Talk:Alan Turing
|
|
| Missing image Key-crypto-sideways.png WikiProject on Cryptography | This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Alan Turing]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Turing/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Turing/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
An event mentioned in this article is a May 28 selected anniversary.
I'm curious, was the crime Turing was convicted of actually called "homosexuality," or was it called "gross indecency and sexual perversion"? -- Janet Davis
The crime was "gross indecency and sexual perversion." -- The Cunctator
The MacTutor biography linked in the article mentions blackmail as reason for his going to the police. Is there a reference to a more precise biography on the web? --AxelBoldt
For precision and accuracy, go to www.turing.org.uk, Andrew Hodges' site. Unfortunately, he doesn't really discuss the trial in detail on the site, leaving the complicated story for his definitive book, Alan Turing: the Enigma. Suffice it to say there was an element of threatened blackmail, but it wasn't really about revealing that Turing was gay, and didn't really figure into the course of events. Basically, once the police got involved in Alan Turing's affairs (so to speak) for reasons that had little to nothing to do with homosexuality, they quickly discovered his homosexuality (he told them) and arrested him for it. The MacTutor biography has a lot of misleadingness. We should email Andrew Hodges (andrew@synth.co.uk) to see if he's willing to contribute his encyclopedic entry ([1] (http://www.turing.org.uk/publications/routledge.html)) to here or Nupedia. -- The Cunctator
- Good suggestion to contact Andrew Hodges. I had a go and his response was, reasonably enough: "No, sorry, I'm not going to get into trying to correct it. I've done my bit, what with producing my book and the website! This is free for anyone to use and cite. By all means put in a link to the Routledge essay I wrote, though." He also mentioned some specific errors of fact. I'll have a go at correcting these. -- Uncle Bill 19:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I hate to admit this, but I had to look up 'larceny' in the dictionary. Is that really a conventional word? -- JanHidders
- Larceny is a form of theft, where property is taken unlawfully. The distinction between larceny and burglary is that in larceny the perpetrator does have lawful access to the property, but no lawful right to remove it (burglary involved an act of trespass as well as theft). Police officers are authorised to confiscate the possessions of people they have arrested, but must keep them in a specific location and return all the possessions when incarceration ends (unless a court orders otherwise). Keeping any of the possessions constitutes larceny. Embezzlement dffers in that the perpetrator has the right to remove the property for specific purposes, but removes the property for some other, unauthorised purpose. Larceny is a standard term in criminal law.
"he proved that there was no solution to the Entscheidungsproblem, also known in computer science as the halting problem." That's not true. While any instance of the halting problem can be transformed into the Entscheidungsproblem, that makes the halting problem a "subset", if you like, of the Entscheidungsproblem rather than its equivalent (Robert Merkel <rgmerk at mira dot net>)
Well, the "also known in cs as the halting problem" is oversimplified, I agree. However, it is true that Turing showed that the Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable by reducing it to the Halting problem, so in a sense the two problems are equivalent. --AxelBoldt
Where's the debate about his death? Anything other than suicide is terribly improbable. --The Cunctator
- The cause of his death was debated from the beginning. Claiming it was "almost certainly" suicide is not a NPOV. NPOV now reflects both attributed causes of death.
The only ones who doubted that it was suicide at the time were his mother and others close to him who didn't want to believe it. It was ruled a suicide by the coroner, and very few objective people have any reason to doubt that. --LDC
- "others close to him", in other words those best in the position to know his motivations? Homosexuality was seen as a negative attribute by the government at that time. The coroners report may have taken an easy out i.e. "oh, he was homosexual, it must have been suicide".
No, the coroner ruled it a suicide because he was found holding a half-eaten apple that was pretty clearly coated with a significant amount of cyanide that couldn't reasonably have been accidental. He was also known to be very depressed about the prosecution and the hormone treatments. And no, I don't think close friends are the best source of info here--suicide is also frowned upon, and some people just don't want to believe the obvious. At any rate, I don't have any problem with the article mentioning that some people doubt the suicide, as long as its clear that the vast majority accept it uncontroversially. --LDC
- No individual on Wikipedia can presume to speak for the "vast majority" regarding an issue which is in dispute.
For God's sake, have you even tried to look up the issue on various sources? I did--most encycopedias simply report it as a suicide without even the slightest mention of controversy. The Turing site itself at turing.org.uk (http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/bio/part7.html) says exactly this:
- "He was found by his cleaner when she came in on 8 June 1954. He had died the day before of cyanide poisoning, a half-eaten apple beside his bed. His mother believed he had accidentally ingested cyanide from his fingers after an amateur chemistry experiment, but it is more credible that he had successfully contrived his death to allow her alone to believe this. The coroner's verdict was suicide."
Before you accuse someone of not knowing what the majority opinion on an issue is, you might first look to see if you know what the hell you're talking about.
- The award is frequently referred to as the "Nobel Prize for computer science".
Oh, yeah? How frequent? --Uncle Ed 19:54, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- As a computer engineer, I can tell you first hand - it is called that very, very often. Raul654 15:03, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Just curious, the article claims that Turing designed the bombe, but I was under the impression that he modified and improved Marian Rejewski's design, because the Biuro Szyfrow handed those blueprints over to British intelligence before Poland was invaded. Splitting hairs perhaps, but in any case.. --tracer_bullet 18:21, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
- I think you're right, TB, and I checked with the Hodges biography. I modified the article accordingly. --Heron 20:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Later... On the other hand, our article on the Bombe says that the Polish version was called the Bomba. Andrew Hodges seems to have missed this distinction. So we are right to say that Turing invented the bombe, but we should at least point out that it was based on the bomba. --Heron 12:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I think we may have worded this a bit too strongly. The British bombe was not really a modified and improved Polish bomba. They certainly had superficial similarities (the name, the fact that they tried every starting point for the rotors, and that they were electro-mechanical machines used for breaking Enigma) but the interesting stuff — the cryptanalytic attack — was very different. To quote from a journal article which discusses and compares the two machines, "The Polish bombe did not anticipate those key features which made the British bombe's design unique and highly effective. It is possible that the Polish machine was a starting point for the innovative thinking that led to the British bombe, but we shall never know." (Donald Davies, "The Bombe — a Remarkable Logic Machine", Cryptologia, 23(2), April 1999). We currently say, "[the bombe]...was an improved version of the Polish-designed bomba"; I think we would be safer if we simply said, "[the bombe]...which may have been inspired by the Polish-designed bomba". — Matt 14:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it was more than just an upgrade. I have changed the wording a bit, but I didn't say "may have been", since that could be taken to mean that the British might not have known about the bomba. --Heron 15:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying this guys. I think it's really remarkable that one of the greatest war heroes of WWII was this total geek who never even got proper credit for it.--tracer_bullet 15:22, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Photos and copyright
Hodges' has some notes on the copyright of various Turing photos:
(scroll down to the "Photographs of Turing" section).
We need to present a strong Fair use case for the Turing portraits because "You will find that these portraits have frequently been reproduced on the Web, but the copyright of them belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, London, which requires payment of a substantial fee for website use.". — Matt Crypto 01:30, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I deleted the photo belong to the National Portrait Gallery, and substituted it for one on the Hodges cite, which he says has no copyright. I also added the one of him running. If anyone doesn't like them, feel free to change them back. Slim 02:16, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think we're better off with these images. Even if Hodges is incorrect about there being no copyright on them, we'd have a much stronger Fair use case, particularly because of factor 4: "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." — Matt Crypto 12:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Spencer, I saw you'd changed "honour" to "honor" in the first paragraph. I changed it back, as I believe there are British spellings throughout, and also because this is about a British scientist and the work he did in Britain, so American/Canadian spelling seems a little out of place. Best, Slim 02:47, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Do unsubstantiated rumors belong in an encyclopedia?
- It is rumored the old Apple logo of the rainbow apple with a bite out of it was a homage to Turing.
Can we substantiate this at all? If we can't, shouldn't it be removed? -- Beland 03:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Do you mean can we substantiate it as a fact, or as a rumor? It certainly is a story, but I've never seen any evidence to support it. I like it in the article, so long as we make it clear it is just a rumor. SlimVirgin 04:34, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Viriditas. ;-) SlimVirgin 04:57, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- It's quite a fun rumour, so I'd vote to keep it, for now. If the article ever expands a great deal, we might consider chopping it out, as it's something of a trivial datum ;-) — Matt Crypto 14:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand the relevance of this edit: "This seems to be an urban legend as the Apple logo was designed in 1976, two years before Gilbert Baker's rainbow pride flag." Turing died in 1954, so the logo's having been designed in 1976 is neither here nor there. Or perhaps I'm missing something. SlimVirgin 06:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
- The way that I understand it, Gilbert Baker's rainbow pride flag wasn't unveiled in public until 1978, so the association of the "rainbow" portion of Apple's 1976 logo with Turing's sexual orientation is moot. But what about the association with Turing's suicide? It seems to be an interesting coincidence.
- Check out this site from an alleged insider: Rob Janoff designed it -- an Apple with a bite out of it, indicating the acquisition of knowledge. Originally, the apple logo was to be simple, but the Apple II's advantage at the time was color output, so Jobs argued the logo should have colors, and, of course, Jobs won. He ended up actually specifying several of the colors of the logo.[2] (http://www.kelleyad.com/Histry.htm)
- Also see this interview with Janoff: There's a little bit of a pun in the way that the shape is designed. The bite that is taken out of it. It’s not only the silouhette of an apple, (you couldn’t take a bite like that out of any other piece of fruit shaped that way) but byte is also a computer term. So from the beginning really, I think that what computer people responded to, was the little double meaning there, in the shape.[3] (http://www.jacques-moury-beauchamp.com/moury/beauchamp/SIGNEDAMERICA/pages/JANOFFUS.html) --Viriditas | Talk 07:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Typo?
- is this a typo? "he must aimed at becoming educated" -- anon (moved from Todo list)
==Mentioning Polish aspects==
- Moved from To-do list — Matt Crypto 11:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would like to discuss with Matt Crypto his deletion of my reference to Polish priority in "breaking" the Enigma code. This article, in its present state, gives a wrong (yes, wrong) impression that it was all done by Turing and other people from Blechley park. Which is historically untrue. The article makes multiple references to other people that participated in the development, but never mentions the Polish scientists.
With all due respect and recognition, math is not a British monopoly, and Enigma was not broken by Turing or any other British scientist.
And if the article is, as Matt Crypto stresses, is all about Turing, then the reasons for including British mathematicians are not more valid than those for including Polish mathematicians.
My email is vpatryshev@yahoo.com
- Enigma wasn't broken solely by Poles — there were 1000s of people who worked on breaking Enigma, Poles, Brits, French and Americans. We can't mention everybody, and the Polish work is amply discussed in other articles. In an article on Alan Turing, we should just focus on Alan Turing. I don't believe we imply that Enigma codebreaking was a British/AMT monopoly in any way; we just describe his contribution, and that's it. The reason we mention Welchman and Keen is that they were Turing's colleagues who worked with him to design and build the bombe. — Matt Crypto 11:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Fully supporting this. As for "math is not a British monopoly", well no, but "maths" may be! ;) violet/riga (t) 11:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Enigma wasn't broken solely by Poles — there were 1000s of people who worked on breaking Enigma, Poles, Brits, French and Americans." - perfect. Let's have this kind of statement in the article. Enigma was not broken solely by Turing, by Brits (I never heard of any American input), but by an internatinal team. While probably too idealistic and politically correct, it would still be more fair. Statements like "He contributed several mathematical insights into breaking both the Enigma machine" give a wrong impression that Enigma was not cracked before Turing started working on it. Polish Bomba (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba_%28cryptography%29) was sucessfully working in 1938.
- I don't think so, personally — even if I knew nothing about a subject, if I read that someone "contributed insights" into something, I wouldn't think that nobody else had ever worked on it. — Matt Crypto 10:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any ideas, by the way, why Turing is not even mentioned in "Bomba" and "Enigma" articles? Could we, at least partially, find a common ground here? Please excuse me, but this kind of defense reminds me the small patriotisms flourishing in Estonia, Turmenistan, and the like. Turing was a great scientist, and Britain is a great coutnry, and neither of these two deserves this doubtful kind of protection.
- I think the reason Turing isn't mentioned in the Bomba and Enigma machine articles is that he would be a little off-topic (in the same way that Rejewski et al would be off-topic in this article). The Enigma machine article discusses the operation and history of the machine itself, in which Turing doesn't feature at all. He does, of course, get a mention in Cryptanalysis of the Enigma. I don't think this is "small patriotisms" here, just keeping on-topic. — Matt Crypto 10:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Was Turing a war hero?
The article needs to be clear about the status of Turing as a war hero. One contributor regards the term as POV whilst another states that such an attribution doesn't belong in an encyclopędia. I doubt either of these views is correct. The lack of official recognition should not prevent an objective historical assessment. Turing did not receive any recognition during his lifetime since his work was classified. Nor was there any posthumous recognition given the unfortunate circumstances surrounding his death. Were it not for breaking the Enigma code, the war would have continued for longer with all the consequent death and destruction. Were it not for Turing, the Enigma code would not have been broken so early and so consistently thereafter. This counterfactual assessment may be debated and other names may be credited. The question remains how to recognise not only someone's intellectual but also their moral worth. Turing did not seek recognition but he certainly deserves it. The ironic aspect of this is that the Turing name is used to reward others but the man himself was not rewarded.
- Well, the way I see it is that whether Turing qualifies as a "hero" or not is essentially a subjective judgement, and not an objective fact. The best we can do on Wikipedia is record other people's opinions of Turing — we cannot and should not try to judge whether he "deserves it" or not. And ultimately, we don't need to tell people he's a war hero. It should suffice that they can read what he did during WWII; people can draw their own conclusions. — Matt Crypto 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)