient designs.

[@underrated1524]

Imagine if it turned out that when this machine completes it actually gets credit for completing the level in 1 cycle because of integer overflow. That would make everyone *so* mad...

[@zorflak]

Tetration? Wow, I didn't know you could play Tetris in Opus Magnum! /s

[@sykes1024]

I saw the /s, but since Opus Magnum is Turing Complete you could actually simulate tetris within Opus Magnum. You might not be able to "play" it real time though, but you could pre program any inputs or in theory write an AI to play the simulated game.

[@alansmithee419]

To put this into perspective:
The amount of time it would take to do one output (assuming the time complexity given in the description is correct) is so long that there is no possible way I can put it into perspective.
Other than I guess by saying it dwarfs Skewes' number and is dwarfed by basically anything bigger than Skewes' number (googology is weird).

[@celestesimulator6539]

Graham's number?

[@alansmithee419]

@@celestesimulator6539 Far too large to be an effective comparison.

[@andrewsauer2729]

@@celestesimulator6539 graham's number easily trumps anything written in up-arrow notation, let alone tetration

[@caniwishformorewishes8654]

this could be another topic for the biggieblog

[@WildlyStapled]

absolutely terrible, thank you for sharing

[@Averystrange]

positively terrifying, thank you for making this

[@notgonnadoxxmyself2219]

perhaps a modified version of this design could reach pentation? Something I notice is that the second arm spends some time pulling out additional atoms (increasing the base), but increasing the base is the weakest change you can make to an expression with up-arrows compared to the height or number of arrows. Your blog has a similar but weaker design with five arms, as far as I can tell, as well, and I wonder if the sixth arm could be used to improve the number of arrows. Perhaps making the second arm could be made to serve multiple purposes (obviously it has to pull out multiple atoms each run, but 4 seems excessive to me) and the sixth could be used in tandem with it. I haven't thought this out very far, though, so I'm not sure if it's doable. Still, worth noting.

[@endscreenguy8260]

Wha....
Why
How
How much time did this take you to do? How even did you think of that??
WHY???

[@benn5026]

great job

[@cholsreammos]

Damn i was asking my math teacher about something and he said he didnt know if there was anything that could do it (hes actually smart, doesnt read curriculum and not understand it just repeats it so it surprised me a bit and i just guessed it actually didnt exist) but from your explaination i think it is tetration

[@near5148]

Oh god

[@ShittyFunnyAcc]

Wht 7 years and u still here

[@snap7828]

FUCK I LOVE YOU

[@warreniscoll8669]

You win

[@protomiller2506]

Jesus fucking Christ.