🚀 go-pugleaf

maus <ma...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-02-21, JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> CITE:?
> 
> What was it for?
> 

Predicting eclipses, IIRC.

-- 
Pete