Re: [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?]
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 01 January 2017 14:54:09 Joel Rees wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Miles Fidelman
>>
>> <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>
>> > On 12/30/16 7:07 PM, deloptes wrote:
> No, I wrote that.
Somebody besides me trimmed your name out of the quotes, and I didn't
check. Sorry.
>> >>> In what way is the Antikythera mechanism not a computer? And where did
>> >>> your 400 years come from?
>>
>> Without a functioning Antikythera mechanism, we really can't answer
>> that question in a useful manner. However, I could guess that I could
>> not program that machine with anything that looks like a full C
>> compiler.
>
> So something that can't be programmed with anything that looks like a full C
> compiler is not a computer??? So Colossus was not a computer?? :-)
Shoot, a thermostat is a computer.
> C itself, of course, is MUCH later than Colossus,
Well, yeah.
Formal descriptions of procedures do, in fact, date back before the
Antikythera mech.
Most human languages do allow description of algorithms in a Turing
complete fashion, although the selection of the symbols and grammar
constructs is not clear in the old records. And, without a clear
delineation between the language being used for the algorithm and the
general language, things can get confusing.
I think said mechanism is thought to predate modern algebraic
notation, but algebraic notation is not Turing complete without some
parts that we usually don't deal with. The languages of the Calculus
and of formal logic almost get us there, but not quite.
> <quote> C was originally developed by Dennis Ritchie between 1969 and 1973 at
> Bell Labs, </quote>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)
... based on ideas and constructs evident in bcpl, Algol, and other
languages not too many people have heard of.
> <quote>
> Colossus was a set of computers developed by British codebreakers in
> 1943-1945 .... The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in
> December 1943
> </quote>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
>
> but I don't think that Colossus could compile with anything. It had to be
> directly programmed.
I'm sure that, if we wanted to, we could define a subset of C or some
other Turing complete language that could be compiled to a wiring
description for the Colossus.
Subset.
And it would be really easy to write programs in such a subset that
could not be run on the Colossus -- without a lot of hardware
augmentation. And the problem is not just lack of storage area.
> Lisi
>> (Guess. For all we know, there were nanotech mechanical CPUs in the
>> thing before the seawater made it non-functional.)
>>
>> Subset C, maybe. The difference is important.
So, do you think the differences are not important?
>> >> I understand what you mean, but it was in the last 400y that this
>> >> machine took shape. In fact it was Turing that defined it. But he would
>> >> not be able
>> >> to define it if it was not the mathematicians before him. I agree with
>> >> you as well, we could go to the roots of mathematics, however even if
>> >> the definition of such a machine was so old, it wouldn't be possible to
>> >> build it without the technical advantage, so ... I still think my
>> >> statement is true. You can argue as long as you will.
>> >
>> > Well, you kind of forget:
>> > Joseph Jacquard (and maybe Basile Bouchon)
>> > not to mention Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelance
>> > Alonzo Church.
>> > And of course, John von Neumann (if you want to talk actual hardware
>> > architecture)
>>
>> Interesting thing about the siggie and the above.
>>
>> > --
>> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>[...]
>> My personal vote for the original topic is man 7, as someone else
>> mentioned. (Yes, the man pages did, from back in the system 6 days,
>> even, include a _little_ bit of tutorial.)
I'm not sure who's arguing what in these threads, but, for example,
documentation being inaccessible is a direct cause of a lot of code
churn in the community. (Not that code churn is inherently evil, but,
...)
And I've seen a lot of odd things asserted in these threads, like the
idea that man pages are not the place for tutorial content.
--
Joel Rees
I'm imagining I'm a novelist:
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html
Reply to: