Content deleted Content added
Line 193:
:::::::No, the change was a much needed improvement over what we had. -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 18:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks you for engaging. I really have already said what I had to say about that. It is all above here in this thread, including a link to my proposed edit. The definition of "recursion" uses the word "recursion"... This is unacceptable, confusing, does not explain anything. Is this really not self-evident? (I haven't read this article since then though; I'm just explaining myself as you requested me to do). All the best, -- [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] ([[User talk:WillNess|talk]]) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well if you don't want to make an effort to convince anyone then I don't think you can be too upset when you find yourself in a situation where no one is coming out of the woodwork to agree with you. Your edit adds a bunch of words that don't, to me, make the text seem more correct, less confusing, or more explanatory. Your edit conflates self-reference and recursion; they are certainly related but they're not the same concept: for example, "the ''n''th Fibonacci number" is a thing that is defined recursively but not self-referentially (each Fibonacci number is defined in terms of ''different'' Fibonacci numbers, not the number itself). And it's not clear to me why you believe that the formal definition of recursion in the article is in some way circular, nor how you think it relies on the concept of recursion itself. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
== Recursion in pseudo code ==
| |||