Content deleted Content added
→can an algorithm produce infinite output?: no problem |
→Removal of first sentence: new section |
||
Line 228:
::The sentence in question is in the lead of [[recursively enumerable set]] and is intended to give the reader a feel for what RE means, not a precise definition. If the algorithm in question is represented by a partial recursive function, then that function could map 1 to ''s''<sub>1</sub>, 2 to ''s''<sub>2</sub>, etc.. Thus each (finite) part of the output is indexed by the input, and any particular execution of the ''algorithm'' only produces a finite output while the algorithm as a whole has an infinite output. [[User:JRSpriggs|JRSpriggs]] ([[User talk:JRSpriggs|talk]]) 07:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
== Removal of first sentence ==
[[User:Bhny|Bhny]] removed the first sentence, about ''algorithm'' not having a generally-accepted definition, as "uninformative and arguably wrong". While the sentence is problematic because it's unsourced, I don't see how it's either uninformative or arguably wrong.
It is definitely not wrong, because some insist that an algorithm must always terminate in a finite number of steps, and others do not. This is a very basic difference, and there is certainly no generally-accepted answer. It is informative to tell the reader that. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 01:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
| |||