New Research Explodes Myths About Ada Lovelace (ox.ac.uk)

Two mathematics historians investigated the Lovelace-Byron family archives (which are available online) to confirm the early mathematical prowess of Ada Lovelace for two scholarly journals. Slashdot reader bugs2squash shares a post from the Oxford Mathematical Institute: The work challenges widespread claims that Lovelace's mathematical abilities were more "poetical" than practical, or indeed that her knowledge was so limited that Babbage himself was likely to have been the author of the paper that bears her name. The authors pinpoint Lovelace's keen eye for detail, fascination with big questions, and flair for deep insights, which enabled her to challenge some deep assumptions in her teacher's work. They suggest that her ambition, in time, to do significant mathematical research was entirely credible, though sadly curtailed by her ill-health and early death.
Ada Lovelace died in London at age 36.

Comments

Sounds like somone I know

[phantomfive]

The work challenges widespread claims that Lovelace's mathematical abilities were more "poetical" than practical, or indeed that her knowledge was so limited that Babbage himself was likely to have been the author of the paper that bears her name. The authors pinpoint Lovelace's keen eye for detail, fascination with big questions, and flair for deep insights,

If you keep looking at the big picture, and have a flair for deep insights, soon you'll discover eye gone values and be as impressive as Malcolm Gladwell.

Wolfram did an analysis of her situation, and suggests that her capability was like that of a competent graduate student, ready to do some good work (and be a reliable manager for Babbage, who lacked self-management skills) if life (and death) hadn't intervened. The paper talks about "exploding myths" but it doesn't really, Lovlace is already extremely well revered by many, and the people who claim she is overrated are in the minority.

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[EEPROMS]

Agreed, I think people get too involved in the gender politics and they completely miss the beauty of a relationship where the sum of two minds joined together become greater than it's parts. This constant barrage of gender politics of women do this better and men do that better rubbish must stop. The reality is when a man and a woman work together we become so much more than just what our gender. All this wall building between the sexes that Universities are pushing is just horrendous and naive to say the least. People are going to never have the chance to experience the beauty of surrendering part of yourself to another and experiencing 4 arms one mind two bodies.

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[chipschap]

Well and beautifully said.

And may I add: Equality of the sexes is a given, it shouldn't even be a question. Equal and fair treatment, likewise. But the preaching of hatred and divisiveness that goes on in some gender studies curricula serves neither women nor men.

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[JustNiz]

>> This constant barrage of gender politics of women do this better and men do that better rubbish must stop.

Regardless of the fact that its true and backed up by every experiment and other evidence?

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[JustNiz]

While I completely agree with full equality and equal rights for both sexes, its naieve and factually incorrect to suggest that both sexes have identical abilities.

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[chipschap]

I get your point. "Equality" is not "interchangeability." But everyone should get a fair shot.

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[JustNiz]

Where did I say that men do everything better than women?
Some examples of psychological differences are that (on average of course), women have significantly better/more complex communication skills than men, while men have significantly better 3D spatial awareness than women.

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[someone1234]

What do you mean, those low IQ CEO's are rightfully there?

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[AmiMoJo]

I guess they are referring to the persistent narrative that she was some kind of fraud and generally bad person. For various reasons a relatively small but vocal group of people feel threatened and upset by the idea of a woman being instrumental in the early development of computers.

I could write at length about the different reasons for this, but what it boils down to is that they are debunking it. In an age where NASA has to debunk "child sex slaves on Mars" this stuff does, unfortunately, need to be said.

Re:Sounds like somone I know

[swillden]

Your logic is wack. Consider the average not exceptions.

But the standard deviations are quite large, so large as to make averages essentially meaningless when you're considering individuals. Sure, the average man is stronger than the average woman, but if you pick a random man and a random woman, the probability that the woman is the stronger of the two is far from negligible, just to take one example. And that is the example that is perhaps most favorable to your argument. If you look at non-physical traits your argument is even less valid.

Re:Lovelace: whore and woman of ill repute

[ledow]

Because none of that has fuck-all to do with her skills in the mathematics?

Even in a bet - she would have known the odds of losing.

"Woman can't be famous scholar, because she likes a bit on the side"? Really?

Go look at Hawking's personal life, nobody questions that.

Re:Too White for Math

[colinwb]

Everyone knows only Asian Women have any Math Skills.

For starters, and not totally at random:
Sofia Kovalevskaya
Emmy Noether
Mary Cartwright
Julia Robinson
Maryam Mirzakhani

Organized crime

[DrYak]

Or, like me at 40, organized crime.

Private sector or government ?

Re: Myths?

[Speck'sBacon]

The numbers answer the "what," not the "why."