Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turing Oversold?

people.idsia.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 311 posts

Re: Turing Oversold?

#261

Post by jterrys »

wombatmobile wrote: post #125
bo1024 wrote: post #101

We've been over this. Gödel's mu-recursive functions were a poor model of computation because it's completely unclear how to physically implement the arbitrary-function minimization operator. So people didn't see how to build a machine that calculates this way. Similarly, there's no clear way how to mechanize lambda calculus. Turing Machines, on the other hand, were instantly obviously mechanizable. It was clear that…

> I don't understand why Schmidhuber continues to ignore this crucial point. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. But wait a minute, you might say, facts are facts. And if everyone had the time and resources to discover and digest every fact, your understanding would be the end of it. But everyone doesn't have time and resources. To compensate, we…

>https://mjosefweber.medium.com/the-first-computers-were-huma...

I cringe when I read ill-researched essays like these because it informs a relationship between women and computing that back then genuinely did not exist.

For the vast, vast majority of women in the field of computing at this time, they were nothing more than glorified calculators. Yes, there were a few women scientists and mathematicians (by few, I mean literally handfuls). Yes, it was a male dominated field.

But the overwhelming majority of women working in this industry at this time did secretarial style busywork. It wasn't glorious. It was underappreciated. It sucked.

These types of essays are a genuine attempt to rewrite a history that did not exist. It is literary gaslighting the likes of which the article we are discussing right now is attempting to rectify.

Re: Turing Oversold?

#262

Post by haihaibye »

dralley wrote: post #147
bo1024 wrote: post #101

We've been over this. Gödel's mu-recursive functions were a poor model of computation because it's completely unclear how to physically implement the arbitrary-function minimization operator. So people didn't see how to build a machine that calculates this way. Similarly, there's no clear way how to mechanize lambda calculus. Turing Machines, on the other hand, were instantly obviously mechanizable. It was clear that…

Likewise, people dispute that Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. But that downplays her accomplishments too much. She didn't write the "first program" but she was the first to understand what computers would be capable of doing (for example, that by assigning numbers to letters and symbols, computers could do more than simply perfo…

People that say Ada was the first programmer must think Babbage came up with the first general purpose computer then never wrote any instructions for it.

Maybe the first programmer who wasn't also a hardware engineer.

Re: Turing Oversold?

#263

Post by bhaak »

jhgb wrote: post #225
dralley wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise, people dispute that Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. But that downplays her accomplishments too much. She didn't write the "first program" but she was the first to understand what computers would be capable of doing (for example, that by assigning numbers to letters and symbols, computers could do more than simply perfo…

> because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. That almost sounds to me like saying that the Wright brothers "made a few simple flights". > first to invent foundational control flow structures such as loops I wonder how sigma notation fits into this. Clearly the notion of expressing arbitrarily repeated operations using a fixed amount of information (which is what a loop is, esse…

> I wonder how sigma notation fits into this. Clearly the notion of expressing arbitrarily repeated operations using a fixed amount of information (which is what a loop is, essentially) was known at least to Euler.

You can even go further back. Algorithms with loops were known already to Babylonian mathematicians. So you don't need to resort to preternatural prescience.

The Z3 was not intended as a general computing device but as a practical help for engineers. Because of that you can't say it was missing something it didn't need to do its job. Whereas when Zuse designed Plankalkül loops and conditional branches where naturally included in the design.

Re: Turing Oversold?

#264

Post by chmod600 »

coldtea wrote: post #220
dralley wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise, people dispute that Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. But that downplays her accomplishments too much. She didn't write the "first program" but she was the first to understand what computers would be capable of doing (for example, that by assigning numbers to letters and symbols, computers could do more than simply perfo…

> She didn't write the "first program" but she was the first to understand what computers would be capable of doing Or merely the first to express it? I'm pretty sure Babbage himself, as the inventor, understood well what computers would be capable of doing.

I'm not sure that inventors always understand the consequences of their inventions. Often, they are either focused on first-order capabilities and neglect the larger significance; or focused on visions of the future but unable to turn them into useful products in the short term.

Re: Turing Oversold?

#265

Post by teruakohatu »

chagen wrote: post #217
dilap wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really enjoyed Stephen Wolfram's mini-bio of her. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/untangling-the-t... I very much recoginized from that that she had the attitude and experience of a "programmer," so I would say she was the first programmer, in the modern sense.

Ada Lovelace's father was Lord Byron?! TIL

Sadly for her she never knew him. The parents split up, he left England and she stayed with her mother. Byron died when she was just eight years old.

Re: Turing Oversold?

#266

Post by teruakohatu »

jhgb wrote: post #225
dralley wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise, people dispute that Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. But that downplays her accomplishments too much. She didn't write the "first program" but she was the first to understand what computers would be capable of doing (for example, that by assigning numbers to letters and symbols, computers could do more than simply perfo…

> because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. That almost sounds to me like saying that the Wright brothers "made a few simple flights". > first to invent foundational control flow structures such as loops I wonder how sigma notation fits into this. Clearly the notion of expressing arbitrarily repeated operations using a fixed amount of information (which is what a loop is, esse…

> That almost sounds to me like saying that the Wright brothers "made a few simple flights".

Richard Pearse gets written off in the same way to elevate the Wright brothers flying accomplishments.

Pearse was just perusing powered flight as hobby in rural New Zealand, didn't bother informing the press and didn't bother even telling the government until WWII, 40 years later, about his flights and engineering designs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse

Re: Turing Oversold?

#267

Post by convnet »

coldtea wrote: post #220
dralley wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise, people dispute that Ada Lovelace was the first programmer, because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. But that downplays her accomplishments too much. She didn't write the "first program" but she was the first to understand what computers would be capable of doing (for example, that by assigning numbers to letters and symbols, computers could do more than simply perfo…

> She didn't write the "first program" but she was the first to understand what computers would be capable of doing Or merely the first to express it? I'm pretty sure Babbage himself, as the inventor, understood well what computers would be capable of doing.

He was focused on using his machines to efficiently generate mathematical tables. It was Ada who realized the potential of the analytical engine as a universal computer. She even wrote that given a good numeric representation for sound, one could program the analytical engine to generate algorithmic music based on mathematical rules. Babbage himself wrote examples of programs for the engine, but they were all very simple examples of numerical calculations that would be applicable for generating mathematical tables.

Re: Turing Oversold?

#268

Post by tialaramex »

mcguire wrote: post #207
KingOfCoders wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only repeat my comment from down: "Likewise, Konrad Zuse never got a Turing award despite having created the world's first working programmable general computer 1935-41. [...] It was pointed out that none of the computers built during the 1940s were influenced in any way by Turing's 1936 theoretical paper, [...]"

I don't believe anyone has received a Turing award for creating a working computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Wilkes

His Turing award citation: "Professor Wilkes is best known as the builder and designer of the EDSAC, the first computer with an internally stored program."

Re: Turing Oversold?

#269

Post by jhgb »

teruakohatu wrote: post #266
jhgb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because Babbage and Menabrea had previously created a few simple example programs. That almost sounds to me like saying that the Wright brothers "made a few simple flights". > first to invent foundational control flow structures such as loops I wonder how sigma notation fits into this. Clearly the notion of expressing arbitrarily repeated operations using a fixed amount of information (which is what a loop is, esse…

> That almost sounds to me like saying that the Wright brothers "made a few simple flights". Richard Pearse gets written off in the same way to elevate the Wright brothers flying accomplishments. Pearse was just perusing powered flight as hobby in rural New Zealand, didn't bother informing the press and didn't bother even telling the government until WWII, 40 years later, about his flights and engineering designs. ht…

Not sure what improvement Pearse made over, say, Ader.

Re: Turing Oversold?

#270

Post by tialaramex »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #240
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Computer Science is about what computers can do. To decide the latter, you have to first decide what a computer is. Turing Machines were the first abstractions that intuitively captured what it means to compute something

Sure, if you take "computer" to mean "something that computes". In that case it would include humans. There was a great deal of research into things that can be effectively computed that goes back even before the focus of this article. And of course "computer" used to refer to humans who computed before the invention of mechanical computers. But it's certainly not the study of what mechanical computers can do. Among…

A whole bunch of Computer Science is only relevant for actual computers not Turing Machines. When I was (a student) at University they didn't teach Wait-Free versus Lock-Free concurrent algorithms, but that's an important 21st century topic because actual computers today are capable of many simultaneous operations, and it's totally possible to write a program that isn't even Lock-free and may literally make no progress despite spinning its wheels.
Post reply on HN