6 ms·

I like history and particularly the history of computing, but given how little respect Wolfram had with regards to the history of mathematical ideas that preced

by j2kun 11y ago

I like history and particularly the history of computing, but given how little respect Wolfram had with regards to the history of mathematical ideas that preceded his own work (and then claiming credit for those ideas), how can I trust any historical analysis he authors?

dang 11y ago
Every Wolframy thread turns into the same discussion about Wolfram himself. Let's not let that happen here. It's enough that the article is Wolfram's attempt to decide for himself what the story is. Idiosyncrancies aside, he obviously has the mathematical and computational background to understand the material. The main obstacle is putting in the time to understand it, which he did. The article is replete with historical information, he explains why he concludes what he does, and the result is an order of magnitude more substantive (and technical) than any other Lovelace/Babbage article I recall seeing on HN. I think it can stand on its own. The content is fascinating and is what deserves discussion.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  I disagree strongly with this. Wolfram himself litters the entire essay with asides in which he compares and contrasts his own place within science history with both Babbage and Lovelace. If Wolfram wanted to write a neutral historical account, he could have, but instead he opened the door for the continued derision of NKS-style pomposity by specifically tailoring this historical account as if it too must serve to underscore his own career efforts, which he chooses to frame as longsuffering attempts to have his work be granted the correct degree of awe. Until he begins writing things in which he doesn't infuse that sort of ploy to underscore so-called credit he perceives he should be given, I think it's not only fair but highly useful to the community at large for criticisms of any work he produces to center on these aspects. The only counter-argument I could see would be if the historical content of the article were so story-breaking and important that we should all put up with the pomposity in order to consume the never-before-explained-as-well historical side, but w.r.t. the history of Ada Lovelace and Babbage, that's just not true, and there are many other historical accounts that don't try to coyly shoehorn in comparisons to Wolfram products, Wolfram computational achievements, or credit/recognition that Wolfram believes he deserves.
  - dang 11y ago
    Yes, I know about Wolfram's asides, tics, and shoehorning, as does everyone who reads a thing he wrote. But the Wolfram Derangement Syndrome it provokes in internet forum threads isn't interesting either. It's a mirror image of the thing it is annoyed by. We're not going to ban what Wolfram writes because (a) he's a good writer, (b) however one evaluates him, Mathematica is significant, and (c) his best pieces—which this is one of—are interesting. That's enough to belong here, and I think we can expect HN to have the discipline to focus on the substantive bits and resist the hypnotic pull of the trollish ones.
    - p4wnc6 11y ago
      Who is talking about banning what he writes?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - Create 11y ago
      Mathematica is significant Mathematica is a proprietary software influenced by the earlier computer algebra systems Macsyma (of which Wolfram was a user) and Schoonschip (whose code Wolfram studied). Maxima is a computer algebra system based on a 1982 version of Macsyma. It is written in Common Lisp and runs on all POSIX platforms such as OS X, Unix, BSD, and Linux as well as under Microsoft Windows and Android. It is free software released under the terms of the GNU General Public License. It would be the same to defend William Henry "Bill" Gates III, by stating that MS-DOS is significant, while MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS - owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Paterson. Development of 86-DOS took only six weeks, as it was basically a clone of Digital Research's CP/M (for 8080/Z80 processors), ported to run on 8086 processor.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >Mathematica is a proprietary software Nothing wrong with that. >influenced by the earlier computer algebra systems Macsyma (of which Wolfram was a user) and Schoonschip (whose code Wolfram studied). Not much wrong with that either. Even if it was just a clone of those systems when it came out, being the successful clone is enough to make it have merit. But of course since then it's 1000 times the code size of the initial systems, and 100 times the capabilities. >It would be the same to defend William Henry "Bill" Gates III, by stating that MS-DOS is significant, while MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS Again, MS-DOS is significant. Whether it was innovative (it wasn't) is another thing, but it sure has been historically significant. Sorry, but it's not always the first product that comes out that defines an era and a market. And copying happens all the time too, and can even evolve into something that the original never was.
- breatheoften 11y ago
  I found the historical storytelling to be the most fascinating part of the article as well -- however I think the article does also lend potentially interesting fodder for discussion of wolfram himself. One can clearly see why wolfram would be interested in the ideas of Lovelace and Babbage -- but I wonder what kind of introspection he experiences as he reflects on his perception of their Victorian personalities. People who talk explicitly about nobility and "bequeathing" ideas to future generations, while also being actual visionaries as regarded by these future generations. There's Babbage who believes himself to be under appreciated by his contemporaries -- a character flaw which frequently causes him to fail to act in ways which would've been more effective at recruiting support from others and might've resulted in a deeper execution of his vision. And Lovelace who seems very able to see herself as an abstract object of public perception, due to the controversy and celebrity of her father -- and who devotes herself completely to authoring a version of her story that is unassailable by controversy -- an actor who explicitly asks that her contributions be portrayed only for the merit of the advancements they contain -- and no more. One wonders which personality wolfram self identifies with more ...
ForHackernews 11y ago
Obligatory: "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity" http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/491/Batshit.htm http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/491/Batshit.htm

by j2kun 11y ago

dang 11y ago

Every Wolframy thread turns into the same discussion about Wolfram himself. Let's not let that happen here. It's enough that the article is Wolfram's attempt to decide for himself what the story is. Idiosyncrancies aside, he obviously has the mathematical and computational background to understand the material. The main obstacle is putting in the time to understand it, which he did. The article is replete with historical information, he explains why he concludes what he does, and the result is an order of magnitude more substantive (and technical) than any other Lovelace/Babbage article I recall seeing on HN. I think it can stand on its own. The content is fascinating and is what deserves discussion.

p4wnc6 11y ago
I disagree strongly with this. Wolfram himself litters the entire essay with asides in which he compares and contrasts his own place within science history with both Babbage and Lovelace. If Wolfram wanted to write a neutral historical account, he could have, but instead he opened the door for the continued derision of NKS-style pomposity by specifically tailoring this historical account as if it too must serve to underscore his own career efforts, which he chooses to frame as longsuffering attempts to have his work be granted the correct degree of awe. Until he begins writing things in which he doesn't infuse that sort of ploy to underscore so-called credit he perceives he should be given, I think it's not only fair but highly useful to the community at large for criticisms of any work he produces to center on these aspects. The only counter-argument I could see would be if the historical content of the article were so story-breaking and important that we should all put up with the pomposity in order to consume the never-before-explained-as-well historical side, but w.r.t. the history of Ada Lovelace and Babbage, that's just not true, and there are many other historical accounts that don't try to coyly shoehorn in comparisons to Wolfram products, Wolfram computational achievements, or credit/recognition that Wolfram believes he deserves.
- dang 11y ago
  Yes, I know about Wolfram's asides, tics, and shoehorning, as does everyone who reads a thing he wrote. But the Wolfram Derangement Syndrome it provokes in internet forum threads isn't interesting either. It's a mirror image of the thing it is annoyed by. We're not going to ban what Wolfram writes because (a) he's a good writer, (b) however one evaluates him, Mathematica is significant, and (c) his best pieces—which this is one of—are interesting. That's enough to belong here, and I think we can expect HN to have the discipline to focus on the substantive bits and resist the hypnotic pull of the trollish ones.
  - p4wnc6 11y ago
    Who is talking about banning what he writes?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - Create 11y ago
    Mathematica is significant Mathematica is a proprietary software influenced by the earlier computer algebra systems Macsyma (of which Wolfram was a user) and Schoonschip (whose code Wolfram studied). Maxima is a computer algebra system based on a 1982 version of Macsyma. It is written in Common Lisp and runs on all POSIX platforms such as OS X, Unix, BSD, and Linux as well as under Microsoft Windows and Android. It is free software released under the terms of the GNU General Public License. It would be the same to defend William Henry "Bill" Gates III, by stating that MS-DOS is significant, while MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS - owned by Seattle Computer Products, written by Tim Paterson. Development of 86-DOS took only six weeks, as it was basically a clone of Digital Research's CP/M (for 8080/Z80 processors), ported to run on 8086 processor.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Mathematica is a proprietary software Nothing wrong with that. >influenced by the earlier computer algebra systems Macsyma (of which Wolfram was a user) and Schoonschip (whose code Wolfram studied). Not much wrong with that either. Even if it was just a clone of those systems when it came out, being the successful clone is enough to make it have merit. But of course since then it's 1000 times the code size of the initial systems, and 100 times the capabilities. >It would be the same to defend William Henry "Bill" Gates III, by stating that MS-DOS is significant, while MS-DOS was a renamed form of 86-DOS Again, MS-DOS is significant. Whether it was innovative (it wasn't) is another thing, but it sure has been historically significant. Sorry, but it's not always the first product that comes out that defines an era and a market. And copying happens all the time too, and can even evolve into something that the original never was.
breatheoften 11y ago
I found the historical storytelling to be the most fascinating part of the article as well -- however I think the article does also lend potentially interesting fodder for discussion of wolfram himself. One can clearly see why wolfram would be interested in the ideas of Lovelace and Babbage -- but I wonder what kind of introspection he experiences as he reflects on his perception of their Victorian personalities. People who talk explicitly about nobility and "bequeathing" ideas to future generations, while also being actual visionaries as regarded by these future generations. There's Babbage who believes himself to be under appreciated by his contemporaries -- a character flaw which frequently causes him to fail to act in ways which would've been more effective at recruiting support from others and might've resulted in a deeper execution of his vision. And Lovelace who seems very able to see herself as an abstract object of public perception, due to the controversy and celebrity of her father -- and who devotes herself completely to authoring a version of her story that is unassailable by controversy -- an actor who explicitly asks that her contributions be portrayed only for the merit of the advancements they contain -- and no more. One wonders which personality wolfram self identifies with more ...

ForHackernews 11y ago

Obligatory: "A Rare Blend of Monster Raving Egomania and Utter Batshit Insanity" http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/491/Batshit.htm http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/491/Batshit.htm