Talk:Super-recursive algorithm

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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.

Archives

/Archive1

Copyediting 2009-03-14

I did some copyediting today, after someone wisely pointed out that the article was very difficult to read.

At present, I am pretty happy with the neutrality of the lede section. The next few sections are just OK, and the section "Schmidhuber's generalized Turing machines" is pretty rough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is still here?

Amazing.

The page is misleading on (at least) two points. The first is the content, but it is not sufficient to be "neutral" with respect to that. Because the second is the term itself. There's room on Wikipedia for notable dissent with the Church-Turing thesis, but "Super-recursive algorithm" is still an idiosyncratic term, and most of the dissenters cited by Burgin do not use it.

I still advocate very heavily trimming this page and stuffing whatever's left into hypercomputation or other target. --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started. Is there someone who can explain the difference between "inductive turing machine" and Schmidhuber's scheme? --Unzerlegbarkeit (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize. I tried to get this article thrown out on the grounds that there is no single, independent, peer-reviewed article specifically about "super-recursive algorithms". I doubt that Multipundit could produce one. Yakushima (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is an article hypercomputation, which discusses the topic and mentions its different incarnations, I agree that there is no room for a separate article. It should be merged. Is it possible to restart a merge discussion (instead of deletion)? I do not know Wikipedia procedures well enough. AmirOnWiki (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the definition listed here (the result simply has to be reached "at some point") couldn't you just enumerate all numbers and claim that you had a computer that eventually solved every problem with a numeric solution? I assume there must be something I'm missing because a claim that this represents any sort of useful definition of computability is baffling to me. 173.79.253.74 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are missing anything. This Burgin person seems to be fundamentally confused - since these "inductive" Turing machines either do not halt or else could be trivially simulated by ordinary Turing machines, they do not allow you to calculate anything a Turing machine can't, and therefore don't contribute anything new to the field. Similar for genetic computing and fuzzy logic computing - plenty of those have been written in normal computing languages and run on normal computers, and are therefore simulatable by Turing machines and not anything new. The article therefore does not contribute anything useful to an encyclopaedic description of the field. If we have to have an article about his book, make it about his book, not purporting to be an article about the study of algorithms. 116.199.214.34 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inadequate explanation

Does the article explain the concept to viewers not familiar with it already?

Is the information providing enough context to mean anything without referring to the book mentioned?

2001:470:600D:DEAD:E94B:92C8:B4E1:F8C5 (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with hypercomputation?

This is what was proposed in the AfD by Carl: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-recursive algorithm. Should we do this? One issue is that there are an awful lot of citations in this article that may be difficult to house in the hypercomputation article while keeping balance. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A merge sounds good to me. Most of the references are not explicitly cited and would not be strictly necessary to maintain during the merge; the number of inline citations is smaller and I think would be manageable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]