Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
blog.stephenwolfram.com
Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
1–10 of 37 posts
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#2I like history and particularly the history of computing, but given how little respect Wolfram had with regards to the history of mathematical ideas that preceded his own work (and then claiming credit for those ideas), how can I trust any historical analysis he authors?
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#3I like history and particularly the history of computing, but given how little respect Wolfram had with regards to the history of mathematical ideas that preceded his own work (and then claiming credit for those ideas), how can I trust any historical analysis he authors?
Every Wolframy thread turns into the same discussion about Wolfram himself. Let's not let that happen here.
Idiosyncrancies aside, he obviously has the background to understand this material. The main obstacle is putting in the time to understand it, which he did.
The article is replete with historical information, he explains why he concludes what he does, and the result is an order of magnitude more substantive (and technical) than any other Lovelace/Babbage article I recall seeing on HN. I think it can stand on its own. The content is fascinating and is what deserves discussion.
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#4I like history and particularly the history of computing, but given how little respect Wolfram had with regards to the history of mathematical ideas that preceded his own work (and then claiming credit for those ideas), how can I trust any historical analysis he authors?
Every Wolframy thread turns into the same discussion about Wolfram himself. Let's not let that happen here. Idiosyncrancies aside, he obviously has the background to understand this material. The main obstacle is putting in the time to understand it, which he did. The article is replete with historical information, he explains why he concludes what he does, and the result is an order of magnitude more substantive (an…
I disagree strongly with this. Wolfram himself litters the entire essay with asides in which he compares and contrasts his own place within science history with both Babbage and Lovelace. If Wolfram wanted to write a neutral historical account, he could have, but instead he opened the door for the continued derision of NKS-style pomposity by specifically tailoring this historical account as if it too must serve to underscore his own career efforts, which he chooses to frame as longsuffering attempts to have his work be granted the correct degree of awe.
Until he begins writing things in which he doesn't infuse that sort of ploy to underscore so-called credit he perceives he should be given, I think it's not only fair but highly useful to the community at large for criticisms of any work he produces to center on these aspects.
The only counter-argument I could see would be if the historical content of the article were so story-breaking and important that we should all put up with the pomposity in order to consume the never-before-explained-as-well historical side, but w.r.t. the history of Ada Lovelace and Babbage, that's just not true, and there are many other historical accounts that don't try to coyly shoehorn in comparisons to Wolfram products, Wolfram computational achievements, or credit/recognition that Wolfram believes he deserves.
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every Wolframy thread turns into the same discussion about Wolfram himself. Let's not let that happen here. Idiosyncrancies aside, he obviously has the background to understand this material. The main obstacle is putting in the time to understand it, which he did. The article is replete with historical information, he explains why he concludes what he does, and the result is an order of magnitude more substantive (an…
I disagree strongly with this. Wolfram himself litters the entire essay with asides in which he compares and contrasts his own place within science history with both Babbage and Lovelace. If Wolfram wanted to write a neutral historical account, he could have, but instead he opened the door for the continued derision of NKS-style pomposity by specifically tailoring this historical account as if it too must serve to un…
Yes, I know about Wolfram's asides, tics, and shoehorning, as does everyone who reads a thing he wrote. But the Wolfram Derangement Syndrome it provokes in internet forum threads isn't interesting either. It's a mirror image of the thing it is annoyed by.
We're not going to ban what Wolfram writes because (a) he's a good writer, (b) however one evaluates him, Mathematica is significant, and (c) his best pieces—which this is one of—are interesting. That's enough to belong here, and I think we can expect HN to have the discipline to focus on the substantive bits and resist the hypnotic pull of the trollish ones.
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree strongly with this. Wolfram himself litters the entire essay with asides in which he compares and contrasts his own place within science history with both Babbage and Lovelace. If Wolfram wanted to write a neutral historical account, he could have, but instead he opened the door for the continued derision of NKS-style pomposity by specifically tailoring this historical account as if it too must serve to un…
Yes, I know about Wolfram's asides, tics, and shoehorning, as does everyone who reads a thing he wrote. But the Wolfram Derangement Syndrome it provokes in internet forum threads isn't interesting either. It's a mirror image of the thing it is annoyed by. We're not going to ban what Wolfram writes because (a) he's a good writer, (b) however one evaluates him, Mathematica is significant, and (c) his best pieces—which…
Who is talking about banning what he writes?
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#7Is it okay to mention https://ideas.lego.com/projects/102740 ?
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I know about Wolfram's asides, tics, and shoehorning, as does everyone who reads a thing he wrote. But the Wolfram Derangement Syndrome it provokes in internet forum threads isn't interesting either. It's a mirror image of the thing it is annoyed by. We're not going to ban what Wolfram writes because (a) he's a good writer, (b) however one evaluates him, Mathematica is significant, and (c) his best pieces—which…
Who is talking about banning what he writes?
[deleted]
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree strongly with this. Wolfram himself litters the entire essay with asides in which he compares and contrasts his own place within science history with both Babbage and Lovelace. If Wolfram wanted to write a neutral historical account, he could have, but instead he opened the door for the continued derision of NKS-style pomposity by specifically tailoring this historical account as if it too must serve to un…
Yes, I know about Wolfram's asides, tics, and shoehorning, as does everyone who reads a thing he wrote. But the Wolfram Derangement Syndrome it provokes in internet forum threads isn't interesting either. It's a mirror image of the thing it is annoyed by. We're not going to ban what Wolfram writes because (a) he's a good writer, (b) however one evaluates him, Mathematica is significant, and (c) his best pieces—which…
Mathematica is significant
Mathematica is a proprietary software influenced by the earlier computer algebra systems Macsyma (of which Wolfram was a user) and Schoonschip (whose code Wolfram studied).
Maxima is a computer algebra system based on a 1982 version of Macsyma. It is written in Common Lisp and runs on all POSIX platforms such as OS X, Unix, BSD, and Linux as well as under Microsoft Windows and Android. It is free software released under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
It would be the same to defend William Henry "Bill" Gates III, by stating that MS-DOS is significant, while MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS - owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Paterson. Development of 86-DOS took only six weeks, as it was basically a clone of Digital Research's CP/M (for 8080/Z80 processors), ported to run on 8086 processor.
Re: Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace
#10I like history and particularly the history of computing, but given how little respect Wolfram had with regards to the history of mathematical ideas that preceded his own work (and then claiming credit for those ideas), how can I trust any historical analysis he authors?
Obligatory: "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity" http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/491/Batshit.htm