Re: [OT] Antikythera mechanism [was Re: Do have programs have poor documentation?]
On Sunday 01 January 2017 23:48:47 Joel Rees wrote:
> 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
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.
Reply to: