3.580 supercomputing, etc., cont. (89)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Fri, 13 Oct 89 20:01:16 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 580. Friday, 13 Oct 1989.
(1) Date: 12 October 1989 19:07:58 CST (27 lines)
From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981" <U35395@UICVM>
Subject: since when are TRUE and FALSE numbers?
(2) Date: 12 October 1989 (28 lines)
From: Willard McCarty <MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: progress/time = 1/difficulty
(3) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 89 12:52:00 EDT (9 lines)
From: "Vicky A. Walsh" <IMD7VAW@OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3.576 supercomputing the humanities, cont. (174)
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 October 1989 19:07:58 CST
From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981" <U35395@UICVM>
Subject: since when are TRUE and FALSE numbers?
Shame on both Michael S. Hart and Bob Amsler, for succumbing to (and
much worse, propagating!) the myth that inside of computers are a lot of
tiny 0s and 1s. What is inside of computers and computer disk drives
and computer tapes is a bunch of electro-magnetic phenomena. Circuit
on, circuit off. Magnetic charge stable, magnetic flux. Magnetic pole
reverse, magnetic pole not-reversed. These, my friends, ain't numbers.
If they are anything at all, they are logical values. (The circuit's
on? TRUE! No, FALSE! ...)
It is as great a leap from electromagnetism to '0' and '1' as it is from
electromagnetism to 'A' 'B' and 'C'. If you don't think so, ask
yourself: is it a '1' on a magnetic tape when the magnetic pole is
reversed, or when it remains the same? Or, in the case of another
common tape format, is North a 1 and South a 0 or vice versa?
Yes, numeric work is more adequately catered to on our machines than is
textual work. That is not because computers are inherently numeric or
even because computer scientists are better at math. It's because
people with math problems have worked very hard to make computers solve
them, and they have developed tools for themselves. Humanists can do
the same.
Michael Sperberg-McQueen
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 October 1989
From: Willard McCarty <MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: progress/time = 1/difficulty
My math may be more than suspect, but its intent is to challenge
something suggested by Michael Sperberg-McQueen in the previous note:
that because the number-crunching lot have worked so hard to make
computers useful, they have achieved impressive things with them,
whereas we have not worked so hard, and so..... I think it is more
accurate to say that our problems are considerably more difficult, and
only very recently has the technology become sufficiently advanced to
have a broad appeal among humanists.
My intent in the note about supercomputing anxiety, which was crudely
clothed in inflammatory rhetoric, was simply to point out that
supercomputers can easily be taken politically as objects of power. Such
objects have a severe effect on human judgement -- not unlike eros --
with the effect that they can be thrust on an unwilling community that
then has to figure out what to do with them. The question I ask will be
familiar to all who have advised others what computer to buy: don't
start with the hardware (I want a SUN SparcSystem!!!!), start by
thinking about the application.
On the other hand, new tools sometimes redefine the questions.
Willard McCarty
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------15----
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 89 12:52:00 EDT
From: "Vicky A. Walsh" <IMD7VAW@OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 3.576 supercomputing the humanities, cont. (174)
In case anyone is interested, I am in touch with Cray applications and
marketing people, so we'll see what they have to say about humanities
applications, current and future!
Vicky Walsh, UCLA