Talk:Primitive recursive function: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:08, 28 February 2024

Latest revision as of 03:36, 9 March 2024

(15 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority=Mid|field=foundations}}

}}

Line 406:

:You do not adress the main issue of these sections. Wikipedia is not for summarizing some specific articles, relying on these articles to know author's definitions of the technical terms. The aim of an encyclopedy is to present the most important results in a language that is compatible with the most common terminology, and is accessible to (in the case of this article) a undergraduate student in mathematics. It must also be clear why a result is important enough to belong to the article (per [[WP:UNDUE]]). Neither the sections under discussion nor your above comments satisfy these requisites. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 14:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

::To reduce complexity of the article I would split off Gödel, and I would also split off LOOP/WHILE. Devote separate articles to the two, would make the primitive recursive article more readable and less cluttered with applications of the notion primrecprimitive recursive in Gödels theorem and computational devices such as LOOP, that show primitive recursive behaviour.

::[[User:Janburse|Jan Burse]] ([[User talk:Janburse|talk]]) 22:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted the first disputed section,

The wording of the two banners is wrong, given Lazard explanation. The wording

and move the second disputed section to here:

of the banner says there is a "what for" missing by means of an uneducated "I guess" of the layman that put down the banner. It is obviously factual not true for the present text that a "what for" is missing, only a layman that doesn't understand the first paragraph and the last two pagagraphs can claim such a nonsense.

[[Gödel's β function]]

The Lazard explanation tells a different story. It talks about a) addressing people in a common language b) setting priorities for inclusion/exclusion. So the banner should have a different phrasing, to not form the laughing stock of Wikipedia. The banners give not the slightest hint what is not understood. Also the talk here isn't helpful. Absurd claims are posited that there is nothing else than first order Peano arithmetic, and strange terminology like "multivariate" is used. And references to SEP are rejected and ignored.

There I would also like to add a reference to this:

So I am out, I cannot help a layman who has not the least sensibility for the topic. And doesn't show some effort to research the topic on his own. He could have found the SEP article by himself, it clarifies the matter and would give him some understanding.

PRIMITIVE RECURSIVE FUNCTIONS by<br>

Zéev Rosenfeld - March 1959<br>

Department of Mathematics McGill University Montreal.

But I don't know how to edit and add a reference.

[[User:Janburse|Jan Burse]] ([[User talk:Janburse|talk]]) 22:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)