Content deleted Content added
→Proposed move: comments |
|||
Line 148:
:::::I see your point, but I guess nobody would enter "definition of computable functions by μ operator" in a search field. Using "What links here?", I found that the following pages redirect to [[General recursive function]] - maybe one of these would be better suited as original (rather than redirected) title: [[General recursive]] - [[General-recursive]] - [[M-recursive function]] - [[Mu recursive function]] - [[Mu-recursive]] - [[Mu-recursive function]] - [[Partial recursive function]] - [[Recursive function (computability)]] - [[Recursive function theory]] - [[Total recursive function]] - [[Μ recursion]] - [[Μ-recursive function]]. Following your argument, names ending in "recursion" are particularly interesting; e.g. what about [[Recursion (computability)]]?
:::::As a related issue, following your objection to my hasty re-targeting, names ending in "function" should better link to [[Computable function]]. I'm not convinced about that: looking for e.g. "M-recursive function" would end up at [[Computable function]], while looking for "Μ recursion" would end up in [[General recursive function]]; this would be likely to lead to confusion. On the other hand, once the logical sub-section relation is made clear, a user ending up in [[General recursive function]] will easily find the way to the more general [[Computable function]] is it's that (s)he was looking for. - [[User:Jochen Burghardt|Jochen Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Jochen Burghardt|talk]]) 08:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Two basic comments: firstly, if the common terminology is not formally correct, we must not change it to a teminology that is more correct. Secondly, the theory of computability is independent of modern set theory [[ZFC]]. It is often manipulated in other logical frameworks, such as [[intuitionistic logic]]. Therefore, this article must avoid to be too much dependent on set theory. This is for this reason that I have edited the lead for removing the word "class" from the first sentence. It is also a reason for opposing to the merge, as [[Computable function]] is about a set or class of functions, while this article is about individual functions.
Also, there is some ambiguity in the literature whether a (general) recursive funtion is a function that ''can be defined'' by a recursive process or is the pair of a function and a recursive process. Clearly it is the second interpretation that must be preferred, as otherwise the following theorem would be nonsensical: "There are general recursive functions such that it is computationally undecidable whether they equal the constant function zero." As this ambiguity is common in the literature, it is not our job to avoid it in the article title, although the content of the article could deserve to be edited for clarifying this point, or, at least, avoiding to make the ambiguity confusing.
As the concept described in the article is known either as "general recursive function" or "μ-recursive function" but has no commonly used other names, the article title must be one of these two names, and changing it would be [[WP:OR]]. My move from the latter title to the former one could be discussed, but the former name seems more common, specially when used outside the theory of recursive functions. Also, the latter title appears in the search engine as
"M-recursive function", which is confusing, as it may be difficult for the reader to understand that "M" means "μ". [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 11:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||