History of Symbolic logic/Talk

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 18c18,20

That would make the set of axioms a recursive set. A recursively enumerable set is one where the accepting turing machine is not required to stop, or equivalently a set whose elements can be produced one after the other on the tape of a turing machine. --AxelBoldt

The point is that for many purposes recursively enumerable is enough. However the article is wrong as it is now, i.e. its "explanation" of what r.e. is is actually about recursive sets. So maybe we should change the requirements to recursive and add in parentheses that sometimes even r.e. is enough, or something. --AV

	Revision 7 . . November 4, 2001 4:01 am by Anatoly Vorobey
	Revision 6 . . November 4, 2001 1:44 am by AxelBoldt [recursive vs. recursively enumerable]
	Revision 5 . . November 3, 2001 2:45 pm by Simon J Kissane [renaming pages; AxelBoldt's question on recursive vs. recursively enumerable]
	Revision 4 . . November 3, 2001 2:30 pm by AxelBoldt [Axioms recursive or recursively enumerable?]
	Revision 3 . . October 16, 2001 5:28 pm by Anatoly Vorobey
	Revision 2 . . October 16, 2001 4:01 pm by Larry Sanger
	Revision 1 . . October 16, 2001 1:37 pm by Anatoly Vorobey [I propose to move some default entries]