Talk:Computable analysis

Performed a major rewrite

I've performed a major rewrite to include a very brief sketch of Type 2 Effectivity. --Svennik (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rolling back edits by 77.118.128.131

I find the latest edits by 77.118.128.131 to be confusing and full of mistakes. As such, I'm rolling them back. --Svennik (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem. What is a factual mistake there? Do you take offense with the words "programmable" or is the matter that "computable numbers" can be taken to depend on input/output/machine context? Not sure if we can speak more clearly about names and representations without introducing the machinery and a bunch of TeX. I didn't like my edit insofar as I had to use "Type 1" as an adjective ten times. But as it stands, the article gives no hint how input reading relates to output writing of this model, even if you know the standard Turing machine model. Or where the topology language comes in some parts of the text. 77.118.128.131 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought the $\pi$ example was confusing. The specification given didn't seem right. I have though -- based on your suggestion -- added a section on the analogy between computability and topology. I'll think about your other points. --Svennik (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)