Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
while the mathematical or theoretical point of view is almost entirely excluded. Lav-
ington's assertion that the mathematicians took no active part in the design process
sounds plausible. However the claim of non-involvement is more complex than may,
at first, be apparent and is entirely dependent on what precisely is meant by 'active'
and 'design'. Williams' personal recollection after the event that neither he nor Kil-
burn knew the first thing about computers until 1947 when Newman and Turing ex-
plained to them how computers work [8] is prima facie evidence, coming from an
engineering source, of at least one active contribution made by the mathematicians.
Further evidence of collaboration is to be found in the contemporaneous records kept
by Jack Good, one of Newman's mathematicians, which show a free exchange of
ideas and documents passing between the engineers and the mathematicians. Good
also recalled having had a hand in the general theoretical education of the engineers.
According to Donald Michie, Newman delivered, at Manchester in the immediate
post war period, a series of lectures on computing which helped shape the understand-
ing of the engineers and constituted part of their computing education [9].
Moving outside the immediate Manchester circle, Turing and Wilkinson delivered
a series of lectures on the design of the ACE which took place at the Ministry of Sup-
ply's London Headquarters from late 1946 to early 1947. Kilburn attended these lec-
tures [10]. It is clear at least that Newman, Turing and Good were, contrary to the
impression which may have been left by Lavington, active in disseminating ideas on
computer design and in educating engineers to the point where they could engage
constructively with the problem of building a computer. The characterization of the
mathematicians as passive enthusiasts runs counter to the available evidence.
Of course, it is one thing to note that mathematicians within Manchester and more
widely were active in stimulating an interest in computing per se but quite another to
show that they had a tangible effect on the actual design of the Baby. However, there
is no reason why anyone should have ever expected mathematicians to be making that
kind of contribution. It is one of the shortcomings of Lavington's account that it sug-
gests active involvement by mathematicians in the detailed circuit design of the Man-
chester Baby is a pre-requisite for their being full partners in the project. This is, of
course, very much to see the world from the perspective of the drawing board or the
soldering iron and it is important to recognize that what counts as activity is critically
dependent on one's point of view. At Bletchley Park, Newman, along with others,
took great care to explain to Flowers and the Post Office engineers precisely what was
required of the machine which needed to be produced. This would have involved
giving an explanation of enough by way of general principle as would be needed to
enable the engineers make progress. In the case of Colossus, it would also have been
necessary to provide detailed explanation of the precise statistical techniques which
the machine was to employ and an explanation of the sort of changes in German en-
cryption techniques to which the machine might need to respond during its lifetime.
Clearly, it was only when the engineers understood exactly what was required of them
that they would have been in a position to exercise their particular professional skills.
In spite of the general direction in which the flow of information moved in this pre-
construction phase, it would be a mistake to characterize the early development of the
Colossus as involving active mathematicians and passive engineers. It would be more
accurate to think in terms of a joint endeavour involving active dialogue. The fact that
the skills of a number of different professions had to be brought to bear on the
Search WWH ::
Custom Search