Talk:Gödel numbering
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gödel numbering article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Further Reading
[edit]Tried to follow the link to 'Visualising...' but was told that access was not authorised (university site). I have replaced the link with one to the same article on the author's blog - though this link may be less long-lived it is accessible. However the actual article is pretty technical and only refers to Gödel numbering in passing, so maybe the link should be removed entirely - since guidelines suggest: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." --Armulwp (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Uniqueness – or not?
[edit]The German article de:Gödelnummer states, in its first sentence, the opposite of Lack_of_uniqueness. Which is true? ◀ Sebastian 11:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Both are true: Being a function, a Gödel numbering assigns to every formula a unique natural number (cf. also the English lead). However, there are many such functions (this is meant in Lack_of_uniqueness). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now that you wrote this I realize that the second part of the sentence says that clearly. The problem was in the first part, which is obviously meant to state the same more concisely, but leaves an ambiguity, if taken by itself. The root of that ambiguity is in the definition of the lemma: Does the term “Gödel numbering” refer to the general method, or to one particular choice of numbering? The first sentence of the article suggests the latter, but the phrasing “A Gödel numbering” in the section in question suggests the former. This could be mitigated by leaving out the article “A”, which, according to our article, suggests “a general statement about any such thing”. ◀ Sebastian 13:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Done - I hope it is better now. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now that you wrote this I realize that the second part of the sentence says that clearly. The problem was in the first part, which is obviously meant to state the same more concisely, but leaves an ambiguity, if taken by itself. The root of that ambiguity is in the definition of the lemma: Does the term “Gödel numbering” refer to the general method, or to one particular choice of numbering? The first sentence of the article suggests the latter, but the phrasing “A Gödel numbering” in the section in question suggests the former. This could be mitigated by leaving out the article “A”, which, according to our article, suggests “a general statement about any such thing”. ◀ Sebastian 13:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Encoding example
[edit]The encoding example claims to be using only prime numbers but there’s a 9 in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9DA0:90B0:F063:C345:A911:A1DE (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)