Content deleted Content added
→Dumb Questions: correct error in my last message |
Wanderer57 (talk | contribs) →Dumb Questions: reply |
||
Line 113:
:Sure, ''___domain'' is ambiguous in general, but it's not ambiguous in recursion theory or descriptive set theory. In those fields it has a standard meaning. On the other hand ''co-range'' I have never heard of — Carl says it's a category-theory term, which is possible, but in my limited experience with category theory I've never come across it. We aren't supposed to make up language here. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 07:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks to all of you for your help in uderstanding this. As I said, I'm starting pretty far back.
::As a general comment, I think complex terminology is a huge barrier to comprehension of this subject area. Both the article itself and some of the above discussion illustrate that.
::For example, in the first sentence of the article, even before an r.e. set is defined, the reader is given an alternate name for the subject (i.e., computability theory, traditionally called recursion theory) and four alternatives for the term r.e. (i.e., computably enumerable, semidecidable, provable and Turing-recognizable). IMO this is packing too much information into one sentence.
::Thanks, [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]] ([[User talk:Wanderer57|talk]]) 18:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
| |||