On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 3:57:08 AM UTC+10, John Levine wrote:

> People were certainly aware of binary arithmetic but it took a
> surprisingly long time to realize that the benefits of doing
> everything in binary outweighed the cost of converting to and from
> decimal for I/O.
..
That was already realized in the mid-1940s.
..
> ENIAC was 1-out-of-10 decimal with 10 flip-flops for
> each digit. In the 1950s there were biquinary (IBM 650) and various
> kinds of BCD.
>
> I think S/360 killed off decimal machines by embedding a small nominally
> optional set of BCD arithmetic instructions inside a binary machine.
..
BCD is, of course, BINARY coded decimal.
Well before S/360, binary machines abounded.

On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:57:06 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>
> People were certainly aware of binary arithmetic but it took a
> surprisingly long time to realize that the benefits of doing
> everything in binary outweighed the cost of converting to and from
> decimal for I/O. ENIAC was 1-out-of-10 decimal with 10 flip-flops for
> each digit. In the 1950s there were biquinary (IBM 650) and various
> kinds of BCD.

Wasn't one of the main reasons an unreliable voltage? So if you had bad
(cheap) electronic parts, but expect them to produce either 0 or 5 V,
some might produce 4, and other time it should have 0 but for some reason
produces .8.

Thus with binary you wold say anything above 2.5 V is a "1", while all below
is a "0".
--
Andreas

According to Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>:
>On Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:57:06 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote:
>>
>> People were certainly aware of binary arithmetic but it took a
>> surprisingly long time to realize that the benefits of doing
>> everything in binary outweighed the cost of converting to and from
>> decimal for I/O. ...

>Wasn't one of the main reasons an unreliable voltage? So if you had bad
>(cheap) electronic parts, but expect them to produce either 0 or 5 V,
>some might produce 4, and other time it should have 0 but for some reason
>produces .8.

No. The circuits were all digital, even in the ENIAC 1-out-of-10
decimal, and digits were constructed out of bits on various ways. The
question was whether the programmer saw digits or bits.

There were analog computers too, that used continuously varying
voltages to represent values, but they disappeared in the 1960s as
digital circuits started to run at frequencies vastly higher than
anything an analog system could do.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 01:40:42 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> There were analog computers too, that used continuously varying
> voltages to represent values, but they disappeared in the 1960s as
> digital circuits started to run at frequencies vastly higher than
> anything an analog system could do.
>

And they are coming back as sub-systems, in part because they are much
faster and more efficient at some things that AI cares about. Two
op-amps and some other bits will solve second order ODEs faster than a
digital system will, and consume a lot less energy in the
process. Matrix times vector stuff involving real numbers happens in
"real time". No need to wait for CPU cycles, just for the current (or
voltage) to get to the end of the wire. Cool stuff!

On 2022-09-14 17:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:22:01 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2022-09-13 22:55, John Levine wrote:
>>> According to Christian Brunschen <c...@elaine.df.lth.se>:
>>>>> I thought everyone knew that John V Atanasoff pioneered binary
>>>>> arithmetic in electronic devices with the ABC computer
>>>>
>>>> Well, according to Wikipedia, Konrad Zuse's Z1
>>>>
>>>> "... was the first freely programmable computer in the world which used
>>>> Boolean logic and binary floating-point numbers ..."
>>>>
>>>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)
>>>
>>> I would be very surprised if Zuse and Atanasoff were aware of each
>>> other. Zuze was isolated in Nazi Germany until after the war.
>> It's likely they were unaware of each other, I agree. However, Zuse
>> filed a patent already in 1936, which was back when there were still a
>> lot of open communication going on. So who knows...?
>>> Eckert and Mauchly had seen the ABC before starting work on the ENIAC,
>>> which is one reason their ENIAC patent was later voided. So it seems
>>> fair to say that Atanasoff brought us binary computer arithmetic.
>> As far as binary arithmetic goes, neither Atanasoff nor Zuse should get
>> the credit. Binary, as such, was already three centuries old by that
>> time. Credit goes to Liebnitz
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz).
> .
> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
> operand and doubling the other?

I don't know, and I don't know that it is relevant.
(Or if it's chinese, or some old mesopotamian bloke might have done it
even earlier...)

Johnny

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:45:03 AM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2022-09-14 17:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:22:01 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >> On 2022-09-13 22:55, John Levine wrote:
> >>> According to Christian Brunschen <c...@elaine.df.lth.se>:
> >>>>> I thought everyone knew that John V Atanasoff pioneered binary
> >>>>> arithmetic in electronic devices with the ABC computer
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, according to Wikipedia, Konrad Zuse's Z1
> >>>>
> >>>> "... was the first freely programmable computer in the world which used
> >>>> Boolean logic and binary floating-point numbers ..."
> >>>>
> >>>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)
> >>>
> >>> I would be very surprised if Zuse and Atanasoff were aware of each
> >>> other. Zuze was isolated in Nazi Germany until after the war.
> >> It's likely they were unaware of each other, I agree. However, Zuse
> >> filed a patent already in 1936, which was back when there were still a
> >> lot of open communication going on. So who knows...?
> >>> Eckert and Mauchly had seen the ABC before starting work on the ENIAC,
> >>> which is one reason their ENIAC patent was later voided. So it seems
> >>> fair to say that Atanasoff brought us binary computer arithmetic.
> >> As far as binary arithmetic goes, neither Atanasoff nor Zuse should get
> >> the credit. Binary, as such, was already three centuries old by that
> >> time. Credit goes to Liebnitz
> >> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz).
> > .
> > How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
> > operand and doubling the other?
> I don't know, and I don't know that it is relevant.
..
Think binary.
..
> (Or if it's chinese, or some old mesopotamian bloke might have done it
> even earlier...)

On Friday, August 19, 2022 at 4:33:51 AM UTC-5, maus wrote:
> On 2022-08-19, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 11:17:32 AM UTC-6, Peter Flass wrote:
> >
> >> I’m still hoping for the great wake-up call. If enough trumpy candidates
> >> lose badly, as it looks like Oz is doing in PA and Vance is doing in OH,
> >> then, hopefully, the real Republicans will decide that winning elections is
> >> preferable to pretending loyalty to Der Führer.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the loss by Liz Cheney will tell them something else.
> >
> > It depends on which state one is in - unfortunately, there are still parts
> > of the United States where Trump is very popular.
> >
> > John Savard
> Do tell!. Tucker Carlson last night.
>
> As who I think is the resident expert, I would ask the following;
>
> At what point in the history of computers (mechanical) was it decided to
> use binary calculations, rather than some sort of decimal things?.
> Turing's machines?

I think Europeans learned of it through Leibniz, who got the idea from the
trigrams of the I Ching.

On 2022-09-16 03:14, Robin Vowels wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:45:03 AM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2022-09-14 17:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:22:01 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-13 22:55, John Levine wrote:
>>>>> According to Christian Brunschen <c...@elaine.df.lth.se>:
>>>>>>> I thought everyone knew that John V Atanasoff pioneered binary
>>>>>>> arithmetic in electronic devices with the ABC computer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, according to Wikipedia, Konrad Zuse's Z1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "... was the first freely programmable computer in the world which used
>>>>>> Boolean logic and binary floating-point numbers ..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)
>>>>>
>>>>> I would be very surprised if Zuse and Atanasoff were aware of each
>>>>> other. Zuze was isolated in Nazi Germany until after the war.
>>>> It's likely they were unaware of each other, I agree. However, Zuse
>>>> filed a patent already in 1936, which was back when there were still a
>>>> lot of open communication going on. So who knows...?
>>>>> Eckert and Mauchly had seen the ABC before starting work on the ENIAC,
>>>>> which is one reason their ENIAC patent was later voided. So it seems
>>>>> fair to say that Atanasoff brought us binary computer arithmetic.
>>>> As far as binary arithmetic goes, neither Atanasoff nor Zuse should get
>>>> the credit. Binary, as such, was already three centuries old by that
>>>> time. Credit goes to Liebnitz
>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz).
>>> .
>>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
>>> operand and doubling the other?
>> I don't know, and I don't know that it is relevant.
> .
> Think binary.
> .

It's not very binary, and it's only about multiplication.
Try multiplying 5 by 3, and see how binary you turn out...

I would consider this "trick" to ease multiplication to not be relevant
for any discussion on binary.

Johnny

On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 7:32:50 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2022-09-16 03:14, Robin Vowels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:45:03 AM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >> On 2022-09-14 17:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:22:01 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-09-13 22:55, John Levine wrote:
> >>>>> According to Christian Brunschen <c...@elaine.df.lth.se>:
> >>>>>>> I thought everyone knew that John V Atanasoff pioneered binary
> >>>>>>> arithmetic in electronic devices with the ABC computer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, according to Wikipedia, Konrad Zuse's Z1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "... was the first freely programmable computer in the world which used
> >>>>>> Boolean logic and binary floating-point numbers ..."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would be very surprised if Zuse and Atanasoff were aware of each
> >>>>> other. Zuze was isolated in Nazi Germany until after the war.
> >>>> It's likely they were unaware of each other, I agree. However, Zuse
> >>>> filed a patent already in 1936, which was back when there were still a
> >>>> lot of open communication going on. So who knows...?
> >>>>> Eckert and Mauchly had seen the ABC before starting work on the ENIAC,
> >>>>> which is one reason their ENIAC patent was later voided. So it seems
> >>>>> fair to say that Atanasoff brought us binary computer arithmetic.
> >>>> As far as binary arithmetic goes, neither Atanasoff nor Zuse should get
> >>>> the credit. Binary, as such, was already three centuries old by that
> >>>> time. Credit goes to Liebnitz
> >>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz).
> >>> .
> >>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
> >>> operand and doubling the other?
> >> I don't know, and I don't know that it is relevant.
> > .
> > Think binary.
> > .
> It's not very binary, and it's only about multiplication.
..
> Try multiplying 5 by 3, and see how binary you turn out...
>
> I would consider this "trick" to ease multiplication to not be relevant
> for any discussion on binary.
..
Check out wiki for Ancient Egyptian Multiplication

On 2022-09-16 13:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 7:32:50 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>> On 2022-09-16 03:14, Robin Vowels wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:45:03 AM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>> On 2022-09-14 17:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:22:01 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>>>> As far as binary arithmetic goes, neither Atanasoff nor Zuse should get
>>>>>> the credit. Binary, as such, was already three centuries old by that
>>>>>> time. Credit goes to Liebnitz
>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz).
>>>>> .
>>>>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
>>>>> operand and doubling the other?
>>>> I don't know, and I don't know that it is relevant.
>>> .
>>> Think binary.
>>> .
>> It's not very binary, and it's only about multiplication.
> .
>> Try multiplying 5 by 3, and see how binary you turn out...
>>
>> I would consider this "trick" to ease multiplication to not be relevant
>> for any discussion on binary.
> .
> Check out wiki for Ancient Egyptian Multiplication

Which is *still* not binary arithmetic. Arithmetic is more than just
multiplication. And the fact that we now know that this can be regarded
as a factorization into powers of two, and with some additional
exercises can be used to multiple two numbers do not mean this is any
more binary arithmetic.
The ancient Egyptians did not even factorize the numbers into powers of
two. They just ran with the double and half work, with additional work
to deal with the remainders that are otherwise lost if you just count in
integers.

As I said earlier. Credit for binary arithmetic goes, as far as we know,
to Liebniz. Nothing here has been shown to be relevant for that point.
Now, if you can actually find a source of someone working out binary
arithmetic before Liebniz, by all means. Post about that, and then we
can update history books.

Johnny

On 2022-09-16, Johnny Billquist <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> On 2022-09-16 13:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 7:32:50 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> On 2022-09-16 03:14, Robin Vowels wrote:
>
> As I said earlier. Credit for binary arithmetic goes, as far as we know,
> to Liebniz. Nothing here has been shown to be relevant for that point.
> Now, if you can actually find a source of someone working out binary
> arithmetic before Liebniz, by all means. Post about that, and then we
> can update history books.
>
> Johnny

Dont restart the Newton-Liebniz war.

--
greymausg@mail.org

Fe,Fi, Fo, Fum, I smell the stench of an Influencer.
Where is our money gone, Dude?

On Fr 16 Sep 2022 at 14:18, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:

> Dont restart the Newton-Liebniz war.

It was Leibniz.

'Andreas

On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 12:02:29 AM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On 2022-09-16 13:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 7:32:50 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >> On 2022-09-16 03:14, Robin Vowels wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 5:45:03 AM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-09-14 17:06, Robin Vowels wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:22:01 PM UTC+10, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>>>>> As far as binary arithmetic goes, neither Atanasoff nor Zuse should get
> >>>>>> the credit. Binary, as such, was already three centuries old by that
> >>>>>> time. Credit goes to Liebnitz
> >>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz).
> >>>>> .
> >>>>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
> >>>>> operand and doubling the other?
> >>>> I don't know, and I don't know that it is relevant.
> >>> .
> >>> Think binary.
> >>> .
> >> It's not very binary, and it's only about multiplication.
> > .
> >> Try multiplying 5 by 3, and see how binary you turn out...
> >>
> >> I would consider this "trick" to ease multiplication to not be relevant
> >> for any discussion on binary.
> > .
> > Check out wiki for Ancient Egyptian Multiplication
..
> Which is *still* not binary arithmetic.
..
Binary multiplication consists of shifting and adding.
..
> Arithmetic is more than just multiplication.
..
Binary arithmetic consists of addition and complementing.
..
> And the fact that we now know that this can be regarded
> as a factorization into powers of two, and with some additional
> exercises can be used to multiple two numbers do not mean this is any
> more binary arithmetic.
> The ancient Egyptians did not even factorize the numbers into powers of
> two. They just ran with the double and half work, with additional work
> to deal with the remainders that are otherwise lost if you just count in
> integers.
>
> As I said earlier. Credit for binary arithmetic goes, as far as we know,
> to Liebniz. Nothing here has been shown to be relevant for that point.
> Now, if you can actually find a source of someone working out binary
> arithmetic before Liebniz, by all means. Post about that, and then we
> can update history books.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 9:06:48 AM UTC-6, Robin Vowels wrote:
> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
> operand and doubling the other?

Not only is Russian Peasant Multiplication quite old, but of course
that is the algorithm used for raising numbers to integer powers by
multiplication - by analogy with how that algorithm does multiplication
by addition.

John Savard

On 8/2/2022 11:21 AM, D.J. wrote:
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> Most of the stuff we wrote at university was rather simplistic,
> looking back on it.
>

I saved some line printer computer printouts from the late 1970's. Also
I have maybe 10 boxes of old programs punched on 80-column cards.

I know these are *old*, but I *never* expected how susceptible to fading
the text of the printouts and the characters atop the punch cards are.
If you take the printouts/cards out and leave them open to the light for
a couple of hours... then return them to their dark home--the next time
you pull out those printouts/cards, you will find that the ink has
disappeared!!!

So if you take out old printouts, you need to scan them *right*
*away*!!! The same thing applies to printouts made on DecWriters or
Teletypes... and other types of printing terminals.

--

Charles Richmond

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 8/4/2022 1:11 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 18:09:09 +0100
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 19:05:25 +0300
>> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Magnetic retardation is a thing no software can undo.
>>
>> You could probably get a long way with a SQUID generated detailed
>> map of the surface magnetisation and some fancy pattern analysis ... grant
>> required.
>>
>>> Only archive quality optical medias are such that can keep data intact
>>> for centuries.
>>
>> Of course this has not been tested. Clay tablets hold the current
>> record for data retention but the bit density is terrible.
>>
> And an awful lot of info as to who owes how many bushels of grain to whom
> isn't terribly relevant after 6k years. Maybe future bit-archaeologists
> will wonder about our cult of the god Mario.
>

Most here must have knowledge of the Archimedes Palimpsest and the
restoration of the approximately 1200 year old copy of Archimedes book
_The Method_. This palimpsest was kept in a dark library in the middle
east for several centuries... in a warm, dry climate. But most of the
old Greek writing was recovered using advanced techniques.

IMHO this information is a bit more valuable than the ownership of
bushels of grain in ancient Sumeria.

http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org

--

Charles Richm

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 9/18/2022 8:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 9:06:48 AM UTC-6, Robin Vowels wrote:
>
>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
>> operand and doubling the other?
>
> Not only is Russian Peasant Multiplication quite old, but of course
> that is the algorithm used for raising numbers to integer powers by
> multiplication - by analogy with how that algorithm does multiplication
> by addition.
>

And Archimedes invented calculus circa 300 BCE ... though he was short
on proofs. The methods he used to calculate the value of Pi and to
derive a formula for the volume of a sphere were really calculus based.

--

Charles Richmond

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> schrieb:
> On 9/18/2022 8:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 9:06:48 AM UTC-6, Robin Vowels wrote:
>>
>>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
>>> operand and doubling the other?
>>
>> Not only is Russian Peasant Multiplication quite old, but of course
>> that is the algorithm used for raising numbers to integer powers by
>> multiplication - by analogy with how that algorithm does multiplication
>> by addition.
>>
>
> And Archimedes invented calculus circa 300 BCE ... though he was short
> on proofs.

Not really. He did things that we today do with calculus, but he
had no concept of the differential quotient, which is central to
calculus.

> The methods he used to calculate the value of Pi and to
> derive a formula for the volume of a sphere were really calculus based.

In hindsight only.

He was also hampered by not having the concept of irrational numbers.

Greek mathematicians knew that there were incommensurable lengths
(such as that of the sides of a square and its diagonals), you
can read that in Euclid. Because the fractions they used for
numbers could not express that ratio, they thought that geometry
was superior to numbers. They also lacked a good way to express
numbers (the positional number system) and arithmetic formulas.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 22:34:53 -0500, Charles Richmond
<codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>On 8/4/2022 1:11 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 18:09:09 +0100
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 19:05:25 +0300
>>> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Magnetic retardation is a thing no software can undo.
>>>
>>> You could probably get a long way with a SQUID generated detailed
>>> map of the surface magnetisation and some fancy pattern analysis ... grant
>>> required.
>>>
>>>> Only archive quality optical medias are such that can keep data intact
>>>> for centuries.
>>>
>>> Of course this has not been tested. Clay tablets hold the current
>>> record for data retention but the bit density is terrible.
>>>
>> And an awful lot of info as to who owes how many bushels of grain to whom
>> isn't terribly relevant after 6k years. Maybe future bit-archaeologists
>> will wonder about our cult of the god Mario.
>>
>
>Most here must have knowledge of the Archimedes Palimpsest and the
>restoration of the approximately 1200 year old copy of Archimedes book
>_The Method_. This palimpsest was kept in a dark library in the middle
>east for several centuries... in a warm, dry climate. But most of the
>old Greek writing was recovered using advanced techniques.
>
>IMHO this information is a bit more valuable than the ownership of
>bushels of grain in ancient Sumeria.
>
>http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org

I saw on Science Channel that some burned scrolls had been found. They
quickly realized that trying to open them, the scrolls would crumble
into dust. A scan, I think it was 3D x-ray but I could be
misremembering, they could read the text after flattening out the
digital image.
--
Jim

D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 22:34:53 -0500, Charles Richmond
> <codescott@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> On 8/4/2022 1:11 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 18:09:09 +0100
>>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2022 19:05:25 +0300
>>>> Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Magnetic retardation is a thing no software can undo.
>>>>
>>>> You could probably get a long way with a SQUID generated detailed
>>>> map of the surface magnetisation and some fancy pattern analysis ... grant
>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>>> Only archive quality optical medias are such that can keep data intact
>>>>> for centuries.
>>>>
>>>> Of course this has not been tested. Clay tablets hold the current
>>>> record for data retention but the bit density is terrible.
>>>>
>>> And an awful lot of info as to who owes how many bushels of grain to whom
>>> isn't terribly relevant after 6k years. Maybe future bit-archaeologists
>>> will wonder about our cult of the god Mario.
>>>
>>
>> Most here must have knowledge of the Archimedes Palimpsest and the
>> restoration of the approximately 1200 year old copy of Archimedes book
>> _The Method_. This palimpsest was kept in a dark library in the middle
>> east for several centuries... in a warm, dry climate. But most of the
>> old Greek writing was recovered using advanced techniques.
>>
>> IMHO this information is a bit more valuable than the ownership of
>> bushels of grain in ancient Sumeria.
>>
>> http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org
>
> I saw on Science Channel that some burned scrolls had been found. They
> quickly realized that trying to open them, the scrolls would crumble
> into dust. A scan, I think it was 3D x-ray but I could be
> misremembering, they could read the text after flattening out the
> digital image.

The Herculaneum scrolls, charred by the Vesuvius eruption. Some people
think the villa belonged to Julius Caesar’s father in law. Sadly, it looks
like most of the scrolls are Epicurean Philosophy rather than (IMHO) much
more valuable histories, but I guess one man’s trash…

I think X-rays are what they’re using, but (AFAIK) it’s going very slowly.

> --
> Jim
>

--
Pete

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> schrieb:
>> On 9/18/2022 8:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 9:06:48 AM UTC-6, Robin Vowels wrote:
>>>
>>>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
>>>> operand and doubling the other?
>>>
>>> Not only is Russian Peasant Multiplication quite old, but of course
>>> that is the algorithm used for raising numbers to integer powers by
>>> multiplication - by analogy with how that algorithm does multiplication
>>> by addition.
>>>
>>
>> And Archimedes invented calculus circa 300 BCE ... though he was short
>> on proofs.
>
> Not really. He did things that we today do with calculus, but he
> had no concept of the differential quotient, which is central to
> calculus.
>
>> The methods he used to calculate the value of Pi and to
>> derive a formula for the volume of a sphere were really calculus based.
>
> In hindsight only.
>
> He was also hampered by not having the concept of irrational numbers.
>
> Greek mathematicians knew that there were incommensurable lengths
> (such as that of the sides of a square and its diagonals), you
> can read that in Euclid. Because the fractions they used for
> numbers could not express that ratio, they thought that geometry
> was superior to numbers. They also lacked a good way to express
> numbers (the positional number system) and arithmetic formulas.
>

Not having the right tools for the problem is a major hinderance. Newton
(and Leibnitz) had to invent calculus in order to use it. For a more modern
example look at the effort in doing astronomical calculations before
computers - heck, even before adding machines.

--
Pete

Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>> Charles Richmond <codescott@aquaporin4.com> schrieb:
>>> On 9/18/2022 8:43 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 9:06:48 AM UTC-6, Robin Vowels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How old is the Chinese method of multiplying by halving one
>>>>> operand and doubling the other?
>>>>
>>>> Not only is Russian Peasant Multiplication quite old, but of course
>>>> that is the algorithm used for raising numbers to integer powers by
>>>> multiplication - by analogy with how that algorithm does multiplication
>>>> by addition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And Archimedes invented calculus circa 300 BCE ... though he was short
>>> on proofs.
>>
>> Not really. He did things that we today do with calculus, but he
>> had no concept of the differential quotient, which is central to
>> calculus.
>>
>>> The methods he used to calculate the value of Pi and to
>>> derive a formula for the volume of a sphere were really calculus based.
>>
>> In hindsight only.
>>
>> He was also hampered by not having the concept of irrational numbers.
>>
>> Greek mathematicians knew that there were incommensurable lengths
>> (such as that of the sides of a square and its diagonals), you
>> can read that in Euclid. Because the fractions they used for
>> numbers could not express that ratio, they thought that geometry
>> was superior to numbers. They also lacked a good way to express
>> numbers (the positional number system) and arithmetic formulas.
>>
>
> Not having the right tools for the problem is a major hinderance. Newton
> (and Leibnitz) had to invent calculus in order to use it. For a more modern
> example look at the effort in doing astronomical calculations before
> computers - heck, even before adding machines.

I'm not sure when adding machines were actually applied to
astronomical calculations, but the first one apperars to have been
invented in 1642, if Wikipedia is to be trusted, so not so many
years after Kepler published his laws.

D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:

>>>>> The staff used a shredder that cut them into strips, instead of
>>>>> confetti. The Iranians put them back together.
....
>The likely bought the strip shredder as a cost saving.... and it was a
>bad decision.

Hardly. There was few if any cross-cut shredders before that debacle.

And they are not without issues. They work by cutting the paper into
strips, then yanking the strips to TEAR the ribbons. That distorts
the paper and what's printed on it to make matching up pieces impossible.

But the shredders have thin cutters rather like transformer cores; a staple
can damage them, a paper-clip is SURE to.

The better gadget is the SEM Model 22 Disintegrator. It's sorta like a reel
lawn mower on steroids.

--
A host is a host from coast to coast...............wb8foz@panix.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 22:48:51 -0000 (UTC), David Lesher
<wb8foz@panix.com> wrote:
>D.J. <chucktheouch@gmnol.com> writes:
>
>>>>>> The staff used a shredder that cut them into strips, instead of
>>>>>> confetti. The Iranians put them back together.
>...
>>The likely bought the strip shredder as a cost saving.... and it was a
>>bad decision.
>
>Hardly. There was few if any cross-cut shredders before that debacle.
>
>And they are not without issues. They work by cutting the paper into
>strips, then yanking the strips to TEAR the ribbons. That distorts
>the paper and what's printed on it to make matching up pieces impossible.
>
>But the shredders have thin cutters rather like transformer cores; a staple
>can damage them, a paper-clip is SURE to.
>
>The better gadget is the SEM Model 22 Disintegrator. It's sorta like a reel
>lawn mower on steroids.

I had a confetti shredder that could cut staples. But they likely
weren't around back then.

--
Jim

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 3:12:29 AM UTC+10, anti...@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote:
> Andreas Kohlbach <a...@spamfence.net> wrote:
> > Found this <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnHdqPBrtH8>
> > interesting. Reasons, why the Soviet Union/Russia never caught up to the
> > US in the "computer race".
> >
> > Suppose one can project that are the same reasons Russia today can't do
> > without massive technology support from outside.
>
> I am not doing youtube so do not know what author claims.
> Usual western explanation is that communist system was
> inefficient and hostile to innovation. This explanation
> has some merit, but management problems in communism
> and in big western companies are similar so IMO it is
> only partial explanation.
>
> However, one can also look at fundamentals. Soviet
> economy was smaller than western economy. At its best
> times soviet block claimed to be about half of western
> block. More important, advanced sectors formed much
> smaller part of Soviet economy than in western economy.
> In advanced part of economy there are very strong scale
> and multiplier effects. Namely you pay developement
> cost once, with moderate influence of resulting production
> volume. By multipler effect I mean that to develop
> advanced technology you need advanced parts and tools.
> So speed at which you are able to develop advanced
> technology depends very strongly on your techonlogy
> level. And western embargo meant that Soviet block
> could not import curucial advanced technology, it has
> to develop its own. Since Soviet block was way behind
> west in advanced technology, it also developed slower so
> distance to west at best remainded fixed and in
> many cases increased.
>
> In central planning economy there is naive belif
> that assigning more resources to critical sectors
> will lead to faster developement and consequently
> allow overtaking "unplanned" economy. However,
> first of all, one needs to correctly identify
> critical sectors, which is tricky. Second, more
> resources does not mean more effect: sector must
> be able to usfully "consume" added resources.
> For example, if your semiconductor manufacturing
> is limited by lack of knowledge and your research
> is limited by lack of scientific instruments, you
> get rather long delay from critical place to
> desired effect. Third, every leading country now
> has some level of planned economy and there is
> state support for long term projects.
>
> Another question is how much demand for computers
> was in Soviet block. Computers were needed for
> bomb and rocket research, but AFAICS Soviets
> had this covered. Various report show that in
> Soviet block computer centers frequently operated
> one shift only. If there were pressing need
> they should operate them at least two shifts.
>
> Recently I have read Polish report (but Russian
> thinking was probably similar) about
> computer trends from 1969. One claim was that
> in USA there is enough computers. Argument was
> as follows: computer manufactures had free
> production capacity and if there were more need
> users would order more. So report predicted
> that computer use would saturate at level similar
> to USA in 1969. They also observe that to get
> economic benefits from computers one had to
> simultaneously improve orgranization, comuication,
> etc. That needed time so report claimed that there
> is no rush to increased computer use: one should
> improve all things at their natural pace.
>
> Of course claim about "saturated" computer market was
> quite wrong, they did not predict that falling
> computer prices would lead to much wider use. But
> Soviet block planners were not the only ones to
> make such mistake. Internal IBM documents from
> 1972 shows that IBM was quite scared that failing
> manufacturing costs would lead to low prices for
> computers and effectively "collapse" computer
> market.
>
> I think that it is hard to compare Russia now to
> Soviet times. On one hand Russion economy now
> is much smaller part of word economy than Soviet
> economy was in Soviet times.

That does not mean anything, Soviet Russia included
many countries that are now independent countries,
so Russian territory is physically smaller than Soviet Russian
territory.

> And Russion seem
> to be much more dependent on imports. OTOH
> western embargo needed quite a long time to
> have effect. And in modern times it is not
> just Russia and west. In particular China has
> a lot of technologies that Russia needs. I think
> that China advanced sector is still significantly
> smaller than western advanced sector. And China
> is dependent on imports of western advanced
> products. So China do not want confrontation
> with west (at least just now). But if pressed to
> hard they can make common block with Russia
> just as self-defence.