Fingers are the unit of measure, like kilograms. "How can you divide one by finger?" Might as well ask, "How do you divide 3 by kilogram?" I am pretty sure that in that example your range wouldn't be finger, but 0-6. If you need an example, a number line between 3 and 9 has a range of 6. Counting on a single hand would have a typical range between 0 and 5, depending on mutation. How do you divide 12 by inches? Seems kind of silly phrased like that. One is a numbering system, one is the unit of measure. Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
What Mr Berlinski calls a "full fledged Von Neumann machine," is more rightfully called, "a full fledged Eckert machine." Von Neumann was a johnny-come-lately to Eckert and Mauchly's ENIAC, and his "Draft Report" was merely a very eloquent description of THEIR machine. Mr Berlinsky continues this error when he says, "..and of course, based on Turing's work, at the end of the second world war, the development of the computer needed only Von Neumann's genius to put these steps into place..." This is an outrage and a glittering example of how the scientific community is continuing to appropriate the creations of engineers. What we call "Von Neumann architecture" is actually "Eckert Architecture," and Mr Berlinski would know this if he only read more about engineering history. Scott McCartney describes this architecture, fully developed before Neumann was brought onboard by Lt Hermann Goldstine. Moreover, let us not forget, Turing's work at Bletchley Park was classified, and the machine built on Neumann's description of EDVAC (already conceived and designed by Eckert/Mauchly), the Manchester Mark 1, was also highly classified until the 1990s! Computer history actually owes nothing whatever to Turing OR Neumann. How dare Mr Berlinski, all of whose books I have read and loved excepting the horrible, "Advent of the Algorithm," make such an appalling blunder and repeat it here? And it wasn't 1950, but 1946 when the first "full fledged" computing machine was operational. ALL of this is easily researched. This theft of engineers' works is not limited to this. Even The Wright Brothers are stolen from in modern history, which everywhere gives partial credit for aviation engineering to dolts such as Samuel Pierpont Langley. A little Feynman paraphrasing is appropriate here: "Philosophers of mathematics are the ones who stand on the sidelines, not understanding anything, and making stupid remarks." As much as I hate to say it, Mr B needs yet another slap for not even noticing Claude Shannon.
While I appreciate your points, I feel that you are being too harsh and more than a little pedantic as regards a casual comment. Regarding Turing, although the Enigma Machine itself was kept secret, ON COMPUTABLE NUMBERS was published in 1936, and unless you wish to make the case that his theoretical work was tangential to the development of computing machines, we can accept it as foundational and worthy of mention, especial mention by someone who is primarily a mathematician and not a mechanical/electrical engineer. As regards Von Neumann as a genius, I think that every reasonably mathematically literate person understands that he was a showman, and shameless self-promoter. He was also by all accounts a genius. So again, unless you wish to make the case that Von Neumann was not in fact a genius I think we have to allow a casual phrase such as "Von Neumann's genius" to pass without comment. Finally as regards Von Neumann's role in the development of computers, I argue that the role of popularizer and promoter is to be no less recognized than the role of technical founder. Does anyone seriously believe that Apple has not had a dramatic impact on history? And does anyone seriously believe that the phenomenon of Apple would have occured without Steve Jobs, if it had just been Wozniak and Wayne in that garage? In my book, I write "The thing that really launched software programming as we know it today was the publication of the First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC1 in 1945, written (or perhaps more accurately: assembled and edited) by John Von Neumann at the request of the U.S. Army..." I am clear on what Von Neumann did and did not do, however the job he did assembling and editing that work is arguably to Eckert and Mauchly what Jobs was to Woz, which is to say: not nothing. So you might consider relaxing a bit. Instead you could perhaps record your own podcast, or write your own book, so as to ensure that the story has been told with all of the details you consider to be most relevant and to the depth that you feel is satisfactory.
A three-part interview with David Berlinski? You could have put links to parts 1 and 2 in the video description.
The link for part 1 is here ua-cam.com/video/MA0kXskrgsw/v-deo.html
@@brianwestad9642 - TY
Thank you for making me feel extra stupid today.
FIRST! Love Berlinski
Fingers are the unit of measure, like kilograms. "How can you divide one by finger?" Might as well ask, "How do you divide 3 by kilogram?"
I am pretty sure that in that example your range wouldn't be finger, but 0-6.
If you need an example, a number line between 3 and 9 has a range of 6. Counting on a single hand would have a typical range between 0 and 5, depending on mutation.
How do you divide 12 by inches? Seems kind of silly phrased like that.
One is a numbering system, one is the unit of measure.
Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
What Mr Berlinski calls a "full fledged Von Neumann machine," is more rightfully called, "a full fledged Eckert machine." Von Neumann was a johnny-come-lately to Eckert and Mauchly's ENIAC, and his "Draft Report" was merely a very eloquent description of THEIR machine. Mr Berlinsky continues this error when he says, "..and of course, based on Turing's work, at the end of the second world war, the development of the computer needed only Von Neumann's genius to put these steps into place..." This is an outrage and a glittering example of how the scientific community is continuing to appropriate the creations of engineers. What we call "Von Neumann architecture" is actually "Eckert Architecture," and Mr Berlinski would know this if he only read more about engineering history. Scott McCartney describes this architecture, fully developed before Neumann was brought onboard by Lt Hermann Goldstine. Moreover, let us not forget, Turing's work at Bletchley Park was classified, and the machine built on Neumann's description of EDVAC (already conceived and designed by Eckert/Mauchly), the Manchester Mark 1, was also highly classified until the 1990s! Computer history actually owes nothing whatever to Turing OR Neumann. How dare Mr Berlinski, all of whose books I have read and loved excepting the horrible, "Advent of the Algorithm," make such an appalling blunder and repeat it here? And it wasn't 1950, but 1946 when the first "full fledged" computing machine was operational. ALL of this is easily researched.
This theft of engineers' works is not limited to this. Even The Wright Brothers are stolen from in modern history, which everywhere gives partial credit for aviation engineering to dolts such as Samuel Pierpont Langley.
A little Feynman paraphrasing is appropriate here: "Philosophers of mathematics are the ones who stand on the sidelines, not understanding anything, and making stupid remarks."
As much as I hate to say it, Mr B needs yet another slap for not even noticing Claude Shannon.
While I appreciate your points, I feel that you are being too harsh and more than a little pedantic as regards a casual comment.
Regarding Turing, although the Enigma Machine itself was kept secret, ON COMPUTABLE NUMBERS was published in 1936, and unless you wish to make the case that his theoretical work was tangential to the development of computing machines, we can accept it as foundational and worthy of mention, especial mention by someone who is primarily a mathematician and not a mechanical/electrical engineer.
As regards Von Neumann as a genius, I think that every reasonably mathematically literate person understands that he was a showman, and shameless self-promoter. He was also by all accounts a genius. So again, unless you wish to make the case that Von Neumann was not in fact a genius I think we have to allow a casual phrase such as "Von Neumann's genius" to pass without comment.
Finally as regards Von Neumann's role in the development of computers, I argue that the role of popularizer and promoter is to be no less recognized than the role of technical founder. Does anyone seriously believe that Apple has not had a dramatic impact on history? And does anyone seriously believe that the phenomenon of Apple would have occured without Steve Jobs, if it had just been Wozniak and Wayne in that garage? In my book, I write "The
thing that really launched software programming
as we know it today was the publication
of the First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC1 in
1945, written (or perhaps more accurately: assembled
and edited) by John Von Neumann at the request of the U.S.
Army..." I am clear on what Von Neumann did and did not do, however the job he did assembling and editing that work is arguably to Eckert and Mauchly what Jobs was to Woz, which is to say: not nothing.
So you might consider relaxing a bit. Instead you could perhaps record your own podcast, or write your own book, so as to ensure that the story has been told with all of the details you consider to be most relevant and to the depth that you feel is satisfactory.
*_Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men._* *_KJB_*
*_God Bless_*
Now let’s add some video to this or something