The latest inventor of the computer
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". https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... The article is rather better than its title.
Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative. 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.” http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComp... 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: 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…. 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. 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. 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). 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. Best wishes, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer 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". <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... The article is rather better than its title. _______________________________________________ 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/> 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> http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
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.
On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote:
Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.
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.” http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComp... <http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf>
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:
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….
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.
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.
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).
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.
Best wishes,
Tom <> -----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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". https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/> The article is rather better than its title.
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
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. 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. Tom From: David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM To: Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> Cc: David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com>; members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer 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. On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com> > wrote: Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative. 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.” <http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf> http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComp... 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: 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…. 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. 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. 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). 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. Best wishes, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Members [ <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer 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". <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... The article is rather better than its title. _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at <http://sigcis.org/> 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/> 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> http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at <http://sigcis.org/> 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/> 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> http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
As often happens, dear old Ireland can claim an even earlier invention: - https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange Over 5000 years ago tomb builders in the Boyne Valley constructed, possibly, the first optical computer in the world using the main tomb at Newgrange. Every winter solstice the light at dawn on the horizon shines through a unique box-like structure over the main entrance, down the passage to the very back of the tomb; indicating very precisely the time of the the year. While the outer stones of the Newgrange tumulus are artistically decorated with spirals and losenges, the meaning of which is unknown, the reverse side of these kerb stones have less well-executed symbols (dot patterns, diamonds, spirals, losenges and so on) which are assumed to have some symbolic meaning. The aim of this project is to use the word2vec system to analyse the co-occurrence structure of these symbols with a view to saying something about the similarities between different stones and/or sites. Several current analyses have been carried out, based on percentages of coverage of certain symbols on given stones, but an extensive and complete analysis has yet to be carried out. Using an analogy to documents, each tomb can be treated as a document, each stone as a sentence and each symbol as a work. The aim of the system would be to detemine statistically what symbols tend to co-occur with other symbols at different locations. On 23 March 2017 at 21:34, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.
Tom
*From:* David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net] *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM *To:* Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> *Cc:* David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com>; members@lists.sigcis.org *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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.
On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote:
Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.
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.” http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInvent TheComputer.pdf
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:
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….
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.
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.
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).
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.
Best wishes,
Tom
-----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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".
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/ aristotle-computer/518697/
The article is rather better than its title.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Turing did not invent the computer. But one could have an easier time trying to defend the claim that Turing's 1936 work was a prerequisite for Willem van der Poel to build the first Dutch "stored program" computers ..... as explained in my latest book "Turing Tales"; see: www.dijkstrascry.com/turingtalesIn retrospect, Turing himself might very well have thought like van der Poel (with Turing universality being a central concept in his engineering work); they certainly programmed real computers in a very similar manner. A similar remark can be made about Martin Davis in the 1950s, who did not build computers but did program them. Another source is our work in progress, presented at the first Siegen workshop in 2016:L. De Mol, M. Bullynck, E.G. Daylight. A Short History of Small Machines. (work in progress) best wishes,Edgar On Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:39 PM, Seamus Sweeney <seamussweeney1@gmail.com> wrote: As often happens, dear old Ireland can claim an even earlier invention: - https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange Over 5000 years ago tomb builders in the Boyne Valley constructed, possibly, the first optical computer in the world using the main tomb at Newgrange. Every winter solstice the light at dawn on the horizon shines through a unique box-like structure over the main entrance, down the passage to the very back of the tomb; indicating very precisely the time of the the year. While the outer stones of the Newgrange tumulus are artistically decorated with spirals and losenges, the meaning of which is unknown, the reverse side of these kerb stones have less well-executed symbols (dot patterns, diamonds, spirals, losenges and so on) which are assumed to have some symbolic meaning. The aim of this project is to use the word2vec system to analyse the co-occurrence structure of these symbols with a view to saying something about the similarities between different stones and/or sites. Several current analyses have been carried out, based on percentages of coverage of certain symbols on given stones, but an extensive and complete analysis has yet to be carried out. Using an analogy to documents, each tomb can be treated as a document, each stone as a sentence and each symbol as a work. The aim of the system would be to detemine statistically what symbols tend to co-occur with other symbols at different locations. On 23 March 2017 at 21:34, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote: 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. 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. Tom From: David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM To: Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> Cc: David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com>; members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer 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. On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com> wrote: Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative. 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.” http://www. tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/ CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInvent TheComputer.pdf 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: 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…. 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. 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. 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). 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. Best wishes, Tom -----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists. sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer 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".https://www.theatlantic.com/ technology/archive/2017/03/ aristotle-computer/518697/The article is rather better than its title. ______________________________ _________________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 ______________________________ _________________ 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
For those of you interested in the paper mentioned by Edgar, a draft version is available from: https://hal-univ-paris8.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01345592/document (though some of our conclusions are in need of revision or, at least, nuancing) best wishes, Liesbeth On 2017-03-24 07:24, Edgar Daylight wrote:
Turing did not invent the computer. But one could have an easier time trying to defend the claim that Turing's 1936 work was a prerequisite for Willem van der Poel to build the first Dutch "stored program" computers ..... as explained in my latest book "Turing Tales"; see: www.dijkstrascry.com/turingtales In retrospect, Turing himself might very well have thought like van der Poel (with Turing universality being a central concept in his engineering work); they certainly programmed real computers in a very similar manner. A similar remark can be made about Martin Davis in the 1950s, who did not build computers but did program them.
Another source is our work in progress, presented at the first Siegen workshop in 2016: L. De Mol, M. Bullynck, E.G. Daylight. A Short History of Small Machines. (work in progress)
best wishes, Edgar
On Thursday, March 23, 2017 10:39 PM, Seamus Sweeney <seamussweeney1@gmail.com> wrote:
As often happens, dear old Ireland can claim an even earlier invention: - https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange
Over 5000 years ago tomb builders in the Boyne Valley constructed, possibly, the first optical computer in the world using the main tomb at Newgrange. Every winter solstice the light at dawn on the horizon shines through a unique box-like structure over the main entrance, down the passage to the very back of the tomb; indicating very precisely the time of the the year. While the outer stones of the Newgrange tumulus are artistically decorated with spirals and losenges, the meaning of which is unknown, the reverse side of these kerb stones have less well-executed symbols (dot patterns, diamonds, spirals, losenges and so on) which are assumed to have some symbolic meaning. The aim of this project is to use the word2vec system to analyse the co-occurrence structure of these symbols with a view to saying something about the similarities between different stones and/or sites. Several current analyses have been carried out, based on percentages of coverage of certain symbols on given stones, but an extensive and complete analysis has yet to be carried out. Using an analogy to documents, each tomb can be treated as a document, each stone as a sentence and each symbol as a work. The aim of the system would be to detemine statistically what symbols tend to co-occur with other symbols at different locations.
On 23 March 2017 at 21:34, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.____ __ __ 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.____ __ __ Tom____ __ __ *From:*David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>] *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM *To:* Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> *Cc:* David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com <mailto:len@shustek.com>>; members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer____ __ __ 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.____ __ __
On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:____ __ __ Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.____ ____ 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.” http://www. tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/ CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInvent TheComputer.pdf <http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf>____ ____ 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:____ ____ 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….____ ____ 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.____ ____ 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. ____ ____ 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).____ ____ 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.____ ____ Best wishes,____ ____ Tom____ ____ -----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists. sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer____ ____ 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".____ https://www.theatlantic.com/ technology/archive/2017/03/ aristotle-computer/518697/ <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/>____ The article is rather better than its title.____ ____ ______________________________ _____________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>____ ______________________________ _________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>____
__ __
______________________________ _________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <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/ <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
These days, on encountering any news story or feature that seems to be touting a particularly bizarre claim, I try to make sure I look at the text without reference to the headline, which is often constructed by a subeditor without input or right of veto from the author. (Same applies to standfirsts, where these are used: I have seen some particularly mad examples of this form, even when both the headline and article are restrained.) As Tom points out, Chris Dixon's /Atlantic/ piece has its problems, but is considerably saner than its headline. "How Aristotle Created the Computer" has an unfortunate ring of self-parody for anyone familiar with technological precursoritis. I was reminded of a line from the /TVGoHome/ book: "Recent archaeological digs have unearthed evidence of a primitive Inca television set. Unlike modern units it had no screen, and resembled a decorative cup. Instead of broadcasting programmes, historians believe it was mainly used for drinking liquid." JS On 23 Mar 17 21:39, Seamus Sweeney wrote:
As often happens, dear old Ireland can claim an even earlier invention: - https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange
Over 5000 years ago tomb builders in the Boyne Valley constructed, possibly, the first optical computer in the world using the main tomb at Newgrange. Every winter solstice the light at dawn on the horizon shines through a unique box-like structure over the main entrance, down the passage to the very back of the tomb; indicating very precisely the time of the the year. While the outer stones of the Newgrange tumulus are artistically decorated with spirals and losenges, the meaning of which is unknown, the reverse side of these kerb stones have less well-executed symbols (dot patterns, diamonds, spirals, losenges and so on) which are assumed to have some symbolic meaning. The aim of this project is to use the word2vec system to analyse the co-occurrence structure of these symbols with a view to saying something about the similarities between different stones and/or sites. Several current analyses have been carried out, based on percentages of coverage of certain symbols on given stones, but an extensive and complete analysis has yet to be carried out. Using an analogy to documents, each tomb can be treated as a document, each stone as a sentence and each symbol as a work. The aim of the system would be to detemine statistically what symbols tend to co-occur with other symbols at different locations.
On 23 March 2017 at 21:34, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
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.
Tom
*From:*David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>] *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM *To:* Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> *Cc:* David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com <mailto:len@shustek.com>>; members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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.
On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.
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.”http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComp... <http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf>
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:
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….
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.
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.
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).
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.
Best wishes,
Tom
-----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To:members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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".
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/>
The article is rather better than its title.
_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members atsigcis.org <http://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 athttp://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/>and you can change your subscription options athttp://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members atsigcis.org <http://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 athttp://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/>and you can change your subscription options athttp://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <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
JS: That’s really funny! But I do wish to note that it is my impression that for Computer Science the debt owed to philosophy in the guise of foundations of mathematics and formal logic goes beyond the construction of a foundation myth or the legitimation of a discipline. I take it that the work of Church, Turing, Post, et al. was actually a central resource in forming the practice and agendas of computer science to the present. But maybe I’m wrong?
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:41 AM, James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
These days, on encountering any news story or feature that seems to be touting a particularly bizarre claim, I try to make sure I look at the text without reference to the headline, which is often constructed by a subeditor without input or right of veto from the author. (Same applies to standfirsts, where these are used: I have seen some particularly mad examples of this form, even when both the headline and article are restrained.) As Tom points out, Chris Dixon's Atlantic piece has its problems, but is considerably saner than its headline. "How Aristotle Created the Computer" has an unfortunate ring of self-parody for anyone familiar with technological precursoritis. I was reminded of a line from the TVGoHome book: "Recent archaeological digs have unearthed evidence of a primitive Inca television set. Unlike modern units it had no screen, and resembled a decorative cup. Instead of broadcasting programmes, historians believe it was mainly used for drinking liquid." JS
On 23 Mar 17 21:39, Seamus Sweeney wrote:
As often happens, dear old Ireland can claim an even earlier invention: - https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange <https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange>
Over 5000 years ago tomb builders in the Boyne Valley constructed, possibly, the first optical computer in the world using the main tomb at Newgrange. Every winter solstice the light at dawn on the horizon shines through a unique box-like structure over the main entrance, down the passage to the very back of the tomb; indicating very precisely the time of the the year. While the outer stones of the Newgrange tumulus are artistically decorated with spirals and losenges, the meaning of which is unknown, the reverse side of these kerb stones have less well-executed symbols (dot patterns, diamonds, spirals, losenges and so on) which are assumed to have some symbolic meaning. The aim of this project is to use the word2vec system to analyse the co-occurrence structure of these symbols with a view to saying something about the similarities between different stones and/or sites. Several current analyses have been carried out, based on percentages of coverage of certain symbols on given stones, but an extensive and complete analysis has yet to be carried out. Using an analogy to documents, each tomb can be treated as a document, each stone as a sentence and each symbol as a work. The aim of the system would be to detemine statistically what symbols tend to co-occur with other symbols at different locations.
On 23 March 2017 at 21:34, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote: 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.
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.
Tom
<> From: David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM To: Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> Cc: David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com <mailto:len@shustek.com>>; members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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.
On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.
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.” http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComp... <http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf>
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:
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….
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.
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.
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).
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.
Best wishes,
Tom
-----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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".
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/> The article is rather better than its title.
_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org> _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <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/ <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 <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
David, That's the question, right: to which extent can we explain the emergence of computer science only based on sociological explanations (search for professional and academic legitimation) or simply noting its conceptual borrowings from the mathematical logic of the 1920s and 1930s? On the other hand, as Tom notes, it seems clear that the lack of a history of computer science facilitates its conflation with the history of computing, both in popular and academic discourse, and allows computer scientists, logicians, and philosophers, to persevere with their foundational myths. The Turing centenary has clearly shown, if anything, how much we need to move on, turncommon assumptions into research questions, and start writing a history of computer science that differs from that of the computer, that of computing practices, and that of mathematical logic. Cheers, David On 24-03-17 14:02, David C. Brock wrote:
JS: That’s really funny!
But I do wish to note that it is my impression that for Computer Science the debt owed to philosophy in the guise of foundations of mathematics and formal logic goes beyond the construction of a foundation myth or the legitimation of a discipline. I take it that the work of Church, Turing, Post, et al. was actually a central resource in forming the practice and agendas of computer science to the present. But maybe I’m wrong?
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:41 AM, James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk <mailto:james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
These days, on encountering any news story or feature that seems to be touting a particularly bizarre claim, I try to make sure I look at the text without reference to the headline, which is often constructed by a subeditor without input or right of veto from the author. (Same applies to standfirsts, where these are used: I have seen some particularly mad examples of this form, even when both the headline and article are restrained.) As Tom points out, Chris Dixon's /Atlantic/ piece has its problems, but is considerably saner than its headline.
"How Aristotle Created the Computer" has an unfortunate ring of self-parody for anyone familiar with technological precursoritis. I was reminded of a line from the /TVGoHome/ book: "Recent archaeological digs have unearthed evidence of a primitive Inca television set. Unlike modern units it had no screen, and resembled a decorative cup. Instead of broadcasting programmes, historians believe it was mainly used for drinking liquid."
JS
On 23 Mar 17 21:39, Seamus Sweeney wrote:
As often happens, dear old Ireland can claim an even earlier invention: - https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange
Over 5000 years ago tomb builders in the Boyne Valley constructed, possibly, the first optical computer in the world using the main tomb at Newgrange. Every winter solstice the light at dawn on the horizon shines through a unique box-like structure over the main entrance, down the passage to the very back of the tomb; indicating very precisely the time of the the year. While the outer stones of the Newgrange tumulus are artistically decorated with spirals and losenges, the meaning of which is unknown, the reverse side of these kerb stones have less well-executed symbols (dot patterns, diamonds, spirals, losenges and so on) which are assumed to have some symbolic meaning. The aim of this project is to use the word2vec system to analyse the co-occurrence structure of these symbols with a view to saying something about the similarities between different stones and/or sites. Several current analyses have been carried out, based on percentages of coverage of certain symbols on given stones, but an extensive and complete analysis has yet to be carried out. Using an analogy to documents, each tomb can be treated as a document, each stone as a sentence and each symbol as a work. The aim of the system would be to detemine statistically what symbols tend to co-occur with other symbols at different locations.
On 23 March 2017 at 21:34, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
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.
Tom
*From:*David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>] *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM *To:* Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> *Cc:* David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com <mailto:len@shustek.com>>; members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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.
On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.
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.”http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComp... <http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf>
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:
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….
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.
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.
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).
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.
Best wishes,
Tom
-----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To:members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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".
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/>
The article is rather better than its title.
_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members atsigcis.org <http://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 athttp://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/>and you can change your subscription options athttp://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members atsigcis.org <http://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 athttp://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ <http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/>and you can change your subscription options athttp://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members atsigcis.org <http://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 athttp://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options athttp://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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 athttp://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options athttp://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
Well put! Would you (or someone else reading this) happen to have a good bibliography on the history of computer science — such as it exists — that could be shared with me (this list)? Best wishes, David
On Mar 24, 2017, at 11:17 AM, david nofre <d.nofre@gmail.com> wrote:
David,
That's the question, right: to which extent can we explain the emergence of computer science only based on sociological explanations (search for professional and academic legitimation) or simply noting its conceptual borrowings from the mathematical logic of the 1920s and 1930s? On the other hand, as Tom notes, it seems clear that the lack of a history of computer science facilitates its conflation with the history of computing, both in popular and academic discourse, and allows computer scientists, logicians, and philosophers, to persevere with their foundational myths. The Turing centenary has clearly shown, if anything, how much we need to move on, turn common assumptions into research questions, and start writing a history of computer science that differs from that of the computer, that of computing practices, and that of mathematical logic.
Cheers,
David
On 24-03-17 14:02, David C. Brock wrote:
JS: That’s really funny!
But I do wish to note that it is my impression that for Computer Science the debt owed to philosophy in the guise of foundations of mathematics and formal logic goes beyond the construction of a foundation myth or the legitimation of a discipline. I take it that the work of Church, Turing, Post, et al. was actually a central resource in forming the practice and agendas of computer science to the present. But maybe I’m wrong?
On Mar 24, 2017, at 5:41 AM, James Sumner <james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk <mailto:james.sumner@manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
These days, on encountering any news story or feature that seems to be touting a particularly bizarre claim, I try to make sure I look at the text without reference to the headline, which is often constructed by a subeditor without input or right of veto from the author. (Same applies to standfirsts, where these are used: I have seen some particularly mad examples of this form, even when both the headline and article are restrained.) As Tom points out, Chris Dixon's Atlantic piece has its problems, but is considerably saner than its headline. "How Aristotle Created the Computer" has an unfortunate ring of self-parody for anyone familiar with technological precursoritis. I was reminded of a line from the TVGoHome book: "Recent archaeological digs have unearthed evidence of a primitive Inca television set. Unlike modern units it had no screen, and resembled a decorative cup. Instead of broadcasting programmes, historians believe it was mainly used for drinking liquid." JS
On 23 Mar 17 21:39, Seamus Sweeney wrote:
As often happens, dear old Ireland can claim an even earlier invention: - https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange <https://csiweb.ucd.ie/content/symbol-vec-newgrange>
Over 5000 years ago tomb builders in the Boyne Valley constructed, possibly, the first optical computer in the world using the main tomb at Newgrange. Every winter solstice the light at dawn on the horizon shines through a unique box-like structure over the main entrance, down the passage to the very back of the tomb; indicating very precisely the time of the the year. While the outer stones of the Newgrange tumulus are artistically decorated with spirals and losenges, the meaning of which is unknown, the reverse side of these kerb stones have less well-executed symbols (dot patterns, diamonds, spirals, losenges and so on) which are assumed to have some symbolic meaning. The aim of this project is to use the word2vec system to analyse the co-occurrence structure of these symbols with a view to saying something about the similarities between different stones and/or sites. Several current analyses have been carried out, based on percentages of coverage of certain symbols on given stones, but an extensive and complete analysis has yet to be carried out. Using an analogy to documents, each tomb can be treated as a document, each stone as a sentence and each symbol as a work. The aim of the system would be to detemine statistically what symbols tend to co-occur with other symbols at different locations.
On 23 March 2017 at 21:34, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote: 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.
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.
Tom
<> From: David C. Brock [mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:21 PM To: Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> Cc: David Brock <dcb@dcbrock.net <mailto:dcb@dcbrock.net>>; Len Shustek <len@shustek.com <mailto:len@shustek.com>>; members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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.
On Mar 23, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Thomas Haigh <thomas.haigh@gmail.com <mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com>> wrote:
Better than the title, perhaps, but everything is relative.
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.” http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComp... <http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/CACMActuallyTuringDidNotInventTheComputer.pdf>
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:
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….
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.
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.
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).
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.
Best wishes,
Tom
-----Original Message----- From: Members [mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] On Behalf Of Len Shustek Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 3:11 PM To: members@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members@lists.sigcis.org> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
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".
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/51... <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/> The article is rather better than its title.
_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org> _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org>
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://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/ <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 <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/ <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 <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
Would you (or someone else reading this) happen to have a good bibliography on the history of computer science -- such as it exists that could be shared with me (this list)?
I can recommend several articles on the (internalist) history of formal languages, automata theory, and recursive functions. They have further bibliographies that may be helpful. Parts of the articles are somewhat technical. The first three are from the Annals 3:1 (1981), special issue on the theory of computing: Sheila Greibach, Formal Languages: Origins and Directions, pp 14-41 Juris Hartmanis, Observations About the Development of Theoretical Computer Science, pp 42-51 Stephen Kleene, Origins of Recursive Function Theory, pp 52-67. Lance Fortnow & Steve Homer, A Short History of Computational Complexity, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 2003; https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~fortnow/papers/history.pdf . David Hemmendinger hemmendd@union.edu Professor Emeritus http://athena.union.edu/~hemmendd Computer Science Dept. +1 518 346 4489 Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308 FAX: +1 518 388 6789 Associate Editor-in-chief, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing
Dear David, In addition to the already mentioned literature, you could have a look to this: Stephanie Dick has written a highly recommendable overview of the state of the art in the recently published *A Companion to the History of American Science* (Blackwell)[chapter "Computer Science"]. It includes, if I recall right, references to Mark Priestley's *A Science of Operations*, the classic work of Michael Mahoney's "The Search for a Mathematical Theory", the most recent work on the stored-program concept by Tom Haigh and Mark Priestley, as well as the sociological analysis provided by Nathan Ensmenger and Janet Abbate in their respective books. William Aspray's dissertation "From Mathematical Constructivity to Computer Science" is still very valuable and should be added to this list, as well as Liesbeth de Mol's extensive and original work on Post. Hope this helps! David Nofre On 24 March 2017 at 20:16, David Hemmendinger <hemmendd@union.edu> wrote:
Would you (or someone else reading this) happen to have a good bibliography on the history of computer science -- such as it exists that could be shared with me (this list)?
I can recommend several articles on the (internalist) history of formal languages, automata theory, and recursive functions. They have further bibliographies that may be helpful. Parts of the articles are somewhat technical. The first three are from the Annals 3:1 (1981), special issue on the theory of computing:
Sheila Greibach, Formal Languages: Origins and Directions, pp 14-41 Juris Hartmanis, Observations About the Development of Theoretical Computer Science, pp 42-51 Stephen Kleene, Origins of Recursive Function Theory, pp 52-67. Lance Fortnow & Steve Homer, A Short History of Computational Complexity, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 2003; https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~fortnow/papers/history.pdf .
David Hemmendinger hemmendd@union.edu Professor Emeritus http://athena.union.edu/~hemmendd Computer Science Dept. +1 518 346 4489 Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308 FAX: +1 518 388 6789 Associate Editor-in-chief, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing _______________________________________________ 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
Mary Shaw of Carnegie Mellon published an article in 1990 in IEEE Software that is an excellent discussion about the development of engineering from craft, production, science, and commerce. I think it's relevant to this discussion. Saying that Turing invented the (apparently misnamed) von Neumann architecture is a bit like saying that James Clerk Maxwell invented the telegraph. Science usually precedes the formal and systematic application of science. As craft develops in a parallel thread, commercial interests (or military interests?) and production lead to the joining of all these threads to produce true engineering. There was a lot of craft and production in the development of computing before they merged with formal theory to form computer science. Shaw's article: "Prospects for an Engineering Discipline of Software" http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/52.60586 (An argument can be made that the development of Algol and structured programing is an exception. I presented a paper on this at 4S in 2007.) - Bill ________________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of David Hemmendinger [hemmendd@union.edu] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:16 PM To: dcb@dcbrock.net Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
Would you (or someone else reading this) happen to have a good bibliography on the history of computer science -- such as it exists that could be shared with me (this list)?
I can recommend several articles on the (internalist) history of formal languages, automata theory, and recursive functions. They have further bibliographies that may be helpful. Parts of the articles are somewhat technical. The first three are from the Annals 3:1 (1981), special issue on the theory of computing: Sheila Greibach, Formal Languages: Origins and Directions, pp 14-41 Juris Hartmanis, Observations About the Development of Theoretical Computer Science, pp 42-51 Stephen Kleene, Origins of Recursive Function Theory, pp 52-67. Lance Fortnow & Steve Homer, A Short History of Computational Complexity, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 2003; https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~fortnow/papers/history.pdf . David Hemmendinger hemmendd@union.edu Professor Emeritus http://athena.union.edu/~hemmendd Computer Science Dept. +1 518 346 4489 Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308 FAX: +1 518 388 6789 Associate Editor-in-chief, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing _______________________________________________ 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
"Science usually precedes the formal and systematic application of science. As craft develops in a parallel thread, commercial interests (or military interests?) and production lead to the joining of all these threads to produce true engineering." I would actually take this a step further and argue that has only been *at all* true relatively recently, i.e. within the last few centuries, reaching its greatest apotheosis in the development of atomic weapons, where we went from some highly abstruse physics to strategic weapon systems within a few decades. Even today, it is only true some of the time. A linear model of technological progress (although popular with scientific advocacy organizations like, say, the American [Insert Discipline Here] Society), where fundamental research funding goes in one end and consumer electronics or clinical therapies pop out the other end, is only a partial picture at least, and discounts the existence of engineering research as anything other than some pale version of applied science. (One could write at length about the social implications of the hierarchy thus conjured, but let's put a pin in that for now.) For example, we didn't develop thermodynamics, and then work out steam engines. That technology was already flourishing and maturing, and the Industrial Revolution well under way, before Carnot turned his attention to internal and external combustion engines. Telegraphy and telephony were vigorous, commercially vital, and world-spanning technologies long before Claude Shannon birthed Information Theory as we know it on Ma Bell's dime. In our current era, general anesthesia is another banner example. General anesthesia is a mature technology—you can go to a hospital and get safely put under for just however long is required. Yet we have no scientific idea how it works—rather, studies of the application of anesthesia is being used to fuel neuroscience. This is not to say that thermodynamics and information theory were not vital to later development of combustion engines or telecom networks, or that neuroscience discoveries will not led to better anesthetics, but simply to say that science exists as one potential feedback loop among several in technological development, and the whole shebang need not be initiated or paralleled by scientific research to develop to a "true" engineering stage. Stephen On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:47 PM, McMillan, William W < william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu> wrote:
Mary Shaw of Carnegie Mellon published an article in 1990 in IEEE Software that is an excellent discussion about the development of engineering from craft, production, science, and commerce.
I think it's relevant to this discussion. Saying that Turing invented the (apparently misnamed) von Neumann architecture is a bit like saying that James Clerk Maxwell invented the telegraph.
Science usually precedes the formal and systematic application of science. As craft develops in a parallel thread, commercial interests (or military interests?) and production lead to the joining of all these threads to produce true engineering.
There was a lot of craft and production in the development of computing before they merged with formal theory to form computer science.
Shaw's article: "Prospects for an Engineering Discipline of Software" http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/52.60586
(An argument can be made that the development of Algol and structured programing is an exception. I presented a paper on this at 4S in 2007.)
- Bill
________________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of David Hemmendinger [hemmendd@union.edu] Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 3:16 PM To: dcb@dcbrock.net Cc: members@lists.sigcis.org Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] The latest inventor of the computer
Would you (or someone else reading this) happen to have a good bibliography on the history of computer science -- such as it exists that could be shared with me (this list)?
I can recommend several articles on the (internalist) history of formal languages, automata theory, and recursive functions. They have further bibliographies that may be helpful. Parts of the articles are somewhat technical. The first three are from the Annals 3:1 (1981), special issue on the theory of computing:
Sheila Greibach, Formal Languages: Origins and Directions, pp 14-41 Juris Hartmanis, Observations About the Development of Theoretical Computer Science, pp 42-51 Stephen Kleene, Origins of Recursive Function Theory, pp 52-67. Lance Fortnow & Steve Homer, A Short History of Computational Complexity, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science, 2003; https://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~fortnow/papers/history.pdf .
David Hemmendinger hemmendd@union.edu Professor Emeritus http://athena.union.edu/~hemmendd Computer Science Dept. +1 518 346 4489 Union College, Schenectady, NY 12308 FAX: +1 518 388 6789 Associate Editor-in-chief, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing _______________________________________________ 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
participants (11)
-
David C. Brock -
david nofre -
Edgar Daylight -
hemmendd＠union.edu -
James Sumner -
Len Shustek -
lidemol -
McMillan, William W -
Seamus Sweeney -
Stephen Cass -
Thomas Haigh