>> By my age, Einstein had completed general relativity, Turing had founded CS, won WWII, and proposed the Turing Test, and Galois, Ramanujan, and Ramsey had be

>> By my age, Einstein had completed general relativity, Turing had founded CS, won WWII, and proposed the Turing Test, and Galois, Ramanujan, and Ramsey had been dead for years. I fee confused when an article begins with a blatant exaggeration about a subject I am cognisant in right off the bat because then Idon't know how much I can trust it when it speaks of subjects I don't know. To wit, Turing did not win WWII and didn't found CS. Turing wrote a seminal paper in early computer science, but he didn't found the field of research called "computer science". To be honest, I have no idea who would rightfully deserve to be recognised as the founder of computer science, when there have been many contributions of the same value as Turing's, the most obvious examples being Church and Von Neumann, less well-recognised ones being Charles Sanders Peirce and Henry M. Sheffer, Claude Shannon, Conrand Zuse and others (Church described a theory of computation equivalent to UTMs; Von Neumann proposed the accursed Von Neumann architecture; Peirce and Sheffer described logic gates and showed the completeness of the NAND gate; Shannon proved the completeness of Boolean logic circuits; Zuse made the first programmable computer -Babbage only designed the first). And so on. In my mind, trying to ascribe feats to heroes that they never performed, diminishes, rather than exalts, the hero. Turing doesn't need any extra serving of praise for things he didn't do to be known for ever as one of the greats of CS.