kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote or quoted:
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote or quoted:
I explained to the CIO of a large government agency that a particular
system wasn't a computer at all because it wasn't a finite automaton,
What is a computer?
It's a finite automaton.
Is this your own definition, or did you quote it from someone else?
I like to quote from Andrew Tennanbaum's book on the subject.
Are there any other definitions?
I suppose there are, since there are people whose job title is "computer"
and we do have devices like the B-29 fire control computer which compute
but are not actually finite automata.
Our computer security people wanted us to put encryption software on E-6B
slide rules because they were on the inventory as "portable computers."
How do you know which definition to choose as the correct one?
I think in the 21st century, everyone assumes a computer to be a finite
automaton or something mathematically equivalent. That is, turing-machine-
equivalent except for having a finite length tape.
Thanks for answering my questions!
I couldn't find a definition from Tanenbaum on the question that
includes the word "automaton", but here's a quotation from Tanenbaum:
|A digital computer is a machine that can do work for people
|by carrying out instructions given to it.
"Structured Computer Organization", Tanenbaum and Austin 2012.
In science, a writer is free to define terms as seen fit
usually given the meaning in his work. Here's an example,
|For the purposes of this paper, we can define a computer as
|any machine equivalent to a Turing machine.
"A Critique of Pure Computation: Against Strong AI and
Computationalism", Causey (2022?).
Some people having read such sentences forget about "For the
purposes of this paper, we can define" and only remember,
"a computer [i]s any machine equivalent to a Turing machine"!
I asked a chatbot,
|Is there a name for the fallacy that a word must have the
|meaning in general English that it has in some scientific
|terminology?
me (Stefan Ram) asking a chatbot (2024),
he answered:
|Based on the search results, there does not appear to be a
|specific named fallacy for the assumption that a word must
|have the same meaning in general English as it does in some
|scientific terminology. However, this type of fallacy could
|be considered a form of the referential fallacy.
|
|The referential fallacy is described as "assuming that all
|words refer to existing things and that the meaning of words
|resides within the words themselves, as opposed to words
|possibly referring to no real object or that the meaning
|comes from how they are used."
|
|In the case of a word having a different meaning in
|scientific vs. general usage, the fallacy would be assuming
|that the scientific meaning is the only valid or "real"
|meaning of the word, rather than recognizing that the meaning
|can vary depending on the context. This is a flawed
|assumption about the nature of language and meaning.
|
what the chatbot answered (2024).
. FWIW, here I have gathered some definitions:
|computer
|
|A functional unit that can perform substantial computations,
|including numerous arithmetic operations and logic operations
|without human intervention.
|
ISO/IEC 2382-1:1993: Information technology -- Vocabulary --
Part 1: Fundamental terms
|computer n. 1. A device that computes, especially a
|programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed
|mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores,
|correlates, or otherwise processes information. 2. One who
|computes. — n. attributive. Often used to modify another
|noun: computer programming; computer software.
an English dictionary
|A computer is a machine that can be programmed to
|automatically carry out sequences of arithmetic or logical
|operations (computation).
a Web encyclopedia
|Computer: A data processor
"The Art of Computer Programming", Donald Knuth 1969