| Author |
Message |
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:41 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:50:55 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:ho7tm1lmbne4cj72qusd5nfrh2ilb15ot6@4ax.com...
This discussion refers to electronic digital computers. Before them were
(electric) relay computers, electromechanical analog(ue) computers and
electronic analog(ue) computers. And of course all the non-electric
mechanical calculators.
Yes - we ticker tape pioneers didn't actually have a computer, we had a room
sized modem - the computer was 300 miles away in London. You not only got to
write your program but usually the 'operating system' too [Basic or maybe
Algol].
I showed a kid a picture book of early computer stuff, and he looked at all
the hardware [no keyboard, no monitor] and didn't recognise anything at all!
Except the endpapers of the book had flow-charts, and he recognised them for
what they were.
Do you know what was Turing's output in 1941?
I'm not sure but I'd guess it was a visible display. |
If the equipment was the Bombe the output was presumably read off from
the letters painted round the edges of the rotating drums.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:18 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:13 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" <reunite.gondwana@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:44:45 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was hoping for a more concrete example of something that was at one
time accepted as a fact, where subsequent examination has shown that
the one-time fact was incorrect, and where there was a period of time
when the new fact was not accepted by everyone. It is in that period
of time that the teacher who teaches the new fact may chose to allude
to the possibility of the new discovery being the right fact, but not
teach that the new fact is the right fact even though the teacher
believes it to be the right fact.
Plate tectonics or the K-T extinction per Alvarez or glaciation or the
Scablands ("How could I have been so wrong?") or Uniformitarianism or
any other paradigm shift in the sciences. These are just a few that
occurred to me randomly and there are lots more.
An interesting post and a good answer being provided, but not an |
answer to the question asked.
The quoted paragraph above was part of a post replying to a person who
teaches accounting. The concrete example asked for would have been a
situation faced by a teacher of accounting. It was acknowledged in
the thread that concrete examples were easily found in other areas of
teaching; specifically history.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chess One
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:22 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:j761n199k2v261tgq6eo8r6ctqqhj1pqor@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Do you know what was Turing's output in 1941?
I'm not sure but I'd guess it was a visible display.
|
a cathode ray illuminated single letter sequence?
| Quote: | If the equipment was the Bombe the output was presumably read off from
the letters painted round the edges of the rotating drums.
|
thank you. i am unsure how the computer interacted with the bombes, if there
were multi-stages of processing.
i became interested in the subject not by virtue of any computing or
historic interest as much as that the people who supplied the cribs to the
computer were heavily recruited from the british chess playing community for
their pattern recognition skills
i am unsure if modern computers can crack [6 rotor] Enigma in 'real time',
but perhaps reports are unstandably far from frank?
what is true that computers cannot solve chess - only theoretical claims are
made for it by brute force method, and so theoretical that it is uncertain!
there being [incidentally, and a seperate point] more potential chess moves
than all the atoms in the universe
cordially, phil
| Quote: | Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:34 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:26:09 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <11mgqcvb3f6of05@corp.supernews.com>,
"Mike Lepore" <lepore5@bestweb.net> wrote:
For most of my life, I thought that the asterisk had eight points.
Trying to imitate the appearance used by the typewriter and the
publishing industry, I always formed the asterisk in handwriting
by first making a + sign and then superimposing an x on it.
About a year ago, I looked carefully at some printed material
and discovered that the asterisk has six points.
I wonder how I could have been so unobservant, and what
else I have been missing.
--
Mike Lepore email delete the 5
*
I propose we call the six-legged asterisk the 'insectrisk' and the
eight-legged asterisk the 'arachnisk'.
earle
*
The above asterisk displayed in Courier New font has five legs. |
'Single amputee insectrisk'? 'Triple amputee arachnisk'?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Wright
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Peter Duncanson wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:26:09 -0800, Earle Jones
earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <11mgqcvb3f6of05@corp.supernews.com>,
"Mike Lepore" <lepore5@bestweb.net> wrote:
For most of my life, I thought that the asterisk had eight points.
Trying to imitate the appearance used by the typewriter and the
publishing industry, I always formed the asterisk in handwriting
by first making a + sign and then superimposing an x on it.
About a year ago, I looked carefully at some printed material
and discovered that the asterisk has six points.
I wonder how I could have been so unobservant, and what
else I have been missing.
--
Mike Lepore email delete the 5
*
I propose we call the six-legged asterisk the 'insectrisk' and the
eight-legged asterisk the 'arachnisk'.
earle
*
The above asterisk displayed in Courier New font has five legs.
'Single amputee insectrisk'? 'Triple amputee arachnisk'?
|
Pentarisk
--
Tim W
There's a place for all God's creatures.
Right beside the potatoes and gravy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:55 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Peter Duncanson filted:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:26:09 -0800, Earle Jones
earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
I propose we call the six-legged asterisk the 'insectrisk' and the
eight-legged asterisk the 'arachnisk'.
*
The above asterisk displayed in Courier New font has five legs.
'Single amputee insectrisk'? 'Triple amputee arachnisk'?
|
"Ophiuroidisk"....r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Bishop
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:25 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In article <pr81n15qclseebh56e509cbgi752is0qh5@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:13 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" <reunite.gondwana@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:44:45 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was hoping for a more concrete example of something that was at one
time accepted as a fact, where subsequent examination has shown that
the one-time fact was incorrect, and where there was a period of time
when the new fact was not accepted by everyone. It is in that period
of time that the teacher who teaches the new fact may chose to allude
to the possibility of the new discovery being the right fact, but not
teach that the new fact is the right fact even though the teacher
believes it to be the right fact.
Plate tectonics or the K-T extinction per Alvarez or glaciation or the
Scablands ("How could I have been so wrong?") or Uniformitarianism or
any other paradigm shift in the sciences. These are just a few that
occurred to me randomly and there are lots more.
An interesting post and a good answer being provided, but not an
answer to the question asked.
The quoted paragraph above was part of a post replying to a person who
teaches accounting. The concrete example asked for would have been a
situation faced by a teacher of accounting. It was acknowledged in
the thread that concrete examples were easily found in other areas of
teaching; specifically history.
|
I hadn't realized that from reading your post quoted above, and perhaps
Mayr hadn't either. This late in the thread, where neurons have died in
some of the readers, perhaps a
[question regarding accounting practices]
or the like would have been helpful.
charles, I thought of plate tectonics and the KT but not Uniformitarianism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Bauer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:34 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 05:22:33 -0800, Chess One wrote
(in article <tE1cf.4122$SV1.2190@trndny01>):
| Quote: |
there being [incidentally, and a seperate point] more potential chess moves
than all the atoms in the universe
|
Ninety-eight percent of all chess moves are crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:05 pm
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:22:33 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:j761n199k2v261tgq6eo8r6ctqqhj1pqor@4ax.com...
Do you know what was Turing's output in 1941?
I'm not sure but I'd guess it was a visible display.
a cathode ray illuminated single letter sequence?
If the equipment was the Bombe the output was presumably read off from
the letters painted round the edges of the rotating drums.
thank you. i am unsure how the computer interacted with the bombes, if there
were multi-stages of processing.
|
This Google search gives a number of links to Bombe information.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bombe+bletchley&hl=en&lr=&cr=countryUK|countryGB&start=10&sa=N
or
http://tinyurl.com/dcf6r
When you write "how the computer interacted with the bombes" that would
be "computer" in the sense of a human being, I think.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.u.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:07 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:25:21 GMT, ctbishop@earthlink.netttt (Charles
Bishop) wrote:
| Quote: | In article <pr81n15qclseebh56e509cbgi752is0qh5@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:13 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" <reunite.gondwana@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:44:45 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was hoping for a more concrete example of something that was at one
time accepted as a fact, where subsequent examination has shown that
the one-time fact was incorrect, and where there was a period of time
when the new fact was not accepted by everyone. It is in that period
of time that the teacher who teaches the new fact may chose to allude
to the possibility of the new discovery being the right fact, but not
teach that the new fact is the right fact even though the teacher
believes it to be the right fact.
Plate tectonics or the K-T extinction per Alvarez or glaciation or the
Scablands ("How could I have been so wrong?") or Uniformitarianism or
any other paradigm shift in the sciences. These are just a few that
occurred to me randomly and there are lots more.
An interesting post and a good answer being provided, but not an
answer to the question asked.
The quoted paragraph above was part of a post replying to a person who
teaches accounting. The concrete example asked for would have been a
situation faced by a teacher of accounting. It was acknowledged in
the thread that concrete examples were easily found in other areas of
teaching; specifically history.
I hadn't realized that from reading your post quoted above, and perhaps
Mayr hadn't either. This late in the thread, where neurons have died in
some of the readers, perhaps a
[question regarding accounting practices]
or the like would have been helpful.
|
The information about the accounting nature of the question was in the
paragraph before the paragraph she's quoted here. Mary snipped it,
though.
I'm all for snipping, but not when snipping removes relevant
references and context.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:15 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:25:21 GMT, ctbishop@earthlink.netttt (Charles
Bishop) wrote:
In article <pr81n15qclseebh56e509cbgi752is0qh5@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:13 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" <reunite.gondwana@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:44:45 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
I was hoping for a more concrete example of something that was at one
time accepted as a fact, where subsequent examination has shown that
the one-time fact was incorrect, and where there was a period of time
when the new fact was not accepted by everyone. It is in that period
of time that the teacher who teaches the new fact may chose to allude
to the possibility of the new discovery being the right fact, but not
teach that the new fact is the right fact even though the teacher
believes it to be the right fact.
Plate tectonics or the K-T extinction per Alvarez or glaciation or the
Scablands ("How could I have been so wrong?") or Uniformitarianism or
any other paradigm shift in the sciences. These are just a few that
occurred to me randomly and there are lots more.
An interesting post and a good answer being provided, but not an
answer to the question asked.
The quoted paragraph above was part of a post replying to a person who
teaches accounting. The concrete example asked for would have been a
situation faced by a teacher of accounting. It was acknowledged in
the thread that concrete examples were easily found in other areas of
teaching; specifically history.
I hadn't realized that from reading your post quoted above, and perhaps
Mayr hadn't either. This late in the thread, where neurons have died in
some of the readers, perhaps a
[question regarding accounting practices]
or the like would have been helpful.
The information about the accounting nature of the question was in the
paragraph before the paragraph she's quoted here. Mary snipped it,
though.
I'm all for snipping, but not when snipping removes relevant
references and context.
|
I was interested to read what Mary wrote but would be even more
interested to hear from someone involved in teaching these topics.
Tony, I can't offer you an example of a paradigm shift in financial
reporting without writing a very long explanation. If you like, I'll
email you when I have the time to do so. Or you'll just have to take my
word for it that there are several examples.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chess One
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:53 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
"Jerry Bauer" <usenet@bauerstar.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF9605EC004692F7F0284550@news.west.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 05:22:33 -0800, Chess One wrote
(in article <tE1cf.4122$SV1.2190@trndny01>):
there being [incidentally, and a seperate point] more potential chess
moves
than all the atoms in the universe
Ninety-eight percent of all chess moves are crap.
|
So are 99% of all statistics. But the point was about calculation by Brute
Force, and that considers all moves, including the 98% crap ones. Phil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:38 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
In message <qki1n11fnnp4ajfe3cok7d4h1v7jdhsu0l@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
<mail@peterduncanson.net> writes
| Quote: | On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:22:33 GMT, "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:j761n199k2v261tgq6eo8r6ctqqhj1pqor@4ax.com...
Do you know what was Turing's output in 1941?
I'm not sure but I'd guess it was a visible display.
a cathode ray illuminated single letter sequence?
If the equipment was the Bombe the output was presumably read off from
the letters painted round the edges of the rotating drums.
thank you. i am unsure how the computer interacted with the bombes, if there
were multi-stages of processing.
This Google search gives a number of links to Bombe information.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bombe+bletchley&hl=en&lr=&cr=countryUK|
countryGB&start=10&sa=N
or
http://tinyurl.com/dcf6r
When you write "how the computer interacted with the bombes" that would
be "computer" in the sense of a human being, I think.
|
You are being modest. Certainly the computers were the humans in those
days; now, they are zombies.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:02 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Peter Duncanson <mail@peterduncanson.net> writes:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:26:09 -0800, Earle Jones
earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
I propose we call the six-legged asterisk the 'insectrisk' and the
eight-legged asterisk the 'arachnisk'.
The above asterisk displayed in Courier New font has five legs.
'Single amputee insectrisk'? 'Triple amputee arachnisk'?
|
Obviously, the appropriate animal to allude to is the starfish/sea
star. That class is "asteroidae", so the appropriate coinage would
presumably be "asterisk".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: the asterisk |
|
|
Xah Lee wrote:
[...]
The attribution appears to be "Bill Gates", writing a column called
"Gatesway". It is probably syndicated, and may appear in other papers
than just the Bombay Times.
/dps |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in