Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Turing the first?
Message-ID: <440@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 13:10:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.440
Posted: Sat Feb  9 13:10:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 05:13:09 EST
References: <8900018@uiucdcsb.UUCP> <18218@lanl.ARPA> <428@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <870@pucc-i> <436@ucsfcgl.UUCP> <888@pucc-i>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Kenneth C. R. C. Arnold)
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 40
Summary: 

I admit from your quote that the concept of using instructions as
numbers was INHERENT in Babbage/Lovelace's thoughts, but I am not
convinced that they SAW this.  In fact, the idea is inherent in von
Neuman's early work, and even in the ENIAC, since it really is inherent
in the idea of machine instructions per se.  But, to my knowledge, no
one before Turing saw this at all, except in the limited sense of
instructions which looped through memory.

I consider this a major distinction; patents are often issued on things
which are inherent in current technology but which nobody happened to
see before.  We generally credit the individual who saw what was unseen
with the invention, not the people who created the potential but did
not see it.  I still haven't seen anything in Lovelace or Babbage's
work that indicates they realized that since the instructions were
numbers they could be created by computation as numbers.  Turing's ACE
did conditional branchings by evaluating an arithmetic expression
dependent upon the value being tested.  The expression generated an
appropriate 'branch' instruction, which was then executed.

>	"...whenever numbers meaning OPERATIONS and not QUANTITIES
>	(such as the indices of powers) are inscribed on any column
>	or set of columns, those columns immediately act in a wholly
>	separate and independent manner, becoming connected with the
>	OPERATING MECHANISM exclusively, and re-acting upon this.
>	They never come into combination with numbers upon any other
>	columns meaning QUANTITIES; though, of course, if there are
>	numbers meaning operations upon n columns, these may COMBINE
>	AMONGST EACH OTHER, and will often be required to do so, just 
>	as numbers meaning QUANTITIES combine with each other in any 
>	variety."  [All emphasis in the original]

She points out that there is no mix between instructions and data, that
they are kept seperate.  I took here statement about instruction
combining to mean that they are executed in concert.
-- 

		Ken Arnold
=================================================================
Of COURSE we can implement your algorithm.  We've got this Turing
machine emulator...