Super recursive algorithms
Thank you for improving this article. It certainly will benefit from attention. Let me point out a few things that are often surprising to new editors.
Wikipedia has a policy on original research and policy on neutral point of view. The impact of these on the article at hand is that we need to attribute Burgin's claims specifically to Burgin, since they are not widely (or even significantly) accepted by the scientific community. Burgin's claim are, at best, a minority position, so our article would be inaccurate to present them as if they represent established consensus.
Another consequence of the original research policy is that our articles shouldn't be used to present arguments that have not been presented in peer-reviewed sources. In this case, these include arguments that synthesize other sources to support Burgin's claims. Of course, any argument Burgin has already made in print can be included, with a specific reference to Burgin's work.
Also, as a minor point, we don't repeatedly use bold for each occurrence of a term. The first occurrence is sometimes put in bold, but additional uses shouldn't be. You also, accidentally, removed a reference I added. Please try not to remove references, as they are important for readers.
The talk page Talk:Super-recursive algorithm can be used to discuss the content of the article.
Hello multipundit, you haven't been around here for long, so you are probably not aware of this. Answering other users by putting indented comments between their paragraphs is a standard practice in Wikipedia discussions. After you moved Peter's comments elsewhere it has become much harder to understand what they refer to. If Peter got angry about this he would be absolutely justified. To make absolutely sure this doesn't happen I would recommend that you restore Peter's comments and only leave the paragraph in which you ask for people not to reply in this way. With some luck everybody will humour you, but I don't think you can enforce it.
Of course, the shorter your contributions, the more likely it is that people will automatically reply at the end of them rather than in between. A well-chosen short comment is also usually much more effective than a long one.--Hans Adler (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your nice reply on my talk page. Now I feel encouraged to give you another piece of advice. It is of course perfectly OK to address what you see as faulty arguments in other people's comments. But I would recommend making sure that you really address the arguments and not the person. This is not just because you will have to get along with your fellow editors/contributors [I saw your question on Carl's talk page: I think these words are essentially synonyms and also include anonymous users] in the long term, it is also more effective. For example I don't agree with your last reply to Peter, and so I am tempted to write something like the following:
- "The conflict here is about whether the Church-Turing thesis can be 'refuted' by redefining one of the terms ('algorithm') which appear in its statement. Obviously such a ludicrous refutation by equivocation can only be defended by resorting to sophistry. Your first attempt using proof by verbosity has failed. Now you are trying argumentum ad hominem. Your points 1-3 are all red herrings. The question here is about what algorithms can compute, not about specific recipes for doing so. And the correspondence between any other models for this and sets of integers is standard. Davis writes that the specific kind of super-recursive algorithms which according to Burgin disprove the CTT compute exactly the sets, so your arguments are clearly irrelevant. Instead of practising nitpicking on a relatively casual comment of 'one of the earliest pioneers in the field of computer science' you had better check the logic in your own comments. And your spelling."
- I think you will agree that that would be a very inflaming reply that wouldn't bring us any closer to a peaceful resolution making anybody happy. I hope that my real reply to you on Talk:Super-recursive algorithm is much better, although I am of course still far from Carl's outstanding non-confrontational debating skills. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hans, thanks. Multipundit, gratz on finding your Talk page :-) Wiki has zillions of policies, zillions of contributors, and zillions of mechanisms. Generally I've found it fun learning my way around as I proceed; many of us are drawn to complicated things anyway, and obviouslky know the value of patience. Incidentally, "contributors", "users", and "editors" are (here) all the same folks, the only differences are in coonotation. I speak of the editor who made a change, the contributor who authors content (I hate that expression), and the user who reads the results, trying to learn something. Pete St.John (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It's hard for people to follow a discussion if the same topic is discussed on many different pages. Your comment about Church's thesis is at Talk:Algorithm#A_paradoxical_situation. On the other talk pages, I have replaced your comment with a link to that page. This will make it simpler for everyone to keep track of the discussion. In general, it's best to just make a comment on one article's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has established norms, and one of those is to keep discussions together in a single place. Moreover, the point of talk pages is to discuss the writing of the actual article that the talk page is associated to, not in general for discussion of theoretical issues. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
As an FYI
Hello, Multipundit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding your recent conduct, which some users are seeing as personal attacks. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Multipundit. Yours, Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- (P.S. - This is a courtesy notification; since I am currently on vacation, I won't be actively participating, and so comments left on my talk page may not receive a timely response.)
I have reverted your recent additions as they appear to be a personal reflection on the topic of names in general, not related to the specific topic of named sets. Please proceed more slowly and gain consensus at the article talk page for these changes. Deltahedron (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)