5 ms·

I didn't read the article, but I just wanted to take the occasion to remind people that the Soviets also built ternary computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

by jordigh 12y ago

I didn't read the article, but I just wanted to take the occasion to remind people that the Soviets also built ternary computers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer

agentcoops 12y ago
This article is really a rather sloppy piece that contributes little to our understanding of what should be fascinating to this community: alternative histories and possibilities of the computer. For example, how cybernetics and "use of the computer" are used almost interchangeably. A critique of cybernetics, which is in fact somewhere in-between a political program and philosophical system, can in no way be equated with a critique of the computer. In fact, a critique of cybernetics as at once idealist (vs materialist) and mechanistic (vs organic/vitalist) is a very sensible philosophical critique and in no way a contradictory legacy of mere soviet ideology, however philosophically problematic the latter may itself be. Many of the decisions to avoid anthropomorphizing the computer are similar to arguments put forth by Djikstra for perspective. Historically, how is it even possible that this article doesn't mention someone like Sergei Lebedev, a celebrated Soviet scientist, who had a working computer by the 50s which had been in development since the mid-to-late 40s? Or a figure like Victor Shestakov who independently made many of the same innovations as Claude Shannon? As a community, I think we should be very interested in other ways the computer could have been---at the level of use, hardware and software---thus histories like this or the Japanese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer should be fascinating, even if one finds much about the Soviet Union problematic to say the least. On the cybernetics point, I would also highly recommend reading Bogdanov's science fiction novel Red Star, written in 1908 (obviously in-between the two revolutions, so technically pre-Soviet, but he was important in defining many philosophical and technical programs in the Soviet Union, notably space flight), for a fascinating account of a utopian intertwining of statistics, computer-like devices, and the life of a planet. Absolutely materialist and organic/vitalist rather than idealist and mechanistic!
- agentcoops 12y ago
  As a follow-up, I highly recommend http://monoskop.org/Computing_and_cybernetics_in_CEE#Episodes http://monoskop.org/Computing_and_cybernetics_in_CEE#Episode... as a much more detailed account of the history of Soviet hardware and thought about computing, including even the relation to cybernetics.
m0skit0 12y ago
A lot of computers using different numbering systems were built. Binary took over mainly because the required hardware was the simplest.
- grapevines 12y ago
  Could you please elaborate? I came here to mention that the Soviets built the earliest "balanced Ternary" computers, which is like binary but with a negative digit, which can be much better in high precision arithmetic.
  - m0skit0 12y ago
    Sorry, elaborate on what exactly?
walterbell 12y ago
What do you think of Chua's work on memristors?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
niche 12y ago
Yes! Thank you for mentioning, I am floored at how little attention this gets...
grkvlt 12y ago
I'd love to know why exactly ternary was chosen. I wondered if it might have had some political motivation; maybe a rejection of the dualist philosophies of the running-dog capitalists, in favour of the technically superior Marxist-Leninist 'third way' ... ?
- jordigh 12y ago
  I think it's because electric charge comes in positive and negative varities. Together with no charge at all, ternary isn't that crazy of an idea. You might even get 50% more storage for the same amount of hardware?

by jordigh 12y ago

agentcoops 12y ago

This article is really a rather sloppy piece that contributes little to our understanding of what should be fascinating to this community: alternative histories and possibilities of the computer. For example, how cybernetics and "use of the computer" are used almost interchangeably. A critique of cybernetics, which is in fact somewhere in-between a political program and philosophical system, can in no way be equated with a critique of the computer. In fact, a critique of cybernetics as at once idealist (vs materialist) and mechanistic (vs organic/vitalist) is a very sensible philosophical critique and in no way a contradictory legacy of mere soviet ideology, however philosophically problematic the latter may itself be. Many of the decisions to avoid anthropomorphizing the computer are similar to arguments put forth by Djikstra for perspective. Historically, how is it even possible that this article doesn't mention someone like Sergei Lebedev, a celebrated Soviet scientist, who had a working computer by the 50s which had been in development since the mid-to-late 40s? Or a figure like Victor Shestakov who independently made many of the same innovations as Claude Shannon? As a community, I think we should be very interested in other ways the computer could have been---at the level of use, hardware and software---thus histories like this or the Japanese http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_generation_computer should be fascinating, even if one finds much about the Soviet Union problematic to say the least. On the cybernetics point, I would also highly recommend reading Bogdanov's science fiction novel Red Star, written in 1908 (obviously in-between the two revolutions, so technically pre-Soviet, but he was important in defining many philosophical and technical programs in the Soviet Union, notably space flight), for a fascinating account of a utopian intertwining of statistics, computer-like devices, and the life of a planet. Absolutely materialist and organic/vitalist rather than idealist and mechanistic!

agentcoops 12y ago
As a follow-up, I highly recommend http://monoskop.org/Computing_and_cybernetics_in_CEE#Episodes http://monoskop.org/Computing_and_cybernetics_in_CEE#Episode... as a much more detailed account of the history of Soviet hardware and thought about computing, including even the relation to cybernetics.

m0skit0 12y ago

A lot of computers using different numbering systems were built. Binary took over mainly because the required hardware was the simplest.

grapevines 12y ago
Could you please elaborate? I came here to mention that the Soviets built the earliest "balanced Ternary" computers, which is like binary but with a negative digit, which can be much better in high precision arithmetic.
- m0skit0 12y ago
  Sorry, elaborate on what exactly?

walterbell 12y ago

What do you think of Chua's work on memristors?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

niche 12y ago

Yes! Thank you for mentioning, I am floored at how little attention this gets...

grkvlt 12y ago

I'd love to know why exactly ternary was chosen. I wondered if it might have had some political motivation; maybe a rejection of the dualist philosophies of the running-dog capitalists, in favour of the technically superior Marxist-Leninist 'third way' ... ?

jordigh 12y ago
I think it's because electric charge comes in positive and negative varities. Together with no charge at all, ternary isn't that crazy of an idea. You might even get 50% more storage for the same amount of hardware?