This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yobot(talk | contribs) at 19:26, 27 September 2012(Banner clean up using AWB (8434)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 19:26, 27 September 2012 by Yobot(talk | contribs)(Banner clean up using AWB (8434))
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
I removed an "expert" tag from this section (ignoring whether the tag is well named). Not sure exactly what sort of accessibility is intended – the subsection of the SEP entry [1] does not even state the theorem, and overall is pretty content-free. This article is not the place for us to go into great depths about enumeration operators, any more than it is the place for us to go into details about computable functions. A longer description of enumeration operators could to go in the article on enumeration reducibility, which unfortunately does not exist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that SEP doesn't state the theorem (Odifreddi dumbed it down for a general audience there), but "Provides a basic tool to find explicit solutions to recursive equations, implicitly defining programs of recursive functions by circular definitions involving the program itself" as an introductory statement seems more accessible to me compared to "The first recursion theorem is related to fixed points determined by enumeration operators, which are a computable analogue of inductive definitions." You could introduce the operators in a 2nd sentence reserve the first for the reader that wants the general picture. By the way, {{intro-tooshort}} applies here too, but I won't tag it since you're probably reading this. I was trying to find some place to redirect recursive equation to that won't produce a big huh from the reader... Pcapping02:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know that the theorem has two parts, but if Odifreddi thinks the lay reader should recall only the second part, we could introduce it that way too, rather than keep the 1st sentence vague for the sake of not leaving anything out. Pcapping02:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the entire article? The article does start with the second theorem, points out it is more well known, and gives a full example in that context. The section on the second recursion theorem also explains that the main role of the first recursion theorem is to get least fixed points, while the second recursion theorem may give larger fixed points. I can add an example to the section on the first recursion theorem as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
