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

Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#31

Post by WalterGR »

scoot wrote: post #13
elorant wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also this made by Legos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPVCJjTNgk

“ With LEGO”, rather than “by LEGO”. A remarkable achievement nonetheless, but nothing compared to the original Greek mechanism – the independently acquired celestial knowledge, mathematical ability, and the technical skill required to complete it is mind boggling given the era.

From observing comments here on HN, it’s clear that it’s fairly common for non-native speakers of English to use “by foo” when “with foo” or “from foo” would be more appropriate.

From this and the fact that OP wrote “by Legos” and not “by LEGO”, it was simple to deduce that they meant that it was created using little interlocking plastic pieces and not by the company well-known for selling little interlocking plastic pieces.

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#32

Post by zw123456 »

If it is a computer that predicts astronomical events, seasons etc. as is theorized by some, and if it was built more than 2000 years ago presumably before people understood how the solar system works (I think back then it was not understood that the planets revolve around the Sun) then they must have based the design on a large number of observations recorded over time. If so, then it is also the first application of "big data" in that an algorithm was developed based on data and implemented using a mechanical computer.

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#33

Post by hacknat »

jacquesm wrote: post #19
fermienrico wrote: post #15

When I think of a computer, the first thing that pops up in my mind is whether the Antikythera computer is Turing complete? The article makes no mention of this. To give it a title as the first computing device, I think there should be some analysis of operations that it can perform and whether they can constitute as a universal turing machine. Otherwise, we can call stones as computers. They can do addition and subt…

> whether the Antikythera computer is Turing complete? Of course it isn't. Just like many analogue computers put together for the computation of ballistic trajectories or some other physical modeling task are not Turing complete. That doesn't mean they are not computers, just not general purpose computers.

By that definition the abacus is the first computer. I don’t disagree with you that Turing completeness isn’t a good definition of a computer (especially since the word itself is quite old and has been in use longer than even Babbage’s computer).

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#34

Post by hacknat »

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #20
fermienrico wrote: post #15

When I think of a computer, the first thing that pops up in my mind is whether the Antikythera computer is Turing complete? The article makes no mention of this. To give it a title as the first computing device, I think there should be some analysis of operations that it can perform and whether they can constitute as a universal turing machine. Otherwise, we can call stones as computers. They can do addition and subt…

Not even our modern computers are Turing complete as they do not have unbounded tape.

Yes they do, they have jump statements which is (practically) the same thing. Turing meant could the thing run forever.

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#35

Post by chithanh »

zw123456 wrote: post #32

If it is a computer that predicts astronomical events, seasons etc. as is theorized by some, and if it was built more than 2000 years ago presumably before people understood how the solar system works (I think back then it was not understood that the planets revolve around the Sun) then they must have based the design on a large number of observations recorded over time. If so, then it is also the first application o…

Not quite. Heliocentrism was introduced around 270 BC by a Greek astronomer.

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

The oldest estimates for the Antikythera Mechanism are 205 BC.

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

So it is very well possible, if not likely, that the builders of the Antikythera Mechanism were aware of the heliocentric model.

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#36

Post by mirimir »

tdons wrote: post #3

YouTube channel of a guy recreating the mechanism: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZioPDnFPNsHnyxfygxA0...

I wonder why he cut gear teeth with a triangular file. As long as he was using a lathe and drill press, I mean. Is it just that gear cutting requires nonstandard machine tools?

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#37

Post by jacquesm »

hacknat wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether the Antikythera computer is Turing complete? Of course it isn't. Just like many analogue computers put together for the computation of ballistic trajectories or some other physical modeling task are not Turing complete. That doesn't mean they are not computers, just not general purpose computers.

By that definition the abacus is the first computer. I don’t disagree with you that Turing completeness isn’t a good definition of a computer (especially since the word itself is quite old and has been in use longer than even Babbage’s computer).

> By that definition the abacus is the first computer.

It isn't. The abacus does not compute anything at all unless used as a tool by a human that executes the algorithm. The Antikythera has its algorithm built in, it will compute the same numbers no matter who turns the crank. It's a stored program computer where the program is stored in the proportions of the gears in its gearbox.

Think of an abacus as an aid to manual computation, and a Antikythera as something that actually computes.

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#38

Post by stan_rogers »

mirimir wrote: post #36
tdons wrote: post #3

YouTube channel of a guy recreating the mechanism: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZioPDnFPNsHnyxfygxA0...

I wonder why he cut gear teeth with a triangular file. As long as he was using a lathe and drill press, I mean. Is it just that gear cutting requires nonstandard machine tools?

He's trying to do at least one example of each type of required task with tools that would have been available at the time. Most of the gears were actually cut with a gear cutter (consisting of an electronic indexer on the headstock of a mini lathe and some Sherline lathe parts mounted on the mini lathe's cross slide, using a homemade 60° D-bit). That has included making (and using) a pump drill with various flywheels he's made from bronze he alloyed and cast himself, making drill bits and files from iron, which were then case-hardened (because steel, as such, wasn't a thing back then), along with various other plausible tools. The only place he hasn't gone is making a lathe, for which there is ample documentary evidence (by the standards of "ample" in documents from antiquity).

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#39

Post by stan_rogers »

hacknat wrote: post #34
AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even our modern computers are Turing complete as they do not have unbounded tape.

Yes they do, they have jump statements which is (practically) the same thing. Turing meant could the thing run forever.

No, infinity is an actual requirement... there's no way to run out of stack space on an infinite machine, so there's no limit to the depth of recursion.

Re: Was the Antikythera Mechanism the world’s first computer? (2007)

#40

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

hacknat wrote: post #34
AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even our modern computers are Turing complete as they do not have unbounded tape.

Yes they do, they have jump statements which is (practically) the same thing. Turing meant could the thing run forever.

No, Turing complete means that whatever we are talking about can solve all the problems that a Turing machine can solve. A language that has only jump statements and absolutely nothing else is not Turing complete even though its programs can run forever.

We only equate running forever with Turing completeness in contexts where something would be Turing complete iff it did not miss an instruction or something that would allow it to run forever (consider a language that has addition, subtraction, if statements, etc but no jump or function) or if it has something that does not allow it to run forever (such as a type system, consider simply typed lambda calculus).

Our modern computers do not have unbounded tape nor are they infinite state machines - with their limited memory and finite amount of states they can't solve all the problems that a Turing machine can. They are basically glorified finite state machines with a lot of states.

Post reply on HN