Content deleted Content added
Plea to think of level of article →structure of article, recursion theory |
m →structure of article, recursion theory: Forgotten signature added |
||
Line 175:
:Ah, that's not bad. Then there'd be room to do the sort of thing I outlined, with lots of sections that point to main articles and give brief summaries of their contents. There could be one of those sections for automata theory, too. Note that I'm not personally promising to take care of the second part of the plan, at least not soon (any large time block that I commit to WP at the moment would have to be at [[set theory]], [[naive set theory]], [[axiomatic set theory]], where I've won a mild consensus for an ambitious reform). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not neglect the layman (obviously "interested", a modicum of intelligence/maturity also presumed) - not only should they not go away empty-handed, they should also not come to a dead end. In other words, if one comes to the article knowing nothing of computability, one should learn something about it, and also be told where to find more information if one gets stuck. At the same time I am in favour of articles covering advanced topics and current research, though I understand that Wikipedia is not intended for ''publishing'' original research. So how does one accomodate these requirements? Are there useful templates: e.g. from now on secondary school / undergraduate maths / postgraduate mathematical maturity required. Or: this presumes understanding of article ''X'' - which might get awkward if that article keeps changing level! -- [[User:PJTraill|PJTraill]] 00:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
== All physical systems, including PC's, are FSM's ==
| |||