Slashdot Mirror

It's great that there's a memorial to Turing, but why is he sitting on a park bench like a loafer? Among his other talents, Turing was an excellent long distance runner. Something a little more active looking would be more appropriate.

Visit alanturing.net for a good bio and archive.

Visit alanturing.{com,org} if you want to
see some cybersquatting.

I strongly recommend Andrew Hodges web site and book

And as payback he was hounded to the point where he commited suicide...

Since I don't live in a country that's covered by the Official Secrets Act, I can say what should be pretty obvious: some brain-damaged James Bond type decided that having an openly gay scientist with a head full of Ultra-grade secrets just wouldn't do.

I have to throw in my favorite Turing story. During WW II, he was sent to the U.S. on a secret mission. He was told, "Don't take any documents with you." Of course, that meant technical documents, but he took it quite literally, and showed up in New York with no passport or personal ID of any kind. Must have been interesting.

I don't think the Turing rates sole credit for the Ultra Secret, or that the Ultra Secret was crucial to winning the war. But Turing certainly helped save thousands of lives.

Another Slashdot post calls him the "Father of Computer Science". That's going a bit far, but CompSci does owe him a lot. And he probably rates as the first computer geek.

Your criticism of the MIST seems to be that it is only regurgitation of facts, but the "facts" that make up the MIST are statements which are determined true or false by human consensus, not just by science. Considering that Cyc was built with much the same mindset, I don't doubt that it might score well. Which is good! It means the test is working. Cyc has some intelligence embedded into it, and we can detect that by testing it.

Compared to the totally subjective, pass/fail nature of the Turing Test, I think anyone would agree this is a step forward. I doubt Cyc could answer as many questions correctly as a person, though. It's rules aren't robust enough, yet.

(Keep in mind that the MIST is simply an intelligence test, and leaves out the question of whether or not a given entity can feel emotions or has a phenomenological quality of existence. Which is as it should be.)

I don't know about your other examples but you might want to check out http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/ for some information about alan turing.
It would have been good if he was American, he might have lived a lot longer.

There's also the University of Manchester Department of Computer Science history and "50 years of computing at Manchester."

Or the Alan Turing Home Page.

Alan Turing used to drink at the Salisbury Arms, on Oxford Road in Manchester, which although serving a decent pint, is now way too packed in the evenings to be able to think in base 32 anymore.

Someone else mentioned Alan Turing's thoretical contributions. His work at Blechley Park in England on code breaking during WWII is also fascinating. The book "Alan Turing: the Enigma" by Andrew Hodges makes good reading. (I am not a shill and derive no financial benefit from sales of this book.) See http://www.turing.org.uk/

--

--

The Cryptonomicon provoked me to read the new American edition of "Alan Turing: The Enigma" by Andrew Hodges. It was out of print for the longest time, but the American edition was just recently published. It's an excellent book, entertaining while being both historically and scientifically accurate, and it's gotten straight 5 star reviews on Amazon (although neither the author nor the subject were straight). Tom Jennings [inventor of FidoNet and founder of the Little Garden ISP] wrote the first review of the original edition, and he rates it as one of the most important books he's ever read. So I bought a bunch and gave them out as xmas presents!

-Don

You'd better not use VRML, vi, linux, or a computer for that matter!

I wonder who else was "into" homosexuality, paganism, drugs, and general irreverence.

Such a bad rap these people had...

and they're such horrable people...

--Proud to be a Pagan Programmer!--

Turing came up with Delilah after he returned to the UK. It was a much smaller and simpler device, but it was never put to any practical use.

More info can be found in Andrew Hodges' book "Alan Turing: the Enigma". (Hodges maintains The Alan Turing Home Page, referred to in the parent comment.)
--

Turing came up with Delilah after he returned to the UK. It was a much smaller and simpler device, but it was never put to any practical use.

More info can be found in Andrew Hodges' book "Alan Turing: the Enigma". (Hodges maintains The Alan Turing Home Page, referred to in the parent comment.)
--

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/bs.html

"The Gene Machine

Professor Bernard Hodson (now based in Ottawa) has developed a programming system called Genetix. It is claimed that this is more efficient than any software currently used, and differs radically from everything done in the last fifty years by drawing on Turing's original concepts. [...]

[...] At present the work is apparently bound by commercial secrecy, but I hope that soon these surprising claims will be opened to general scientific discussion. Until then they will be hard to evaluate.

However, my business on this website is to explain what Alan Turing said and did; and I do think I can say that Hodson and Bloor are on doubtful territory in claiming that the Genetix programming ideas derive directly from Turing's writings. They quote quite general statements made by Turing in advancing the ideas of a universal machine, of the stack, and of program libraries, when all these ideas were completely fresh. They go on to interpret them in what seem to me much more specific modern terms, in support of the Genetix approach. I am sceptical as to whether the Genetix system actually derives from anything Turing had in mind.

To illustrate my point, note that the Genetix prospectus rests upon distinguishing the Universal Turing Machine concept from the stored-program concept. Turing himself, however, made no such distinction, and in 1948 clearly referred to all the digital computers then under construction as 'practical universal computing machines.'

Two possible confusions

As far as I can see there is no connection between Genetix and 'genetic programs' which improve themselves by means analogous to biological evolution by selection. (Turing might in fact be credited with the basic idea of such programs. Right from the start he emphasised the idea that the stored-program computer can modify its own instructions, suggesting that this capacity could be developed into the ability to learn from experience.)

Also, this Genetix has no connection with the Genetix which campaigns against the development of genetically modified organisms."

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/bs.html

"The Gene Machine

Professor Bernard Hodson (now based in Ottawa) has developed a programming system called Genetix. It is claimed that this is more efficient than any software currently used, and differs radically from everything done in the last fifty years by drawing on Turing's original concepts. [...]

[...] At present the work is apparently bound by commercial secrecy, but I hope that soon these surprising claims will be opened to general scientific discussion. Until then they will be hard to evaluate.

However, my business on this website is to explain what Alan Turing said and did; and I do think I can say that Hodson and Bloor are on doubtful territory in claiming that the Genetix programming ideas derive directly from Turing's writings. They quote quite general statements made by Turing in advancing the ideas of a universal machine, of the stack, and of program libraries, when all these ideas were completely fresh. They go on to interpret them in what seem to me much more specific modern terms, in support of the Genetix approach. I am sceptical as to whether the Genetix system actually derives from anything Turing had in mind.

To illustrate my point, note that the Genetix prospectus rests upon distinguishing the Universal Turing Machine concept from the stored-program concept. Turing himself, however, made no such distinction, and in 1948 clearly referred to all the digital computers then under construction as 'practical universal computing machines.'

Two possible confusions

As far as I can see there is no connection between Genetix and 'genetic programs' which improve themselves by means analogous to biological evolution by selection. (Turing might in fact be credited with the basic idea of such programs. Right from the start he emphasised the idea that the stored-program computer can modify its own instructions, suggesting that this capacity could be developed into the ability to learn from experience.)

Also, this Genetix has no connection with the Genetix which campaigns against the development of genetically modified organisms."

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/scrapbook/bs.html

"The Gene Machine

Professor Bernard Hodson (now based in Ottawa) has developed a programming system called Genetix. It is claimed that this is more efficient than any software currently used, and differs radically from everything done in the last fifty years by drawing on Turing's original concepts. [...]

[...] At present the work is apparently bound by commercial secrecy, but I hope that soon these surprising claims will be opened to general scientific discussion. Until then they will be hard to evaluate.

However, my business on this website is to explain what Alan Turing said and did; and I do think I can say that Hodson and Bloor are on doubtful territory in claiming that the Genetix programming ideas derive directly from Turing's writings. They quote quite general statements made by Turing in advancing the ideas of a universal machine, of the stack, and of program libraries, when all these ideas were completely fresh. They go on to interpret them in what seem to me much more specific modern terms, in support of the Genetix approach. I am sceptical as to whether the Genetix system actually derives from anything Turing had in mind.

To illustrate my point, note that the Genetix prospectus rests upon distinguishing the Universal Turing Machine concept from the stored-program concept. Turing himself, however, made no such distinction, and in 1948 clearly referred to all the digital computers then under construction as 'practical universal computing machines.'

Two possible confusions

As far as I can see there is no connection between Genetix and 'genetic programs' which improve themselves by means analogous to biological evolution by selection. (Turing might in fact be credited with the basic idea of such programs. Right from the start he emphasised the idea that the stored-program computer can modify its own instructions, suggesting that this capacity could be developed into the ability to learn from experience.)

Also, this Genetix has no connection with the Genetix which campaigns against the development of genetically modified organisms."

I've never heard of that. But Turing's Teatise on the Enigma was declassified a few years ago by the NSA. An introduction and history of that book is available at the Turing site. That same site has a bibliography, and yet still no mention of material still classified.

That is not any proof that there still isn't classified material. When someone at the US National Archives sent me a copy of Turing's Treatise in 1997, that was a surprise. But while there might still be some undiscovered work by Turing. I'd be surprised if there is anything still classified.

I've never heard of that. But Turing's Teatise on the Enigma was declassified a few years ago by the NSA. An introduction and history of that book is available at the Turing site. That same site has a bibliography, and yet still no mention of material still classified.

That is not any proof that there still isn't classified material. When someone at the US National Archives sent me a copy of Turing's Treatise in 1997, that was a surprise. But while there might still be some undiscovered work by Turing. I'd be surprised if there is anything still classified.

Find out about Turing machines at www.turing.org.uk.

Hodges has a web site on which he uses the Bomb to argue that Turing more or less invented the modern computer. Of course, Hodges is less than objective, since he sees Turing as a sort of poster boy for oppression of gay mathematicians.

One interesting aspect of Hodges's book is the implication that Turing's suicide was actually a case of official murder. He doesn't say this outright -- either his evidence is too weak, or he's cautious about living in a country that can legally void due process.

__________

Didn't Michaelangelo have the idea if not the plans for a mechanical adding machine?

Yes, but an adding machine is not necessarily a computer. There were many mechanical and electro-mechanical calculators available before the first electronic computers. IBM had a flourishing business making such beasts long before WWII.

I know the idea isn't anywhere near new. What it really comes down to is how we classify the word "computer".

There is a precise and definitive answer to this question. Alan Turing's famous paper "On Computable Numbers" proposes the logical foundation for all computing machines. Take a look at this page on Andrew Hodges' web site. If you want to dive in to it, buy Hodges' excellent biography of Turing. Another great source of information on the mathematical basis for all computation is Douglas Hofstader's tour de force book "Godel, Escher and Bach". If you really want to understand computers you have to understand Turing's work.

Why did GCHQ wait so long to release the specifications to Colosus II (or am I missing something?)

Hmm... I wonder if 'popular' computer science will pay more attention to Alan Turin from now on.

Head over to http://www.turing.org.uk/ if you'd like to learn more.

I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't get into the top 5...

While it is obviously flawed to try and work out who was the most significant out of Einstein, Ghandi, JFK and any number of great people, there is one person who bears special consideration. I think, in the very long march of history, perhaps many thousands of years from now, people will remember this as the Turing century. Quantum physics and relativity will be historic relics, while politicians and spiritual leaders will have assumed mythical status. One concrete, profound change will remain wedded inseperably to the future of humanity: the conception of the general purpose programmable computer, or Turing Machine. Why? Because it is the computer that is the first real extension of the human mind. In a similar way that an axe or hammer is an extension of an arm, the general purpose computer is the direct extension of what makes us inherently different to other known species: intelligence. I will not try and predict the future of computing or speculate any further on the future of humanity (many others have done this already in this context), but will ask you this: Would you even be reading this message if it wasn't for Turing?


Note -- please see this web site for more information on Turing's life and achievments.

M. Rejewski
"How Polish mathematicians deciphered the Enigma" (with discussion)
Ann. Hist. Comput. 3, 213-234 (1981)

A different translation of this paper appears as an appendix to the book by Kozaczuk (1984) recommended by the original poster.

Rejewski was the brilliant Polish mathematician who achieved the original theoretical success against the commercial version of Enigma in 1932-33. The Poles were later able to achieve substantial success against the military variant, aided by intelligence material supplied by Gustave Bertrand of the French Secret Service. According to Rejewski this material was "the decisive factor in breaking the machine's secrets". The work was the foundation for many of the attacks used against Enigma at Bletchley Park.

Why is it that history always credits Alan Turing with cracking Enigma, when in fact the Poles were reading Enigma encrypts prior to 1940? As I remember it Turing didn't become a player at Bletchley Park until about 1943, LONG after all of the theoretical work on the Enigma cipher had passed.

This is not correct:

From September 1938 Turing had given part-time assistance to the British cryptanalytic organisation, the Government Code and Cypher School. Their work was transformed by the transfer of information from Polish mathematical cryptanalysts in July 1939. From 4 September 1939, Turing worked full-time at the GC&CS war-time headquarters, Bletchley Park.

During 1939-40 Turing was foremost in developing logical, statistical and mechanical methods which allowed rapid decryption of some Enigma cipher traffic in 1940. The vital naval ciphers resisted decryption, mainly through an extra complexity (a bigram substitution) in the key-system. Turing took charge of a section (Hut Eight) devoted to this problem.

Source: http://www.turing.org.uk/turi ng/papers/profsbook.html

In this time he made a number of important contributions, including

• working out the new indicator system being used by the German navy to transmit the machine settings;
• 'simultaneous scanning', the simultaneous tracing of all of the possible consequences of a hypothesis about the plugboard settings and testing for contradiction. This accelerated the rate at which the Bombes could test codes by a factor of 26
• the 'Banburismus' statistical method for guessing the rotor order, which effectively used mutual information as a scoring system seven years before Shannon (and inspired both I.J. Good and S. Kullback in their later work on information theory).

Bletchley was never a one man project; but Turing's achievments were far from insignificant.

It has been argued very persuasively that traditional top-down AI won't work (see e.g. Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach), and while bottom-up AI (be it artificial life, neural networks or evolutionary computation) has produced some interesting results (like the WEBSOM classification system), I'm still very skeptical about "Real Soon Now" predictions of AI.

Of course, I still hope someone proves me wrong (and that if they do that it's going to be "interesting times" but not in the Chinese curse sense).

Check out the story on the other side of the pond.

English yes, ( from my home town ) , a genius very probably and worked in all sorts of areas from number theory through to crypto ( actually developed a secure audio scrambler ), morphogenic theory, natural geometry, AI , computer design, wrote a candidate for the first programming language, astronomy etc. An archetypal eccentric English dilettante academic.

Much of what he did in his career is still shrouded by goverment classifications, probably the main reason for his relative obscurity. In his day ( b4 the war ) he was a very respected up and coming mathematician / philosopher.

The main reason for there being doubts over his cause of death are due to the fact that although he did die of cyanide poisoning whilst eating an apple, he was notoriously absent minded , and sloppy of habit and it is possible he may have merely forgotton to wash his hands. He was working with cyanide at the time , due to a lifelong love of amateur chemistry, probably his first scientific interest. I believe the coroner posted an open verdict. Hence rumours.

I would give money for a statue, but something I would like even more (and give more money to) would be to campaign for the British government to posthumously rehabilitate him. The way they treated him was shameful. I encourage people to visit the Alan Turing Web Page.