Slashdot Mirror


The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future (gizmodo.com)

Gizmodo reports: Discovered in an ancient shipwreck near Crete in 1901, the freakishly advanced Antikythera Mechanism has been called the world's first computer. A decades-long investigation into the 2,000 year-old-device is shedding new light onto this mysterious device... It wasn't programmable in the modern sense, but it's considered the world's first analog computer.
schwit1 shares a report from the Associated Press:: For over a century since its discovery in an ancient shipwreck, the exact function of the Antikythera Mechanism -- named after the southern Greek island off which it was found -- was a tantalizing puzzle.... After more than a decade's efforts using cutting-edge scanning equipment, an international team of scientists has now read about 3,500 characters of explanatory text -- a quarter of the original -- in the innards of the 2,100-year-old remains. They say it was a kind of philosopher's guide to the galaxy, and perhaps the world's oldest mechanical computer.

26 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. doesn't tell the future by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's kind of pointless to write an article about an ancient Greek text that was found if you don't report what the text actually said.
    Bonus points if you present a translation of the text, which neither article linked to actually does. (Most likely because the researchers aren't sure what the text actually says).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:doesn't tell the future by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Especially when it's been known for decades that the item described is an orrery.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:doesn't tell the future by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      I guess it does predict the future in a sense that I can predict the sun will rise tomorrow.

    3. Re:doesn't tell the future by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Too bad it didn't predict the shipwreck.

    4. Re: doesn't tell the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      LOL, forgot to tick the post anonymous did you, micro dick?
      Every time I see this sort of trolling I think, poor fellow, showing his inadequacy in public.

    5. Re:doesn't tell the future by jblues · · Score: 5, Funny

      The text said: "Primum Scribe!" (first post), followed by "Moo dixit boves mooo" (moo say the cows moo). After that "Nescis quid dicis de te twat stupri" (you don't know what you're talking about you fucking twat) and (mostly unintelligible) words of a similar nature.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
  2. Obligatory by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future

    ...the 2,000 year-old-device ... wasn't programmable in the modern sense, but it's considered the world's first analog computer.

    ...it was a kind of philosopher's guide to the galaxy, and perhaps the world's oldest mechanical computer.

    So... 42?

  3. Nostrodumbass by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    an international team of scientists has now read about 3,500 characters of explanatory text

    The fragment says, "...in 2100 years, an Oompa Loompa with strangely tiny fingers will attempt to rise to power. Beware, since he has the mark of the Beast on his forehead, which you can't see because he's got this weird thing going on with his hair. His wife will be a nice piece of Slovenian ass though, so big ups for that."

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Of course it predicted the future. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It predicted the future like a calendar or an almanac predicted the future. Jun 15 of the next year is going to be Sunday" or "the next full moon day is going to be on Jul 22". If you consider this predicting the future, oh yeah, it did. It is the whole point of the machine.

    This is a machine that simulated the movement of the planets and the moon using gears. The whole idea of this machine is to predict the phases of the moon and the location of the planets in the coming days.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a machine that simulated the movement of the planets and the moon using gears.

      Which is an orrery, not a computer. The only reason to label it the latter is for sensationalism.

      Although the fact that they could build something precise enough to achieve this over 2000 years ago is still pretty damn impressive.

    2. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is a purpse built analog mechanical computer.

      What it is not, is a universal computer, nor is it a reprogrammable computer.

      Any universal computer can simulate any other computer, even other universal computers. A purpose built single purpose computer is only capable of performing the calculations it was designed for.

      Compare: a modern universal computer against a mechanical cash register.

      The cash register does computations; generally, it keeps a running tally of a customer's transaction, as well as a running tally of total exchanges made during the day. It cant really do other kinds of tasks. It was not made to do so.

      Likewise, the antikythera mechanism is designed to perform computatuons: logically, when the sinusoid patterns of celestial objects will result in tangencies if overlaid. It really cant do other kinds of tasks. It was not made to do so.

      A universal computer can do both tasks, and any other task a computer is capable of being built for, because it was made to do so.

      The universal computer is fairly modern. purpose built computers are a very ancient thing. Do not try to conflate the two, or claim that one isnt a computer just because it is not a universal turing machine.

    3. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 2

      It merely simulates the motion of certain celestial objects, and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.

      A simulation is a computation.

    4. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by mark-t · · Score: 2
      I never disputed that a computation can create a simulation. I suggested only that a simulation does not necessarily involve computation.

      An orrery *simulates* the motion of the celestial bodies it deals with, but it does not compute their positions any more than a compass "computes" which way is north.

    5. Re:Of course it predicted the future. by khallow · · Score: 2

      Of course it is nonsense... because an orrery doesn't compute anything in the first place.

      Which is obvious false since this orrery computes the position of planets. We know the computation it does.

      A geometric compass can be used to draw a circle with much less effort than what might otherwise be required, but that does not make the compass any kind of tool that computes how to draw a circle.

      An orrery is not a geometric compass. A key difference is that the planets have positions not just a circular arc.

      An orrery can be used to tell the position of the celestial bodies that it models, but it definitely does not compute them in any sense of word.

      Which is blatantly false. "Telling the position" is the obvious computation that you refuse to call a computation.

      . Continually asserting that it is a computer will not make it one.

      Back at you. Continually labeling a computation as a "telling" doesn't make it not a computation.

      What's really annoying about your clueless drivel is that this machine as its functioning is described here is clearly a standard analogue computer. Semantics games like calling it an "orrery" or its computations a "telling" and then insisting as a result of the changed labels, then it no longer counts as a computer are just stupid. One can play the same dull semantics games with a general purpose computer to the same pointless outcome.

  5. Re:It helps calculate positions and dates? by meerling · · Score: 2

    They were also the precursors to scientists because there are a number of them that didn't 'make stuff up', but rather observed and tried to understand why, and from that develop predictions to test. How do you think a philosopher back then identified that the Earth was spherical, much less calculate it's size to a far greater accuracy level than would be expected by someone who's distance data was based on someone pacing out the distances between cities? (If you say "aliens", there's an Coast to Coast collected episodes box coming your way filled with fish heads.) (Yes, that was a joke, I don't think the post office would let you send that.)
    There are plenty of other examples of 'philosophers' doing lots of scientific discovery in all kinds of fields back then. You are mistaking modern philosophers who spend a lot of time lost in their own daydreams with the ancient greek philosophers that did the heavy and indepth thinking trying to figure things out way back then.
    It's kind of like calling a guy who wears a cowboy hat and boots to the country music club a cowboy, and then trying to equate him to the 1800s cowboy that actually herded cattle for a living.

  6. Shit summary by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future

    Y'know, it would be nice the summary even remotely hinted at how this thing "predicted in the future."

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  7. Thankfully, it was lost by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Without such a mechanism, astrological calculations were done by intelligent, educated people, white-collar workers so to speak. If machines like this took over this kind of work, such artificial intelligence would have probably destroyed the economy. Or maybe that theory has been proven wrong over the last several thousand years of machines becoming more sophisticated all the time.

  8. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What hypocrisy? Has PopeRatzo previously taken a stance vehemently against personal attacks and sexual objectification (for comedic and satirical purposes)?

    Or, actually, did it occur to you that PopeRatzo might, in fact, be parodying Trump himself?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Greek, not Latin. by k2r · · Score: 2

    nt

    1. Re:Greek, not Latin. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Followed by "pendejos todavia no arregalaron utf-8??" (those friendly fellows still didn't fix utf-8??)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  10. Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    So you slag Trump by degrading comments about his appearance and sexually objectifying his wife?

    Are you really accusing me of "sexually objectifying" the woman who posed for this picture?

    http://gq-images.condecdn.net/...

    Because I'm pretty sure that once you've posed for a "men's magazine" handcuffed to a bedpost in nothing but heels and jewelry, you're way past the point of having someone else "sexually objectify" you. Yeah, showing off your pootenanny in a stroke book is pretty much the ne plus ultra of being a sexual object. And that's one of the least NSFW photos from that "spread".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  11. Clearly not the first. by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nothing so advanced could have been the "first" thing of its kind. Think about it. If I told you to make a bronze wheel 140mm in diameter with 233 perfectly spaced teeth, would you know how to do it? With tools that were available in 200 BC Greece?

    No there is must have been an at least decades-old tradition of instrument-making leading up to the design and execution of the Antikythera Mechanism, stuff like armillary spheres and quadrants and such. At some point they must have made simpler instruments that maybe could use wheels coupled by friction, and from there the very notion of toothed gears (which we take for granted) could be invented.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Clearly not the first. by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was. Research the "temple wonders" that were used in ancient Greek (and later, Roman) temples.

      You will be surprised at the degree of engineering skill involved in their creation. Unlike in our modern world, ancient greek mathematics required detailed physical proofs of the predictions of the math, before it was considered true. You can see this in the reconstructed text of the archimedes palimpsest.

      It is very possible that this object was such a proof, made to present findings to nearby scholars.

    2. Re:Clearly not the first. by hey! · · Score: 2

      Of course they can. That's how 17th century European clockmakers did it. But the very first mechanical clocks didn't have fine brass gears. It took hundreds of years of clock making to get to that point.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Clearly not the first. by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This actually makes my point. This is the obvious kind of approach that would occur to any intelligent layman. And it would work for making short two or three wheel gear trains from very large gears where relative precision is easy to attain.

      But the Mechanism is both compact and incredibly elaborate -- far, far more elaborate than a clockwork. I dabble in watch repair so I would know; a basic clock train has five gears in the going train (which transfers power from the spring) and two in the motion work (which drive the hands) for a total of 7, and everything has to be perfect or the watch doesn't run. While the Mechanism is much larger than a watch -- about the size of a mantle clock -- its gear train had at least 30 individual gears. Backlash and other imperfections from crude manufacture, when multiplied over so many gears, would certainly translate into a frozen gear train. Even individual imperfections that were invisible to the naked eye would ruin the operation.

      So they must have had a much more sophisticated gear-machining method than chiseling out bronze blanks by hand. They might have filed teeth for gears of the required precision using some kind of index wheel arrangement; that would have occurred to the Greeks of all people. But the path to success with such methods is paved with many, many failures.

      Anyone capable of constructing something like this would have to have achieved a very high practical level of mastery at gear making before they even attempted something so difficult. Even if they took up gear making with this device in mind, they'd have made many, many proof-of-concept models with much less elaborate gear trains, because the failures they encountered at smaller scales would have guided them to ultimate success that much faster. So it's pretty clear this could not possibly have been the first such device.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  12. Re:Ancient Civilization had higher tech than assum by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    When this show was on PBS a retired mechanical engineer created one of the cogs for the machine in about 5 minutes with hand tools. He also had a model of the machine already built.

    The astronomical knowledge and mathematics that went into the machine are FAR more impressive than the mechanism itself.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.