User blog comment:Plain'N'Simple/A question for proof-theory experts/@comment-38817512-20191103200212/@comment-35470197-20191103230911

> X(n) seems to be uncomputable.

No.

> it doesn't look like there is a way for a turing machine to choose the fastest.

Taking maximum among non-empty finite set of natural numbers is computable.

> E(n) is a function in FGH, so it is computable

E(n) is actually computable, but "a function in FGH" is not necessarily computable. Therefore you are incorrect.

> uncomputable functions are generally stronger than computable functions

No.

> X(n) will overgrow all computable functions, including f_e0(n).

No. Do you even understand what ACA_0 is?

It is better for you to answer them when you have some evidences which cosist of explanations given by notions which you actually know. Could you understand any arguments given by others below? I am certain that you could not, because almost all of your answers are completely wrong. In that case, could you realise that you are not ready for answering them? Or did you just skip any answers below?