The World's Oldest Computer May Have Predicted the Future (gizmodo.com) 143
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.
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.
With a 0.0000001% accuracy! (Score:1)
Remember the successes! Forget all the failures!
Thankfully, it was lost (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't do write, do math (Score:2)
> destroys too many people's jobs in the name of corporate profits (i.e., the rich getting richer) and/or causes people to be dumber and less skilled in their own survival, then it's not a Good Thing at all.
It was feared that if machines did the math, we'd all become "dumber", unable to do math because the machines would do it. Before that, scribes lost their jobs to the printing press. We'll see indeed, just as we have been seeing for the last thousand years or so.
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting to the point where expert knowledge ends up being just a collection of links and links to links. It kind of reminds me of how Asimov's Empire ends really.
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't tell the future (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
Especially when it's been known for decades that the item described is an orrery.
Re: (Score:2)
Guys! Guys! This firing solution predicts the future for my trebuchet projectiles.
Re: (Score:3)
Abacus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An abacus would have been the first digital computer. If it used really small beads like the text you could make the claim it was the first microcomputer.
I have heard there was a BASIC system for such devices, you could identify its users by the way they would put a slash through their zeroes.
Re:doesn't tell the future (Score:5, Funny)
Re: doesn't tell the future (Score:1)
It predicted the wave though, the wave was meant to prove the prediction worked, ship wreck was lack of foresight.
Bazinga! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:doesn't tell the future (Score:5, Funny)
Greek, not Latin. (Score:3)
nt
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"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. "
It was the world's first README.TXT .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or a EULA.
Isosceles Bermudopolous (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) accepts no liability for any fault in design or manufacture...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Under Hillary's supervision the US propagated rumors that niggers were Ghadaffi's mercenaries, which led to violent anti-black lynchings carried openly in the streets. How worse can you get than that?
Also, it is US policy to promote Sunni war against Shia by pretending the Syrian regime (what we used to call a country or a state) is a Shia minority persecuting the Sunni majority, as if we hadn't enough of that crap back in 16th century Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think that, if Hillary had caused deaths at Benghazi, thirteen hostile Congressional investigations would have found some wrongdoing. Face it, she did what she could with the resources Congress afforded her. Congress needs to accept the fact that, if they don't provide adequate money for embassy and consulate security, bad things might happen.
As Yogi Berra Said... (Score:2)
It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
So... 42?
Re: (Score:2)
Philosopher.
Not hitchhiker
Nostrodumbass (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:1)
His wife will be a nice piece of Slovenian ass though, so big ups for that."
Odd Bill Clinton doesn't look Slovenian at all.....
Re: (Score:1)
Nostrodumbass would be a lot more credible if he had provided that level of detail, in reality (spooky voice) in the future some shit's going to happen
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and it's going to be bad, and it will involve a guy with the letter "L" in his name. Or "M".
You're right, Osgeld. Nostrodamus was basically doing a cold read on the future.
Re:So you slag Trump by objectifying his wife? (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you really accusing me of "sexually objectifying" the woman who posed for this picture?
http://gq-images.condecdn.net/... [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 b
Re: (Score:2)
There's a bit of difference between using pictures a person had taken voluntarily for sexual gratification and actually objectifying the person themselves.
Or, in another way of putting it, just because someone posed for explicit pictures does not mean that's the sum total of their value as a person, which is what "sexual objectification" is usually taken to mean - they aren't a person, but an object that has no value other than to be used for sexual gratification.
Given what I've read from you in the past, I
Re: (Score:2)
She is absolutely a human being. A HBILF, in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not actually used to sexual objectification, and I really am not well suited to the role of sex object, but I am used to software developer objectification. There are people who have cared little about me as a person, but only about me as a software guy. I'm fine with that as long as I get paid well enough in whatever it is that I want.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at that photo spread, I'm pretty sure she's already exposed just about everything.
Re: (Score:1)
those are some of the nicest things I have heard about trump this week, obiously he is a supporter of trump and you sir or madam are just a fucking retard
Re: (Score:2)
Trump 2016
Of course it predicted the future. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Although not magic or anything and it does what it was designed to do, it is still pretty darn cool, especially considering how long ago it was built.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, I think all to often we don't like to give credit to ancient civilisations where credit is due. Mythbusters often epitomizes this with the 'if we can't do it then there's no way that they could of' kind of attitude, forgetting that old civilisations often had techniques/methods that have long since been forgotten and those civilisations had decades to perfect their devices and knowledge.
I find it awe-inspiring that they made this device so early, it's a heck of a lot more sophisticated than a f
Re:Of course it predicted the future. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Of course it predicted the future. (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not. Computation can be used to create a simulation, but a simulation is not inherently a computation. For example, you can simulate gravity in space by using a rotating space station, but the rotation is not in any way a simulation.
As I said, calling this device a computer is sensationalism. It has been known for decades that this device was simply an orrery.
Re: (Score:2)
Dang... meant to hit preview and accidentally hit submit.
I mean that the rotation is not a *computation*.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it is not. Computation can be used to create a simulation, but a simulation is not inherently a computation. For example, you can simulate gravity in space by using a rotating space station, but the rotation is not in any way a simulation.
This is obvious wrong since a simulation computes the state of the system it is simulating as it simulates it.
As to your example, it's not even remotely relevant. There's no reason that I should care that you are comparing apples and oranges. Who cares that a trait is not a simulation?
Re: (Score:2)
As I attempted to clarify in a followup, I had made a typo, and accidentally hit "submit" instead of "preview". The rotation of a space station is not a computation.
There are plenty of other simulatiions that are not computations... military training exercises, simulation of medical emergencies when training health personel, and many many others.
My point is that a simulation does not inherently indicate computation is occurring. An orrery simulates certain celestial body movements, but does not compu
Re: (Score:1)
The rotation of a space station is not a computation.
Still is irrelevant. The trait isn't the computation. The rotating space station is the simulation not the rotation, and thus, it is the computation.
There are plenty of other simulatiions that are not computations... military training exercises, simulation of medical emergencies when training health personel, and many many others.
Feel free to tell us about these. And I'll explain how you're wrong.
But let me outline how I'll do that. One could do a very involved computation of a fire fighting department's dynamics and traits in order to determine how responsive they would be to a new sort of fire danger. Or they could run a drill simulating a scenario of the new fire danger. Because t
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggested only that a simulation does not necessarily involve computation.
I never suggested that either. I merely pointed out that a simulation is a 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.
Which is nonsense since it does compute the position of the celestial bodies in a way that a compass doesn't emulate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
a standard analog computer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am asserting that an ordinary orrery does not actually do anything that can be called "computation"
We've heard this before. But every time we still run against the problem that they compute the state of part of the Solar System which is a key thing any remotely accurate simulation does and hence are computers.
And as I've noted before, simulation is a subset of computation to the point where the idea has even been used to establish an existence proof for quantum computation.
Finally, your argument is wholly semantic equivocation in nature and thus, doesn't actually depend on whether something is a co
Re: (Score:2)
And it is only the point that we are actuallyt disagreeing, you say that it is a computer because you allege that it computes them. Certainly if it did compute them, that would be true... but it does *NOT* compute them. A thermometer can tell you the temperature, but not because it computes the temperature. An old-fashioned mechanical clock can tell you the time, but not because it computes them.
The
Re: (Score:2)
a computer that represents data by measurable quantities, as voltages or, formerly, the rotation of gears, in order to solve a problem, rather than by expressing the data as numbers.
A simulation of the Solar System for the purposes of simulating some aspect of the Solar System where the physical positions of planets at some time are represented by the machine in any way is thus an analog computer.
More generally any simulation of the state of a system used for that purpose which generates measurable values for estimate of some aspect of the state of the system is an analog computer.
Finally, this device was accurate enough for its time... and for the purposes that it was used for, but in relation to what we understand about the solar system today, it was not as accurate as you seem to think it was. Among other things, it assumed that the earth was at the center of everything, which we now know to be false. Copernicus was the first person to posulate the notion that the earth revolved around the sun, and it wasn't until Gallileo that this notion started to become widely accepted as fact.
This is irrelevant to the discussi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A mechanical orrery is exactly the same. It doesn't "compute" the position of the planets, it simply shows where they are in relation to eachother, in very much the same way as the hands on a clock convey what time of day it is.
This same lame argument can be applied to any other computation or computer. Computers don't actually compute, they just show symbols, combinations of voltages, etc which convey information to us. We'll just completely ignore that these displays of information are the result of computations.
Once again, here's the definition of an analog computer:
a computer that represents data by measurable quantities, as voltages or, formerly, the rotation of gears, in order to solve a problem, rather than by expressing the data as numbers.
First, it's worth noting that an analog clock is a classic analog computer by definition which converts some timing signal (say from a pendulum or rocking gear)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the system could trivially simulate itself in real time, it demonstrated that there were computations (here, the simulation which you keep insisting is not a computation) which could be done by quantum phenomena far faster than the classical Turing machine.
Re: (Score:2)
and any actual computations to be performed from that is left up to the operator of the orrery.
Another obvious rebuttal here comes when you consider the question of how much much "actual" computation is left after you use the orrery. For example, if the device does a "simulation" that just happens to reduce the additonal computation effort that an operator needs from O(N) to O(1), then it's a computer no matter what you think.
Re: (Score:1)
An Orrery requires a computer to be able to work.
And most arguments are mearly about the definitions of words. Arguing with someone who speaks a different dialect, about the definitions of words, will never get you anywhere! 8-P
Re: (Score:2)
> It is a purpse built analog mechanical computer.
No. It's a clock. It's a hand wound clockwork mechanism with about 200 gears. Calling it a computer is just sensationalist tripe. It's also highly misleading because most people reading or watching aren't going to think "clock" or "adding" machine when they hear the term computer.
They're going to think of a Turing machine.
Re: (Score:1)
No. It's a clock.
Most general purpose computers are clocks too. So that argument doesn't fly either.
It's also highly misleading because most people reading or watching aren't going to think "clock" or "adding" machine when they hear the term computer.
They're going to think of a Turing machine.
Oh dear. A technical term is highly misleading to the clueless. I'm not seeing the reason to care.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument, as best I can determine, boils down to this canard:
It is made of gears, and as such it cannot perform computations.
This is patently false. Not only are there mechanical, gear ratio driven adding machines (as used in old fashioned cash registers from the early 1900s), there is also the INFAMOUS Babbage analytical engine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not only was it intended to be made of gears, it was intended to be a universal computer on top of it all.
Babbage's engine is a universal turin
Re: (Score:2)
It predicted the future like a calendar or an almanac predicted the future.
Too bad it wasn't a sports almanac then...
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it's a nice way of saying "The worlds oldest computer was shit"?
As in the future is shit ;D
Re: (Score:2)
42 (Score:1)
Shit summary (Score:4, 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."
Re: (Score:2)
Once a week it would give out the correct lottery numbers and the device owner would collect his winnings.
Clearly not the first. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Clearly not the first. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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?
Actually, the gears in question can be replicated with simple hand tools. It requires precision craftsmanship but that wasn't exactly in short supply in those days.
The Greeks were wicked good at Math. It was basically their thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The Greeks were wicked good at Math. It was basically their thing.
Geometry and Trigonometry, yes. Algebra and Calculus, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Marking out teeth on a circle to make a gear is trivial using just a compass and pencil. To make it easier you can mark it out on a big circle then draw those markings back to the centre so you can have 233 perfectly spaced teeth on any diameter gear.
The teeth would then be cut out of metal sheets with a chisel like they carved stones.
Re:Clearly not the first. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Each machine has its own challenges. The watch has to work consistently for years running off of a tiny amount of energy. That's why watchmakers developed the jewel bearing -- to make a bearing that is tight-fitting, long-wearing, and yet low-friction..
The Mechanism has an enormous number of gears and thus friction to overcome -- especially as the bearings are crude and many gear faces rub against adjacent faces or supporting spacers. These facts may be related: if the bearings were made tight enough to su
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. How do you divide a circle into 233 equal parts using only a compass and pencil?
Duh, by copying the Antikythera Mechanism. Why re-invent the wheel?
Re: (Score:2)
By bisecting lines you can divide a circle up into as many parts as you like. Watch this video to draw a pentagon inside a circle http://www.mathopenref.com/con... [mathopenref.com]
Xa xa (Score:1)
A 2100 year old "computer" (Score:1)
I'm sure a patent troll is filing papers in the eastern district of Texas as I type this.
Aliens... (Score:2)
Clearly it was brought and left by aliens... I'm pretty sure The History Channel told me so, and you know, it's The History Channel, they're like TOTALLY about being accurate n' stuff...
BBC Documentary about it (Score:2)
Well worth watching :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q124C7W0WYA
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Some philosophers liked to figure things out. Some still do.
However, natural philosophy got a new name, "science", and gradually started to be seen as something different from philosophy per se. People who are interested in natural philosophy and other forms do still exist, but they're considered to be in both philosophy and science as opposed to just being philosophers.
In your analogy, it would be as if modern people who work with herds of cattle were called "cattle technicians" instead of "cowboys"
Re: (Score:2)
Go look it up on YouTube, btw. There is a wonderful Nova special about it there, and how multiple geniuses and two mobile versions of fantastically advanced scanners were created and shipped to it, rather than the other way around, due to its fragility.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's the one where a there's a guy who makes a cog with X[1] teeth by going "... yeah, well, Y is easy, so you just sort of space them apart a bit" and goes on to make one using a chisel it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.
[1] Where X is a prime number and Y is a nearby very unprime number.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an astronomical clock. It charted the movements of the moon and planets and predicted eclipses.
Calling it a "computer" is a bit of a stretch.
Re: not a clock (Score:1)
It was not a clock, because it had no timekeeping mechanism, no balance wheel or spring or pendulum.
You would set the date and time desired, and it would show the positions of objects in the sky. Lots of objects!
It is a specialized computer with "program in masked rom", not generalized. You could call it a calculator, but it is considerebly more complex than that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if at least one of your links wasn't to youtube.
Re: (Score:3)
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.