🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:11:05 -0800, Michael LeVine
<mlevine...@redshift.com> wrote:

>On 2018-02-21 17:48:34 +0000, Gene Wirchenko said:
>
>> On 21 Feb 2018 11:13:54 GMT, maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2018-02-20, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 09:11:12 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>> <headstone255.but.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 19/02/2018 07:26, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not enough description of the state machine, though, for
>>>>> each state need to know action if 1 or 0 read, whether to
>>>>> write back 1 or 0, and next state whether 1 or 0 read.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is particularly fascinating that a Turing Machine could
>>>>> have been built with the technology available at the time
>>>>> it was first postualted (1935?)
>>>> 
>>>> I do not think that that is that notable.  The machine could have
>>>> been made back in Babbage's time.  (Too bad Babbage did not come up
>>>> with something more immediately practical.)
>> 
>>> AFAIhaveread, the problem was that it not possible to machine parts to
>>> the limits that Babbage's machines needed, at that time.
>> 
>>      I was thinking of that plus that Babbage did not get something
>> practical going.  That might have helped get mechanical computing
>> going big.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Gene Wirchenko
>
>His difference engine was built tothe same tolerance's that were 
>available in his time,
>and it worked as designed.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be1EM3gQkAY
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbQsKpq3Ak

The antikythera mechanism was built to very tight tolerances and
worked.