Timeline for Why is Kleene's notion of computability better than Banach-Mazur's?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Apr 21, 2010 at 11:45 | comment | added | Jacques Carette | What is the essence of the counter-examples? Do the 3 counter-examples have some kernel idea in common? [That answer probably doesn't fit in a comment! You should add it either as an edit or even as a 'new' answer]. | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 9:42 | comment | added | Andrej Bauer | There are classes of numbered sets for which B-M computability is equivalent to Markov computability. For example, Eršov numbered sets have this property (the conditions that a numbered set must satisfy in order to be an Eršov set do not fit into this comment, or perhaps just barely, but essentially they say that the numbered set behaves like the numbered set of r.e. sets). | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 7:58 | comment | added | Neel Krishnaswami | B-M is a really pretty idea! It's too bad it doesn't work, but is there some way of salvaging it? | |
| Apr 21, 2010 at 7:56 | vote | accept | Neel Krishnaswami | ||
| Apr 21, 2010 at 4:25 | history | edited | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
spelling
|
| Apr 20, 2010 at 18:57 | history | edited | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
corrected spelling
|
| Apr 20, 2010 at 16:09 | history | answered | Andrej Bauer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |