<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>That’s precisely why my CACM article had the tag line “Separating the origins of computer science and technology.” Computer science comes along later, and assembles its foundations long after actual electronic computers already exist. The mistake that computer scientists and philosophers make is in assuming that the development of actual computers must have been driven by the availability of abstract models. That reflects their general disdain for engineering and actual history. In reality, people built computers first and worried about how to legitimate a discipline around their study later.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>An article called “How Aristotle Created Computer Science” would be making an enormously different claim from one titled “How Aristotle Created the Computer.” However, any such article would need to be about the 1950s and 60s, that being when the various intellectual and institutional things that were integrated to form the foundations of computer science were actually assembled.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Tom<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net] <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM<br><b>To:</b> Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com><br><b>Cc:</b> David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com>; members@lists.sigcis.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But couldn’t one argue that computer science owes a huge debt to philosophy, particularly foundations of mathematics and formal logic? My impression is that debt is under-paid and not that widely appreciated.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <<a href="mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com">thomas.haigh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>To be fair, the article is doubling down on a version of computer history that is quite popular, particularly among non-historians. Given the reach of Davis’ book, not to mention Hofstadter, I’m not sure that all this is as unusual approach as the opening implies. My views on all this are on record in the CACM article “Actually, Turing Did Not Invent The Computer.”<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf"><span style='color:#954F72'>http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>If you believe Copeland, Davis, and others who think that Turing invented the so-called "stored program" computer in 1936, then why not cut out the middle man? Going up the chain and handing the whole thing to Aristotle is only slightly more of a stretch. Dixon clearly does believe the Davis/Copeland version:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>In contrast to Shannon’s paper, Turing’s paper is highly technical. Its primary historical significance lies not in its answer to the decision problem, but in the template for computer design it provided along the way….<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Turing showed how a program could be stored inside a computer alongside the data upon which it operates. In today’s vocabulary, we’d say that he invented the “stored-program” architecture that underlies most modern computers. [skipping quote from Davis] This was the first rigorous demonstration that any computing logic that could be encoded in hardware could also be encoded in software. The architecture Turing described was later dubbed the “Von Neumann architecture” — but modern historians generally agree it came from Turing, as, apparently, did Von Neumann himself.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Asserting that "modern historians generally agree" that the von Neumann architecture came from Turing’s paper seems like a rather dubious claim to me. Particularly if you read Turing’s paper and look for a von Neumann architecture in it. At the Early Digital workshop in January I raised the question explicitly with a fairly good sampling of “modern historians” and nobody present supported the idea. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Another exaggeration: “Turing joined a secret unit at Bletchley Park, northwest of London, where he helped design computers that were instrumental in breaking German codes.” Bombes weren’t computers, and Turing didn’t help to design Colossus (which personally I don’t think was a computer either, but that’s more controversial).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>People in the comments section seem to like it, but in an unusually highbrow example of internet discourse are calling out for more attention to the anitkythera device, Chrysippus, Pierce, Polish bombe creators, Thomas Aquinas, etc. Nobody seems to be objecting to the Turing claim, though someone does take the opportunity to insult Ada Lovelace.</span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Best wishes,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Tom<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Members [<a href="mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org"><span style='color:#954F72'>mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org</span></a>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek<br>Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM<br>To:<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org"><span style='color:#954F72'>members@lists.sigcis.org</span></a><br>Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>We're fully engaged in the invention of email, but we haven't had any new inventors of the computer in a while. The Atlantic is helping with that: "How Aristotle Created the Computer".<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The article is rather better than its title.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>This email is relayed from members at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://sigcis.org/"><span style='color:#954F72'>sigcis.org</span></a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space> </span>and you can change your subscription options at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>_______________________________________________<br>This email is relayed from members at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://sigcis.org/"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>sigcis.org</span></a><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/</span></a><span class=apple-converted-space><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'> </span></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif'>and you can change your subscription options at<span class=apple-converted-space> </span></span><a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org"><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#954F72'>http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>