3 ms·

"Forgotten" in the sense that everyone who knows anything about CS knows who he is because of the Church-Turing hypothesis, Church numerals, lambda calculus etc

"Forgotten" in the sense that everyone who knows anything about CS knows who he is because of the Church-Turing hypothesis, Church numerals, lambda calculus etc, and anyone who reads "On Computable Numbers" (only the most famous paper in all of computer science) knows that Turing actually quotes and credits Church and his work in that paper. Here's a link to "On Computable Numbers" for easy reference for anyone who wants to read it/read it again. It's a cracker https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf

abstractbeliefs 2y ago
Forgotten not in the sense of lost knowledge, but more that the individual is not known proportionally to the importance of his work, or perhaps consistently when compared to his peers. While specialists in his field know his work and his name (but not even everyone in software does), the public do not. While your parents and friends see the dramatised exploits of Turing in films like The Imitation Game, or his face on the currency, the same is not said for Church. Every field has it's public heroes, usually related to the stature of their work - Fleming and Jenner, Marconi, Ford, Bell. Turing. Anyone will at least recognise these names, but not so for Church.
- gilleain 2y ago
  Ok, and if I asked a random member of the public for the name of a mathematician (excepting Turing, for clarity) what name do you think they would come up with? Pythagoras? Euler? Erdős? I think the reality is that only a very small number of scientists, mathematicians, and similar are household names.
  - ggm 2y ago
    People's conception of Turing is massively skewed by the ending. His persona is now defined by his sexuality and treatment more than his contributions to maths and computer science. Andrew Hodges book is great. I had the fortune to go to his author tour the year it came out, he was doing the compsci departments of the UK and it was a really nice seminar. Benedic Cumbersome was a good actor, but it's important to remember Michelangelo actually didn't look like Kirk Douglas.
    - gpderetta 2y ago
      Also his contribution to the war might be one of the biggest reason he is well known.
    - geodel 2y ago
      I like that you called Benedict 'Cumbersome'. He is indeed cumbersome in so many roles.
      - ggm 2y ago
        I read a review in the Guardian [1] which used a series of malapropisms for his name, and riffed on the concept. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/may/29/benedict-cumberbatch-best-ever-tv-roles https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/may/29...
  - edplmajor 2y ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - seanhunter 2y ago
    Right - For every Newton, who (rightly) gets credit for his immense contributions, there are people like Euler, who are relatively unknown outside the field in spite of significant contributions[1]. [1] Massive in the case of Euler obviously.
    - drcwpl 2y ago
      Agreed - what I tried to highlight through a series about people that have contributed significantly, but are not so well known outside of the fields they impacted, there is always cooperation to a large extent and others involved - rarely a lone individual as the Turing movie and much of the press in the UK likes to portray. And many people, who should be known, get lost in the complexity of history. It's worth bringing the attention of this to a wider audience - people are genuinely inquisitive. Plus as another example, on an intro course to AI 45 out of 52 bachelor students had never heard of Church!
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Isn't that just because they haven't made a blockbuster feature film about him yet?
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Oh so maybe 0.01% of the population will even recognize his name
- conductr 2y ago
  As evidence, I've been programming for 25 years now but never actually studied CS. Yet throughout that duration I feel like I see/read Turing's name every week somewhere. I've never heard of Church until now.
  - drcwpl 2y ago
    Great point - thanks for that.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kayo_20211030 2y ago
Dammit! Did I forget to forget him? Seems pretty memorable to me, and I'm just a regular dev.
- drcwpl 2y ago
  The main theme of the essay is his work which helped the foundation of AI, In their book Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach (Third Edition), Russell and Norvig give limited (cursory) commentary about A. Church, but Turing gets the foundational credites, I think that is an oversight - and this book has sold in the hundreds of thousands and is used on AI courses extensively!
cubefox 2y ago
It's ironic that you reference a paper by Turing here but not one by Church himself.
- drcwpl 2y ago
  I also add the Turing one at the end of the post also because of the discussions at the beginning - especially "Church had certainly obtained the result before Turing"

abstractbeliefs 2y ago

Forgotten not in the sense of lost knowledge, but more that the individual is not known proportionally to the importance of his work, or perhaps consistently when compared to his peers. While specialists in his field know his work and his name (but not even everyone in software does), the public do not. While your parents and friends see the dramatised exploits of Turing in films like The Imitation Game, or his face on the currency, the same is not said for Church. Every field has it's public heroes, usually related to the stature of their work - Fleming and Jenner, Marconi, Ford, Bell. Turing. Anyone will at least recognise these names, but not so for Church.

gilleain 2y ago
Ok, and if I asked a random member of the public for the name of a mathematician (excepting Turing, for clarity) what name do you think they would come up with? Pythagoras? Euler? Erdős? I think the reality is that only a very small number of scientists, mathematicians, and similar are household names.
- ggm 2y ago
  People's conception of Turing is massively skewed by the ending. His persona is now defined by his sexuality and treatment more than his contributions to maths and computer science. Andrew Hodges book is great. I had the fortune to go to his author tour the year it came out, he was doing the compsci departments of the UK and it was a really nice seminar. Benedic Cumbersome was a good actor, but it's important to remember Michelangelo actually didn't look like Kirk Douglas.
  - gpderetta 2y ago
    Also his contribution to the war might be one of the biggest reason he is well known.
  - geodel 2y ago
    I like that you called Benedict 'Cumbersome'. He is indeed cumbersome in so many roles.
    - ggm 2y ago
      I read a review in the Guardian [1] which used a series of malapropisms for his name, and riffed on the concept. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/may/29/benedict-cumberbatch-best-ever-tv-roles https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/may/29...
- edplmajor 2y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- seanhunter 2y ago
  Right - For every Newton, who (rightly) gets credit for his immense contributions, there are people like Euler, who are relatively unknown outside the field in spite of significant contributions[1]. [1] Massive in the case of Euler obviously.
  - drcwpl 2y ago
    Agreed - what I tried to highlight through a series about people that have contributed significantly, but are not so well known outside of the fields they impacted, there is always cooperation to a large extent and others involved - rarely a lone individual as the Turing movie and much of the press in the UK likes to portray. And many people, who should be known, get lost in the complexity of history. It's worth bringing the attention of this to a wider audience - people are genuinely inquisitive. Plus as another example, on an intro course to AI 45 out of 52 bachelor students had never heard of Church!
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
Isn't that just because they haven't made a blockbuster feature film about him yet?

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

Oh so maybe 0.01% of the population will even recognize his name

conductr 2y ago
As evidence, I've been programming for 25 years now but never actually studied CS. Yet throughout that duration I feel like I see/read Turing's name every week somewhere. I've never heard of Church until now.
- drcwpl 2y ago
  Great point - thanks for that.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kayo_20211030 2y ago

Dammit! Did I forget to forget him? Seems pretty memorable to me, and I'm just a regular dev.

drcwpl 2y ago
The main theme of the essay is his work which helped the foundation of AI, In their book Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach (Third Edition), Russell and Norvig give limited (cursory) commentary about A. Church, but Turing gets the foundational credites, I think that is an oversight - and this book has sold in the hundreds of thousands and is used on AI courses extensively!

cubefox 2y ago

It's ironic that you reference a paper by Turing here but not one by Church himself.

drcwpl 2y ago
I also add the Turing one at the end of the post also because of the discussions at the beginning - especially "Church had certainly obtained the result before Turing"