Download Computing Patristics: A Study of the Fathers of Computing

Computing Patristics: A Study of the Fathers of
Computing
CBP 19-01-06
The term “patristics” refers, technically, to the earliest founders of the Christian
Church. Those guys who lived as hermits in Egypt, or within the Roman
civilization in the early centuries a.d., who developed the life and teaching of
Christ into a system of enduring belief and activities, endorsed by our current
monarch!
I displace this term from theology to Computing in order to focus upon those
individuals who have defined and reflected upon the fundamental concepts of
computing which we now assume within our contemporary world of pervasive
computing. Let’s call these guys the “founding fathers” of computing. And
there are girls too!
Here’s some concise notes on these “founding fathers”:







Alan Turing (20th C) demonstrated how Leibnitz’s goal of a “logical
argument” could be realised by a machine consisting of a “processor” and a
memory “tape”. While this did not need any particular physical (i.e. electronic
or mechanical) form, it forms the basis of our electronic, digital PCs.
John Von Neumann (??-??)
Alonzo Church
Leibnitz (17th C)
o This guy suggested he could make a machine to prove logical
arguments and mathematical proofs. Those problems and proofs solved
by humans at that time, were growing in complexity and scope. So
let’s find a routine way of doing this work.
George Boole (19th C)
o Produced a system of symbolic logic using two states, “0” and “1”
which could capture the reasoning process desired by Leibnitz.
Claude Shannon (20th C)
o Showed how the symbolic logic of Boole, which could support
Leibnitz’s machine could be realized using digital electronic circuits,
which we now call “gates” and which form the building blocks of all
digital computers and processors.
Bohme and Jacopini (20th C)
o demonstrated that any logical problem could be distilled into a few,
simple programming constructs (such as “if .. then .. else”) which
could be then cast into Boolean “0”s and “1”s, implemented in
Shannon’s digital circuits.
How shall we approach a study of computing patristics? Let’s take the lead from
Brian Cantwell Smith (Indiana University), who in his paper “The Foundations of
Computing” describes his lifetime project to find out what computation really means.
He asserts that such a project must satisfy three criteria, and I propose we
acknowledge his expertise, and adopt these criteria:
1. “Empirical” (sic). Our study must reflect the contemporary practice. That
means we should be able to explain e.g. Microsoft Office, its use,
maintenance and construction as a computer program running on a PC
sitting on our desk, next to a “Subway” meal and print-outs of our draft
assignments!
2. “Conceptual” (sic). We must reflect upon the various theories of
computing proposed from the “age of the patriarchs” to the words of the
today’s leading academics within our field of Computer Science1
3. “Cognitive” (sic). There has been a long and fruitful association between
attempts to understand Computing and to understand the human Mind.
Personally, I find this something of a Holy Grail, but you will have the
opportunity to shoot me down. Nevertheless, Cantwell Smith suggests that
this project must
“Provide a tenable foundation for the computational theory of mind …
that underlies artificial intelligence”
I use the term “Computing”, whereas the rest of the world talks about “Computer Science”. Why?
Well, we can discuss this in a session. But you will get a larger number of Google-Hits if you type
“Computer Science” when I write “Computing”.
1