Hi Matt, This article might be useful to you, from the special issue of *Computational Culture *on Rhetoric and Computation that Jim Brown and I co-edited: Matthew Bellinger. “The Rhetoric of Error in Digital Media.” *Computational Culture* 5 (15th January 2016). http://computationalculture.net/the-rhetoric-of-error-in-digital-media-2/. Good luck! Annette On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 2:37 PM Chuck House <housec1839@gmail.com> wrote:
Matthew, the ‘famous’ error before the Pentium bug was the “Inverse Log of 2.02” error in the original HP35 handheld calculator. We wound up replacing a lot of firmware as a result.
The bug is described well down in this article http://www.hpcc.org/calculators/wmjarts.html
For my talk at the ACM History of Personal Computing January 1986, here is the video https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102695114
In it at minute 51:00, Tom Osborne, the key creator of HP’s 9100 and HP 35 describes the issue surrounding this “Inverse log of 2.02” error. This is the only description I’ve ever heard
Chuck House
www.innovascapesinstitute.com
www.anywhereanytime.io/covid19
[image: signature_656552628]
http://innovascapes.blogspot.com
805-570-6706
*From: *Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> on behalf of Matthew Kirschenbaum <mkirschenbaum@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, July 3, 2020 at 10:55 AM *To: *members <members@sigcis.org> *Subject: *[SIGCIS-Members] the nature of computational error
Hello all,
I am interested in a better understanding of the nature of computational error. My sense is that actual, literal (mathematical) mistakes in modern computers are quite rare; the notorious Pentium bug of the early 1990s is the exception that proves the rule. Most bugs are, rather, code proceeding to a perfectly correct logical outcome that just so happens to be inimical or intractable to the user and/or other dependent elements of the system. The Y2K "bug," for instance, was actually code executing in ways that were entirely internally self-consistent, however much havoc the code would wreak (or was expected to wreak).
Can anyone recommend reading that will help me formulate such thoughts with greater confidence and accuracy? Or serve as a corrective? I'd like to read something fundamental and even philosophical about, as my subject line has it, *the nature of computational error*. I'd also be interested in collecting other instances comparable to the Pentium bug--bugs that were actual flaws and mistakes hardwired at the deepest levels of a system.
Thank you-- Matt
--
Matthew Kirschenbaum Professor of English and Digital Studies Director, Graduate Certificate in Digital Studies Printer's Devil, BookLab University of Maryland
mgk@umd.edu
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, 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 http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, 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 http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
