On Sunday 01 January 2017 23:48:47 Joel Rees wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Lisi Reisz <lisi.re...@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 > >> > >> <mfidel...@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
I signed off here. Nothing below this refers to me so I have not attempted to answer your comments on things said by other people. 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.
