Talk:Forcing (computability)

Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

What exactly is the reason for creating a separate forcing page just for computability theory? While it is certainly different from forcing in set theory, the principle of satisfying certain requirements by carefully controlling how one condition is extended to the next is the same. Should we have a separate page also for forcing in arithmetic? Also, the disambiguation page which takes one to 'Forcing (mathematics)' and 'Forcing (recursion theory)' seems quite silly. There is no such thing as 'forcing in mathematics', and computability (recursion) theory is definitely a part of mathematics. So if we wish to persists in this very unreasonable split of forcing into two entirely separate entities (without a general forcing page illustrating the commonalities and general principles), then certainly the former article should be renamed 'Forcing (set theory)'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.23.32 (talk • contribs)

The current arrangement, with 'Forcing (set theory)' and 'Forcing (recursion theory)' seems ok to me. Shall we take of the proposed-merge tag? Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notation

Is the notation for the incompatibility relationship standard for recursion theoretic uses of forcing?--Differentiablef (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wold normally use that symbol for incomparability rather than incompatability. I removed it from the article for now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete section?

'In a moment we will [...] but first we need to explain the language' is not honoured. 86.145.56.185 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article seems incomplete. I will put a warning on the page, and put it on the "pages needing expert attention" list. --Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]