Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.misc > #11637 > unrolled thread

Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.misc

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-04 07:50 +0100
    Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-04 09:57 +0100
      Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-06 17:02 +0100
        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-06 18:02 +0100
          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 12:59 +0100
        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:31 +0100
          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 13:00 +0100
      Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:22 +0100
        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:39 +0100
        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-07 10:46 +0100
          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-08 08:10 +0100
            Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-08 08:44 +0100
            Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-08 08:49 +0100
        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:42 +0100
          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-07 16:26 +0200
            Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-08 04:25 +0100
              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-08 08:51 +0100
              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-08 13:58 +0200
              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-09 09:15 +0100
            Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-20 04:48 +0000
              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-12-21 00:07 +0000
                Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-21 22:20 +0000
                  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-12-22 00:56 +0200
                    Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-22 13:24 +0100
                Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-21 22:23 +0000
                  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-12-22 17:55 +0000
                    Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-22 21:20 +0000
          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-08 08:21 +0100
            Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-12-08 09:06 +0100
              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-09 09:19 +0100
              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-09 11:43 -0800
                Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-10 08:19 +0100
                  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-10 09:56 +0100
                  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-10 10:01 -0800
                    Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-11 09:02 +0100
                      Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-11 08:48 -0800
                      Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-12 01:58 +0100
                        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-11 20:45 -0800
                          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-11 23:07 -0800
                          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-12 00:49 -0800
                            Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-14 14:27 +0100
                              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 10:25 -0800
                                Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-14 21:22 +0100
                                  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 12:52 -0800
                                  I have a great idea The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 13:11 -0800
                                  Einstein refrigerator (was: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-15 03:00 +0100
                                    Re: Einstein refrigerator (was: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 19:46 -0800
                              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 10:27 -0800
                                Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-14 10:58 -0800
                              Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-15 07:50 +0100
                                Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-15 14:05 +0100
                                  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-16 08:44 +0100
                                    Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-16 22:58 +0100
                                      Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-12-17 08:50 +0100
                                        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-12-17 14:24 +0100
                                        Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-18 22:13 -0800
                                          Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-12-19 12:02 -0800
                                      Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-17 18:24 +0100
                  Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-18 06:49 +0000
    Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2025-12-06 05:30 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#11637 — Re: parallel random-access machine (parallel RAM or PRAM)

Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   > No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
>>>>   > more layer on top of it.
>>>>
>>>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
>>>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
>>>> not von Neuman architecture.
>>>
>>> We can use von Neumann architecture
>>> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
>>> is performed by our computers it is technically
>>> von Neumann's.
>>>
>> Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
> 
> It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American
> polymath John von Neumann.  He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a
> non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the Empire of
> Austria-Hungary.  His family name may be of German origin.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
> 
>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early
>> 1930th?
> 
> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. Presper
> Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."


https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3

Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?



> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science>
> 
> ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from
> 1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital
> computers".  They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of computers
> as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that series that
> was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953:
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)>
> 
>> The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
>> other German inventors).
> 

'Operation paperclip' was actually a systematical manhunt by US forces 
for German scientists.

Also the patens were plundered, especially those from single inventors 
like Zuse.

The US tropps actually invaded eastern Germany prior to Soviet troops, 
because they wanted to get hold of scientists from Ohrdruf in Thuringia.

TH

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11638

On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>>> You wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   > No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
>>>>>   > more layer on top of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
>>>>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
>>>>> not von Neuman architecture.
>>>>
>>>> We can use von Neumann architecture
>>>> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
>>>> is performed by our computers it is technically
>>>> von Neumann's.
>>>>
>>> Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
>>
>> It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American
>> polymath John von Neumann.  He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a
>> non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the 
>> Empire of
>> Austria-Hungary.  His family name may be of German origin.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
>>
>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the 
>>> early
>>> 1930th?
>>
>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. 
>> Presper
>> Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
> 
> 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
> 
> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?

That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.

While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
Yes, before the ENIAC. And the plans for the Z3 were of course
designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
concepts also of its predecessors.

But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.

> 
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science>
>>
>> ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from
>> 1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital
>> computers".  They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of 
>> computers
>> as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that 
>> series that
>> was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953:

I think that statement with the somewhat fuzzy term "fully digital"
and its attribution to the Z5 (and not before) is not correct.

The point is that the first computers had slight variances in their
concepts, and if one wants to claim being the first all he has to
do is defining the own variances as the characteristic properties
of "a real [first] computer".

To me it's quite obvious that the Z3 was the first running computer
with binary logic and programmable.

But given the severe nationalistic/patriotic struggles and battles
who was the first who invented whatever important was invented will
make discussions here fruitless. The facts (dates and features, and
even construction plans) can be found online, and instead of hitting
each others' heads with fitting "definitions" to justify one or the
other position (which is doomed to fail) people can read the sources
and judge themselves; there's a lot of substantial/reliable material
available.

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)>
>>
>>> The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
>>> other German inventors).
>>
> 
> 'Operation paperclip' was actually a systematical manhunt by US forces 
> for German scientists.
> 
> Also the patens were plundered, especially those from single inventors 
> like Zuse.
> 
> The US tropps actually invaded eastern Germany prior to Soviet troops, 
> because they wanted to get hold of scientists from Ohrdruf in Thuringia.
> 
> TH
> 

(I wonder whether any of above newsgroups is relevant for that topic.)

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11640

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
>>> [...]
>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the 
>>>> early 1930th?
>>>
>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. 
>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
>>> EDVAC."
>>>
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>
>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
> 
> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.

Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them).

> While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
> the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.

It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.

> Yes, before the ENIAC.

The ENIAC (completed in 1945) was (arguably) the first digital *electronic*
computer:

* Z1 (1936-1938):
  "motor-driven mechanical computer"
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)>

* Z2 (1940):
  "electromechanical (mechanical and relay-based) digital computer"
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z2_(computer)>

* Z3 (1938-1941):
  "electromechanical computer [...] the world's first working programmable,
   fully automatic digital computer"
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer)>

* Z4 (1942):
  "arguably the world's first commercial digital computer [...] Like the
  earlier Z2, it comprised a combination of mechanical memory and
  electromechanical logic."
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z4_(computer)>

* ENIAC (1945):
  "first programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital computer"
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC>

* EDVAC (1946-1952):
  "one of the earliest electronic computers [...] binary rather than
  decimal, and was designed to be a stored-program computer".
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC>

* Z5 (1950-1953):
  "the first commercial built-to-order mainframe in Germany"
  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)>

> And the plans for the Z3 were of course designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
> concepts also of its predecessors.
> 
> But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!

Nonsense.

> [conspiracy theories/historical inaccuracies]
>
> (I wonder whether any of above newsgroups is relevant for that topic.)

At most comp.lang.misc is regarding the computer-scientific part; but
Thomas Heger keeps ignoring the Followup-To that I set, and keeps
crossposting without Followup-To themselves.  You are doing the latter,
too.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

F'up2 comp.lang.misc again

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11641

On 2025-12-06 17:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
>>>> [...]
>>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
>>>>> early 1930th?
>>>>
>>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
>>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
>>>> EDVAC."
>>>>
>>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>>
>>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
>>
>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
> 
> Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them).

Wikipedia confirms both of my dates:

"Die Z3 war einer der ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner weltweit
  und wurde am 12. Mai 1941 von Konrad Zuse in seiner Werkstatt in der
  Methfesselstraße 7 in Berlin-Kreuzberg vorgestellt."

"Die Z1 war ein mechanischer Rechner von Konrad Zuse aus dem Jahre
  1937."

> 
>> While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
>> the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
> 
> It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.

That was not the criterion that was part of the post I was replying to.
There was a statement about "fully digital" and about architecture not
specific technology (gear wheels, relays, electric tubes, transistors,
integrated circuits, light-based, or whatever).

Your behavior is exactly what I was anticipating in my previous post
where I said:

  I think that statement with the somewhat fuzzy term "fully digital"
  [...]
  The point is that the first computers had slight variances in their
  concepts, and if one wants to claim being the first all he has to
  do is defining the own variances as the characteristic properties
  of "a real [first] computer".

> 
>> And the plans for the Z3 were of course designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
>> concepts also of its predecessors.
>>
>> But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
> 
> Nonsense.

You can read about that in Wikipedia (for example), too. You can
find a plethora of notes on that in literature with many examples.


It would be a gain for everyone if you'd stop your aggravating posts
that lack both, knowledge of facts and intention to discuss topics
in a civilized manner. But we know your character for years already.
Because of your already from earlier times well known pathological
sociopathic habits in your communication behavior I'll put you yet
again in my message filter. - A stitch in time saves nine! - Bye.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11647

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2025-12-06 17:02, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
>>>>>> early 1930th?
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
>>>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
>>>>> EDVAC."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
>>>
>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
>>
>> Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them).
> 
> Wikipedia confirms both of my dates:
> 
> "Die Z3 war einer der ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner weltweit
>   und wurde am 12. Mai 1941 von Konrad Zuse in seiner Werkstatt in der
>   Methfesselstraße 7 in Berlin-Kreuzberg vorgestellt."
> 
> "Die Z1 war ein mechanischer Rechner von Konrad Zuse aus dem Jahre
>   1937."

It is more complicated than that: It took several years from design to
the completion of each of these computers.  Read the list and follow the
references that I gave.

>>> While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
>>> the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
>>
>> It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.
> 
> That was not the criterion that was part of the post I was replying to.

Yes, it was.  The claim was that the "von Neumann architecture" that ENIAC
was based on was based on the Z3, ignoring that ENIAC and the Z3 did not
even use the same technology: While both were digital computers, one of them
(the Z3) was an *electromechanical* computer and the other (ENIAC) was an
*electronic* one.

The two computers also differed in operation (the original Z3 was never put
into everyday operation, and was destroyed during an Allied bombardment of
Berlin in 1943; while ENIAC was in continuous operation from 1945 to 1955)
and capabilities (the Z3 lacked conditional branching, so was not strictly
Turing-complete; ENIAC was).

Apples and oranges.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11643

Am Samstag000006, 06.12.2025 um 17:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
>>>> [...]
>>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
>>>>> early 1930th?
>>>>
>>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
>>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
>>>> EDVAC."
>>>>
>>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>>
>>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
>>
>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
> 
> Twice wrong (according to the Wikipedia articles about them).
> 
>> While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
>> the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
> 
> It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.
> 
>> Yes, before the ENIAC.
> 
> The ENIAC (completed in 1945) was (arguably) the first digital *electronic*
> computer:
> 

You actually missed the point:

that was the origin of the 'von Neumann' architekture and not the 
materials the first computers were build from.

Actually the principle meant could be implemented by all possible means, 
which would include strings and wooden sticks.

The point were not the computers themselves, but a theoretical concept, 
which Konrad Zuse had invented and patented in 1937.

These patents were stolen by the allied forces- among zillions of other 
inventions (and occasionally the inventors, too).

This was military plundering, because that invention was private 
property and Zuse by no means resposnsible for the deeds of the German 
Reich.


TH

...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11648

Thomas Heger wrote:
  vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> Am Samstag000006, 06.12.2025 um 17:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still broken.

>> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
>>> the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
>>
>> It was a *digital* computer, but NOT the first *electronic* computer.
>>
>>> Yes, before the ENIAC.
>>
>> The ENIAC (completed in 1945) was (arguably) the first digital *electronic*
>> computer:
> 
> You actually missed the point:
> 
> that was the origin of the 'von Neumann' architekture

No.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11642

Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
  >>>
>>>>>>   > No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
>>>>>>   > more layer on top of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
>>>>>> Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
>>>>>> not von Neuman architecture.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can use von Neumann architecture
>>>>> to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
>>>>> is performed by our computers it is technically
>>>>> von Neumann's.
>>>>>
>>>> Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
>>>
>>> It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American
>>> polymath John von Neumann.  He was born (as Neumann János Lajos) into a
>>> non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the 
>>> Empire of
>>> Austria-Hungary.  His family name may be of German origin.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
>>>
>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the 
>>>> early
>>>> 1930th?
>>>
>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. 
>>> Presper
>>> Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
>>
>>
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>
>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
> 
> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.


Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was 
actually the Z1 of 1937.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur
quote

"
Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse 
ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und 
größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert 
worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit 
der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt 
aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte, 
als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. "

translated by google
"Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by 
Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely 
implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad 
Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the 
world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered 
unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his 
architecture in 1945."

BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir 
rights (or not).

It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse 
(or not).

Therefore the patents of Zuse were simply stolen and also the invention 
itself ascribed to somebody else


> While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
> the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
> Yes, before the ENIAC. And the plans for the Z3 were of course
> designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
> concepts also of its predecessors.
> 
> But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
> This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.
> 

But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.

...

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11644

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured.  How is it possible that you
have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like
these?  (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.)

Maybe you should focus more on *your* output instead :->

>>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
>>>> [...]
>>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the 
>>>>> early 1930th?
>>>>
>>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. 
>>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
>>>> EDVAC."
>>>
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>>
>>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
>>
>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
> 
> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was 
> actually the Z1 of 1937.

Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument):

> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur
> quote
> 
> "
> Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse 
> ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und 
> größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert 
> worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit 
> der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt 
> aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte, 
> als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. "
> 
> translated by google
> "Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by 
> Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely 
> implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad 
> Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the 
> world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered 
> unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his 
> architecture in 1945."
> 
> BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir 
> rights (or not).

It is clear that *you* don't "give a shit" because this additional
information completely destroys your argument.  However, that is a fallacy.

> It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse 
> (or not).

No, that is actually the core issue here.

> But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.

There was no theft.  You are delusional.

F'up2 comp.lang.misc again

(With your newsreader [Thunderbird], you have to *manually* *add* back* the
original groups in order to keep crossposting without Followup-To.  So this
is not or a newsreader bug, but *malice* on your part, perhaps out of
delusions of grandeur.  JFYI: Your postings are *NOT* *that* *important*
that you have to blast them to 3 newsgroups *continuously*, only one of
which has to do with the topic of the discussion.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11645

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured.  How is it possible that you
have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like
these?  (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.)

Maybe you should focus more on *your* output instead :->

>>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
>>>> [...]
>>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the 
>>>>> early 1930th?
>>>>
>>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. 
>>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
>>>> EDVAC."
>>>
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>>
>>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
>>
>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
> 
> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was 
> actually the Z1 of 1937.

Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument):

> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur
> quote
> 
> "
> Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse 
> ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und 
> größtenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert 
> worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit 
> der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsfähigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt 
> aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte, 
> als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. "
> 
> translated by google
> "Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by 
> Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely 
> implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad 
> Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the 
> world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered 
> unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his 
> architecture in 1945."
> 
> BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir 
> rights (or not).

It is clear that *you* don't "give a shit" because this additional
information completely destroys your argument.  However, that is a fallacy.

> It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse 
> (or not).

No, that is actually the core issue here.

> But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.

There was no theft.  You are delusional.

F'up2 comp.lang.misc again

(With your newsreader [Thunderbird], you have to *manually* *add* back* the
original groups in order to keep crossposting without Followup-To.  So this
is not a newsreader bug, but *malice* on your part, perhaps out of
delusions of grandeur.  JFYI: Your postings are *NOT* *that* *important*
that you have to blast them to 3 newsgroups *continuously*, only one of
which has to do with the topic of the discussion.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11651

Am Sonntag000007, 07.12.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured.  How is it possible that you
> have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like
> these?  (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.)

This behavior was quoted by me, but apparently stemmed from 'Janis 
Papanagnou'.

Not sure, if that guy was the source, but don't care, anyhow.


> 
>>>>>> Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
>>>>>> early 1930th?
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT true.  Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
>>>>> Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
>>>>> EDVAC."
>>>>
>>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
>>>
>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
>>
>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
>> actually the Z1 of 1937.
> 
> Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument):

My 'original argument' was that US 'liberators' not only stole the 
patent for Zuse's invention, but also the fame and gave it to someone else.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11653

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000007, 07.12.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured.  How is it possible that you
>> have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines like
>> these?  (The fact aside that most of the information there is superfluous.)
> 
> This behavior was quoted by me, but apparently stemmed from 'Janis 
> Papanagnou'.
> 
> Not sure, if that guy was the source, but don't care, anyhow.

[Now in their and my native language, German, as apparently I am not getting
through to them in English:]

Du merkst nichts mehr, oder?  Es ist *Dein* Newsreader, der diese kaputten
Einleitungszeilen "Am Sonntag000007, ..." erzeugt.  Das kannst Du leicht
sehen, wenn Du Deine Postings *vor* dem Absenden einmal Korrektur liest (das
solltest Du ohnehin immer tun, dann schreibst Du auch weniger Mist :->).

Reparier das endlich (Erweiterung für Einleitungszeilen konfigurieren oder
deaktivieren)!

>>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
>>> actually the Z1 of 1937.
>>
>> Irrelevant (regarding to your original argument):
> 
> My 'original argument' was that US 'liberators' not only stole the 
> patent for Zuse's invention, but also the fame and gave it to someone else.

Which is pure fantasy.  Why is it beyond your imagination that people having
approximately the same knowledge can arrive at similar or even the same
ideas independently?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11654

On 2025-12-08 08:10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Sonntag000007, 07.12.2025 um 10:46 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Your newsreader is still broken/misconfigured.  How is it possible 
>> that you
>> have *still* not noticed yet that it produces broken attribution lines 
>> like
>> these?  (The fact aside that most of the information there is 
>> superfluous.)
> 
> This behavior was quoted by me, but apparently stemmed from 'Janis 
> Papanagnou'.

Not as far as I can tell. - This part I saw already with you first
posts on that topic in the newsgroup where I read it:

| Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
| > Thomas Heger wrote:
| >> Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
| >>> On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

It's always added (explicitly by you, or implicitly by your system)
from your posts obviously. The effect is visible before I joined the
thread.

> 
> Not sure, if that guy was the source, but don't care, anyhow.

I also don't care. Just noting it; because - as I think attributions
of historic inventions should not be wrong - also wrong attributions
of such posting quirks should not blame the wrong person. ;-)

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11646

On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
>> [...]
>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
> 
> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was 
> actually the Z1 of 1937.

Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.

My point was just when the first _working_ digital and programmable
computer was invented. - And in my humble opinion that was the Z3!

A bit care must be taken though with your quoted Wiki paragraph:
"Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur [...]"
It's - at least by this statement - open what was already existing
and what property was new in von Neumann's concepts. - Here's where
the arguments may become heated; remember my statement about: "just
define the properties of the own invention, and every other (prior)
system may not match by some detail" (sort of).

The sometimes used technology reasoning is certainly not convincing
if we're speaking about the architecture principles and concepts.

> [...]

> It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse 
> (or not).
Yes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent"
isn't valid in the USA. You need a separate application in the USA.

What's also true is that even a "Deutsches Reichspatent" would make
it possible to make a correct historic attribution of that invention
(if only 'ex post').

> 
> Therefore the patents of Zuse were simply stolen and also the invention 
> itself ascribed to somebody else

Given that they assume that von Neumann did not know about Zuse's
invention I think that the word "stolen" is a too harsh valuation.

I agree concerning the existing (and common) ascription mischief.

> 
>> [...]
>>
>> But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
>> This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.
> 
> But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.

Yes, but consider also what I wrote above.

Janis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11649

On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:  
> >> [...]
> >> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.  
> > 
> > Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was 
> > actually the Z1 of 1937.  
> 
> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
> 

I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.
And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.
The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann architecture,
at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning of the term
is that program store and data memory reside in the same space. Which
leads to possibility of self-modifying code. Which led to Von
Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
engineering mistake at the same time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11650

On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
>>>> [...]
>>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
>>>
>>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
>>> actually the Z1 of 1937.
>>
>> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
>> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
>>
> 
> I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.

Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a
von Neumann's architecture.

> And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.

(This was just one common example by some to attest its innovation
and being "the first".)

> The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann architecture,
> at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning of the term
> is that program store and data memory reside in the same space.

Yes. But is that crucial for a programmable computer? Is that the
functionally necessary or important element? - I'd clearly say no!


> Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code.

And that specifically is neither a necessity for a "[universally]
programmable computer" - IMO the historic noteworthy key property! -
nor an example how systems sensibly should be (or are) programmed.
We avoid in practice exactly that property (modulo virus-developers,
maybe, and similar corner cases).

> Which led to Von
> Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
> processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
> engineering mistake at the same time.

Yes.


An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain
we commonly see...
"Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by
  von Neumann's architectures."
"Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."
"Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."
(I assume you notice the dodge.)

I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we
should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests
and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.

Janis

[*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are
attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and
interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,
competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);
there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11655

Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
>>>> actually the Z1 of 1937.
>>>
>>> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
>>> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
>>
>> I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.
> 
> Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a
> von Neumann's architecture.

*facepalm*

Once again:

| Von Neumann consulted for the Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory, most
| notably on the ENIAC project,[274] as a member of its Scientific Advisory
| Committee.[275] Although the single-memory, stored-program architecture is
| commonly called von Neumann architecture, the architecture was based on
| the work of J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its
| successor, EDVAC. While consulting for the EDVAC project at the University
| of Pennsylvania, von Neumann wrote an incomplete "First Draft of a Report
| on the EDVAC". The paper, whose premature distribution nullified the
| patent claims of Eckert and Mauchly, described a computer, that stored
| both its data and its program in the same address space, unlike the
| earliest computers which stored their programs separately on paper tape or
| plugboards. This architecture became the basis of most modern computer
| designs.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science>	

FOLLOWUP-TO comp.lang.misc! (for the single-celled ones)
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11657

On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 04:25:32 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
> > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:  
> >>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis
> >>> Papanagnou:  
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.  
> >>>
> >>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
> >>> actually the Z1 of 1937.  
> >>
> >> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
> >> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
> >>  
> > 
> > I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture
> > computers.  
> 
> Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a
> von Neumann's architecture.
> 
> > And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.  
> 
> (This was just one common example by some to attest its innovation
> and being "the first".)
> 
> > The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann
> > architecture, at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning
> > of the term is that program store and data memory reside in the
> > same space.  
> 
> Yes. But is that crucial for a programmable computer? Is that the
> functionally necessary or important element? - I'd clearly say no!
> 

Is it not particularly important for programmable computer.
When I design MCU-based systems, my MCUs are physically able to do von
Neumann (i.e. to run program from RAM) but I don't utilize this
property, treating them as if they were Harvard.
The biggest and fastest growing computing business of recent years
is based on programmable computers (GPGPUs, TPUs, NPUs) that can not
modify theier own programs.
However, computers with which we interact most, so called
general-purpose computers, from smartphones to servers, are very
heavily dependent on being von Neumann.

> 
> > Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code.  
> 
> And that specifically is neither a necessity for a "[universally]
> programmable computer" - IMO the historic noteworthy key property! -
> nor an example how systems sensibly should be (or are) programmed.
> We avoid in practice exactly that property (modulo virus-developers,
> maybe, and similar corner cases).
> 

You are thinking about SMC at small. Think about it at larger scale.
Level one: OS loads application. It's rare that it just blindly
copies the image from disk. More often it modifies it to fit at
particular address. Esp. so today, with ASLR considered must.
Level two: JIT. For good or for bad, a cornerstone of modern web.

> > Which led to Von
> > Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
> > processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
> > engineering mistake at the same time.  
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain
> we commonly see...
> "Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by
>   von Neumann's architectures."
> "Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."
> "Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."
> (I assume you notice the dodge.)
> 
> I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we
> should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests
> and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.
> 

I don't find it interesting.

> Janis
> 
> [*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are
> attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and
> interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,
> competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);
> there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11658

Am Montag000008, 08.12.2025 um 04:25 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
> On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
>>>> actually the Z1 of 1937.
>>>
>>> Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
>>> the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
>>>
>>
> 
> An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain
> we commonly see...
> "Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by
>   von Neumann's architectures."
> "Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."
> "Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."
> (I assume you notice the dodge.)
> 
> I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we
> should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests
> and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.
> 
> Janis
> 
> [*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are
> attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and
> interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,
> competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);
> there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.
> 

It's a HUGE problem, because tons of almost every kind of art, music, 
invention, writing and so forth was not created by the famed person, who 
allegedly created it.

Usually you have an 'alpha', who didn't do anything at all (sing, paint, 
write or invent) and a (or occasionally many) 'beta' who did all the 
difficult work for a small amount of money.

Now the 'alpha' gets the product of a certain beta from an agent (let's 
call that 'Q') and declares it to be the own work.

Other scumbags clap their hands and write euphoric articles.

The work is copied and sold millions of times and everybody is happy.

(Well, not quite everybody is happy. But that little inconvenience could 
be accepted.)


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11695

On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 16:26:41 +0200, Michael S wrote:

> The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann
> architecture, at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning
> of the term is that program store and data memory reside in the same
> space. Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code. Which led
> to Von Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
> processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
> engineering mistake at the same time.

This is why Computer Science exists as an entirely separate field of
study from the mathematical theory of computability: because
mathematicians are primarily concerned with whether something is
merely possible, not whether it can be done efficiently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.misc

csiph-web