What properties of busy beaver numbers are computable?

The busy beaver function $\text{BB}(n)$ describes the maximum number of steps that an $n$-state Turing machine can execute before it halts (assuming it halts at all). It is not a computable function because computing it allows you to solve the halting problem.

Are functions like $\text{BB}(n) \bmod 2$, or more generally $\text{BB}(n) \bmod m$ for a modulus $m$, computable? Computing these functions doesn't solve the halting problem, so the above argument doesn't apply.

-
This seems like it might well depend sensitively on the details of your machine setup. – Chris Eagle Jan 7 at 0:01
So I'm not sure what you mean by that. "Turing machine," as far as I'm aware, picks out a unique model of computation, and there's a unique thing I mean by "step" in this model of computation. – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 7 at 0:24
Some discussion on this question: scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=46 – Dan Brumleve Jan 7 at 0:44
A variation: can it be shown that $\text{BB}(n)$ is composite infinitely often? This version is seemingly less sensitive to the encoding. – Dan Brumleve Jan 7 at 4:02
1-D BB Turing machines are hard to visualize, so I made a page for 2-D Turing Machine BBs.. Once a 1-D Turing machine becomes predictable, it can be classified as halting or infinite. Thus, the point of predictability is the important point. This rarely happens elegantly. The champions tend to be machines that can be extended forward as they get into temporary predictable behaviors. – Ed Pegg Feb 26 at 15:51

No, $\text{BB}(n) \bmod 2$ is not computable.
Even for $\text{S}(5)$, "there remain about 40 machines with non-regular behavior", according to Wikipedia's Busy Beaver page. For any particular n>4, there will be ornery machines. For $\text{S}(5)$, the true busy beaver might be the known 47,176,870 step machine, or it might be one of these 40 ornery machines. It's one of those 41 machines.
Reverse the problem. For each $n$, run all of oeis.org/A052200 for $k$ steps until there is a machine where none halts on that step. Let $M(n)$ =lowest missing halting number of order $n$. This is computable in a finite number of steps, since the finite pool of machines must decrease at every step. $M(n)$ and it's modulus is unpredictable until someone calculates it, and that only deals with beginning behavior of nice machines. Our ability to deliberately design nasty machines rules out the possibility of predictability in the harder problem. – Ed Pegg Jan 25 at 16:10