> It's a tool of measurement in the same manner in which an environmental simulation is. I don't see how either is a "tool of measurement." A ruler, scale, the

> It's a tool of measurement in the same manner in which an environmental simulation is. I don't see how either is a "tool of measurement." A ruler, scale, thermometer... these are tools for measurement. A simulation doesn't measure anything. The purpose of the mechanism is not to measure, it is to predict. It calculates, and that makes it a computer. > A reproduction of a thing for the purpose of study is a form of measurement enhancement. The issue is not with the use of tool, but I don't see how measurement enters into it. Measurement enhancement is not a general form of anything. A simulation is not for measuring, but for evaluating the effect of changes, for evaluating models, for tuning performance or safety, or for testing. Though measurements may be taken within the simulation, the simulation itself does not measure anything. > Special purpose computational tool, perhaps. A computer in the modern sense of the word, absolutely not. It is neither general purpose nor is it Turing complete. There is not a modern definition so much as there is context. You're defining computer to mean a programmable electronic device, I think you mean Turing machine, but this is a very specific meaning for a very general term. A computer is simply anyone or anything that computes. In fact, a computer can be anything from an abacus to a slide rule to a calculator (analog or digital) to even an automatic transmission. "Computer" does not necessarily mean anything electronic unless context dictates that it does. > Please note that my initial reply stressed the point of a modern understanding and use of the word computer. There are plenty of computers still waking around today that are not digital, and many of them we call computer scientists. > If people wish to call this a mechanical computer it is more similar to a differential analyzer and yet still less capable. As human beings alive after the Second World War, we have far more terms with which to accurately categorize mathematical tools. An astrolabe is not a computer, it is an instrument for making astronomical measurements. Instead, a computer is anything (or anyone) that computes, calculates, or reckons. We can be more specific by qualifying analog computer, or mechanical computer, or microcomputer, or even an accountant, but they are all computers. The category error is not necessary; only context matters here. > Calling something more similar to an astrolabe a computer is akin to considering a hand saw and a circular saw the same thing. That they are both tools does not mean that a screwdriver is also a wrench. They are both within the category of tools, but not all within the same category are of the same type. Here is another category error: Socrates is a man. I am a man. Therefore, I am Socrates. The issue is with your premise that all computers are Turing machines when, in fact, it is the opposite that is true. All sparrows are birds, not all birds are sparrows.