Talk:Hava Siegelmann

Neutral point of view?
This article makes some pretty arrogant assertions, e.g. that she is the/a foremost expert on Alan Turing and is carrying on his legacy. Matt2h (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Trying to improve. In my edit of today I have done the following:
 * (1) remove the usage of glorifying adjectives (e.g., "seminal paper", "pushing the state of the art")
 * (2) remove statements who contribute no information (besides glorification) because they are non-specific (e.g., "given numerous invited lectures", "contributes through various organizations")
 * (3) remove assertions that are both unsourced and represent opinion rather than fact (e.g., how Siegelmann did Scientific Justice to Alan Turing), or possibly original research (the section "Connection with the work by Alan Turing").
 * (4) remove assertions that attack the critics of Siegelmann's work (e.g., the statement about Martin Davis misunderstanding Siegelmann's work; this is in violation of Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons).
 * (5) by way of cleanup, I removed a passage which explains what "super-Turing" means; there is a separate Wikipedia article on this subject (Hypercomputation).
 * The article still includes some unsourced statements regarding the achievements of the subject, that should henceforth be considered challenged.
 * These changes are based on Wikipedia policies. Should they be disputed, I would like to invite the disputing editor to present their case on the Talk page, and avoid an edit war; or make an improved contribution to the article, that aligns with the Policies.
 * GoodFaithEdit (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken out some more spamming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.27.137 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Factuality query
The wiki article on Hypercomputation has been updated since this biography was originally written. Evidence cited there shows that "super-Turing computation" existed as a research topic 5 years before this author's Science paper on the subject. Is the claim to have founded the subject, based on that publication, appropriate? Presumably an earlier publication is required as evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.39.55 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean anything?
The article is full of things of which it is not clear what they mean, or even that they mean anything at all. Example: "Practically they showed how simple neurons in such interconnections provide very significant computation, and mathematically they proved the result that ARNN have very well-defined computational power that is beyond the classical Universal Turing Machine." What does it mean for computation to be significant, and even very significant, and what can be considered to constitute "practical" proof of that? What makes some computational powers better defined than others? What does it mean for such power to be beyond the UTM? All completely unclear. --Lambiam 06:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, this page seems quite odd. Someone should clean this up. 84.85.139.160 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested that this artical may be something User talk:Jesswade88 as a science specialist may be able to help tidy upBack ache (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)