Is there a good reason for this category, when there is already the recursion theory category? ---- Charles Stewart 14:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would like to merge the recursion theory category into this category. I believe both refer to the same topic but computability is the more suggestive term. Any objections ? MathMartin 21:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- done. MathMartin 17:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Inconsistency in terminology
One problem I have noticed in this section is that there seems to be an inconsistent use of the term "computable." At times it seems to mean the same thing as "recursive" or "decidable," while at others it is identified with "recursively enumerable" or "recognizable."
See the "Definition" sections of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_set , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursively_enumerable_set for examples of the conflict.
I recommend that the term be held to mean the same thing everwhere within the wikipedia (though I understand that even in the greater body of literature this ambiguity exists). I myself prefer the definition as equivalent to "recognizable" since to my mind this is the border of useful computation.
Whose idea was redirect?
Someone has taken on himself to redirect this category to Category:Theory of computation. I find no discussion at Categories for Deletion. I think this is a bad idea; computability theory (the nouveau name for recursion theory) has relatively little to do with the theory of computation. --Trovatore 23:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)