
A book from Alan Turing and a mysterious piece of paper - zianwar
https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2019/08/a-book-from-alan-turing-and-a-mysterious-piece-of-paper/
======
codezero
When I was studying quantum mechanics, I quite often went to this book for a
very different perspective on a lot of the details. I found it to be
exceptionally well written and had a seemingly different approach from the
typical college or graduate level quantum mechanics textbook. We had a copy in
one of our department libraries, if you can get your hands on one, I recommend
giving it a read when you want a new perspective on an academic quantum
mechanics concept :)

I am far enough away from that part of my life, I apologize for not being able
to give a more detailed and convincing testimonial for this book.

~~~
masteranza
Indeed. Not only can one get a glance of a unique perspective of one of the
founding fathers, but also a lot of important facts not covered in many other
textbooks. One of such facts are the low heat capacities of atoms that do not
fit _any_ classical theory. This fact alone is able to kill most of the
"alternative" interpretations of quantum mechanics that the popular media
sell-off as "science" nowadays.

~~~
teilo
Where can I read more about this?

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
I believe you should be able to read about it in the aforementioned book

~~~
hcs
[https://archive.org/details/1quantumMechanicsByPamDirac](https://archive.org/details/1quantumMechanicsByPamDirac)

I don't know where to start looking, but there's the book (in the original
English) for any interested.

Edit: a better scan, of the 1st ed:
[https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.177580](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.177580)

------
helloworld
It took a while to get to, but I liked this part:

 _In modern times, the Y combinator has been made famous by the Y Combinator
startup accelerator, named that way by Paul Graham (who had been a longtime
enthusiast of functional programming and the LISP programming language—and had
written an early web store using it) because (as he once told me) “nobody
understands the Y combinator”. (Needless to say, Y Combinator is all about
avoiding having companies go to fixed points…)_

------
groundlogic
If you're in London and in any way interested in computing history, you owe it
to yourself to visit Bletchley Park. It's a fantastic day visit from London.
(About an hour away or so via the railway, as I remember it.)

There's a direct train from Paddington, iirc. UK people please fill in.

~~~
neves
What will you find at Bletchley Park?

~~~
groundlogic
[https://bletchleypark.org.uk/](https://bletchleypark.org.uk/)

An on-site museum of the WW2 Enigma code breaking activities, where they
happened. This is where Alan Turing worked. Live demonstrations of the 1940s
eras computer "bombes".

But, perhaps, most of all:

A chance to visit a historic site.. the activities there could very well have
decided the outcome of WW2.

There's also a neat live retrocomputing display of early home computers. And
it also happens to be a very lovely area to hang around in - nice buildings,
park areas, ponds etc.

~~~
neves
Well, you can see an original Enigma machine at Churchill's war room, with a
nice quiz about the facts that the allies pretended they didn't know about.
The Science Museum also has nice displays about Alan Turing work. Some time
ago they hosted the exposition Code Breaker:
[https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/what-was-
on/codebreaker](https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/what-was-on/codebreaker)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
The Science museum is a sad picture of extreme neglect and bad ideas these
days. Just about every museum I've been to in the UK does it better, whether
regional ones or national, even the smaller ones. Manchester Museum of Science
and Industry, Bletcheley, Royal Arms Leeds, etc.

Bletcheley has a far, far better discussion about Turing and his influence,
and far better displays of the Code Breaking work, along with the associated
machines.

I last went to the Science Museum about 5 years ago and all the precision
models were gone - some of which were so clever and detailed they should have
been exhibits in their own right. Just a couple of hints that they once had
extreme skill in model making are left. A good chunk of the multimedia and
electronic displays and "experiences" were dysfunctional in some way, and a
lot of the classic topics had exhibits that appeared simply worn out. The
basement "scientific art exhibition" was about 5 token exhibits in a space the
size of a football field, and a few dozen people finding somewhere quiet to
sit and eat their sandwiches. The top floor (I think) was the for children
interactive, sponsored experience. More was broken than not. The cafe with
eye-watering prices seemed the most recent and best maintained exhibit.

I was so disappointed - so were the people we took, for whose benefit we made
the trip at all. Manchester MSI is _far_ better at being a science museum
nowadays. Have to start to wonder if my extreme love of the place in the
60s-90s stems as much from nostalgia and rose-tinted specs. It's deeply sad,
and should be criminal, that it's been allowed to decline that far - it was
once a world renowned national asset.

~~~
jdietrich
I agree that many parts of the Science Museum now look neglected and shabby,
but the museum does have some truly exceptional exhibits - an original
prototype Analytical Engine, a working replica Difference Engine, an Apple I,
a Cray 1a, a Daniels Space Traveler and much more besides.

I have to admit a deep sadness at the recent closure of the old Wellcome
collection on the fourth and fifth floor; this gallery had been left largely
unchanged in several decades, but it had a powerfully evocative atmosphere. It
was nearly always empty (hence the understandable decision to close it) and
was poorly signposted from the rest of the museum, so it felt almost like
urban exploration, creeping through a once-cherished but now abandoned site.
By the passage of time, it had become a sort of meta-museum, presenting a
historical perspective on the history of medicine. The galleries have been
preserved for posterity by Google, but pictures can't really capture the
feeling of stepping into a museum that is itself a museum exhibit.

[https://artsandculture.google.com/streetview/science-
museum-...](https://artsandculture.google.com/streetview/science-museum-
level-4/wwHAkiSEwLyjtA)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I think so much of it reflects its decades as increasingly underfunded state
asset, in an era when having a state asset at all is almost unacceptable.

I imagine budget for proper replacement displays, modelling, maintenance and
restoration is far harder than it used to be... Some of those exceptionals,
both known and lesser known in storage, deserve far more than they now often
get.

> recent closure of the old Wellcome collection ... powerfully evocative
> atmosphere

Ugh. That hard to define atmosphere is the part that seems to being modernised
away, and a good part of what I increasingly miss. Whether it's too many
"clean" experiences with acres of empty space and a few exhibits spotted
around, or the changing nature of the interactive models I'm not sure.
Certainly I think a lot of the screen based stuff would be better as
interactive experience on the website than in the building, though when it's
additional to other means, it can often work.

I wish a lot more of how they managed was additive rather than replacing great
swathes with a whole new design. Most, though not all, of the new plastic and
electronic approaches seem far poorer in terms of lasting, and often less
engaging.

The parts I often enjoy most are the esoteric, failed but promising ideas, and
the day-to-day that we forgot. So I like the odd little packed displays of
thirties electricals, analogue computers,

> By the passage of time, it had become a sort of meta-museum

This is one unexplored area they could do so much more with. Beautiful teak
and brass cabinets with a perfect cutaway replica of a steam turbine or whole
power station might not be the modern way to do it, but they were lasting and
beautiful of themselves. 8 or 10 year old me couldn't leave the place until
I'd turned every handle. :)

I'm sure there's scope for a huge, and fascinating self-referential meta-
museum of presenting museum science, model making and all the other back room
activities through the ages. Include some of the long forgotten exhibits that
included the scent of machine oil, carbon electrical brushes, the metallic
bite of a little ozone and sprinkling of burnt dust - like all machinery used
to come with. Oh, and a selection of those ancient models the kids can try,
and fail, to break by winding too fast.

Maybe we need a museum of the museum - maybe that's V&A's territory. :)

I just hope that now Manchester Science and Industry are under the same group
it brings the London Science Museum _up,_ rather than Manchester down.

------
sg0
SW has a tendency to describe features of a person which I find utterly
fascinating (for eg: 'Turing used to giggle a lot', now compare that with the
somber depiction of Turing in 'The Imitation Game'). In the write up on
Ramanujam, SW mentions that he was stocky, apart from many personal tidbits.

~~~
emmelaich
You should read Andrew Hodges work "Alan Turing: The Enigma" on which "The
Imitation Game" is allegedly partly based.

The contrasts are striking.

------
piker
> But all this came to an end on June 7, 1954, when Turing suddenly died. (My
> own guess is that it was not suicide, but that’s a different story.)

Interesting tidbit there.

~~~
gcbw3
it's an openly debated topic, ranging from a simple accident to bullying by
the state and other conspiracy theories.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Death)

~~~
thebooktocome
"Bullying by the state" is not a conspiracy theory. He was actually,
objectively punished by the state in a manner that is considered cruel and
inhumane by modern standards.

~~~
gwd
I agree in principle with your objection, but I'm having trouble re-
formulating the sentence in a way which is accurate but still sounds natural:

> it's an openly debated topic, ranging from a simple accident to bullying by
> the state and conspiracy theories.

> it's an openly debated topic, ranging from a simple accident to bullying by
> the state or other kinds of conspiracy theories.

How would you say it?

~~~
thefringthing
The sentence is a train wreck to begin with. "Conspiracy theory" isn't a
potential cause of death, and these things do not really form a coherent
range. Presumably the conspiracy theories allege murder? In that case, I might
write something like: "Turing's death is still an openly debated topic, with
purported causes of death including simple accident, suicide resulting from
bullying by the state, and even murder at the hands of a conspiracy."

------
twic
If you follow the link to the obituary for Nicholas Kermack in the Eton
Chronicle, then turn to the next page, you will see that at the time it was
edited by Roger Clarke, who went on to be a film reviewer for The Independent,
and also someone called Boris Johnson.

------
MichaelMoser123
He mentioned that Cambridge switched to four digit phone numbers in 1939.
Where can one find out such things like that, where did they record and
document it as a fact? I wonder if they still had manual operators or was that
automatic switching?

the link: [1] the first automatic switch was introduced in 1922; so they had
the fascinating problem of interoperation between manual switched regions and
automatic ones. So that Oxford might have had it either way.

[1]
[https://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1912to1968/1922.ht...](https://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/1912to1968/1922.htm)

------
d--b
It's nice to be Stephen Wolfram, people call you up to give you books owned by
Alan Turing...

------
gfaure
I had no idea that Olivia Newton-John's grandfather was Max Born of the Born
interpretation...

------
Upvoter33
"My own guess is that it was not suicide, but that’s a different story." What
was this about, I wonder?

~~~
lacker
Turing was gay and knew a lot of government secrets at a time when gay people
were considered security risks and likely Communist sympathizers.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_scare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_scare)

I’m not an expert on the topic at all, but the story always seemed fishy to
me. Who kills themself by injecting an apple with poison and eating an apple?

(The JFK story also seems fishy to me because I don’t get why in the world
Jack Ruby killed Oswald)

~~~
palisade
Ruby was under the delusion that the world would forgive him for it because
everyone hated Oswald so much for having offed JFK. And, that he would be
labeled a national hero.

------
mcnichol
My goodness what an incredible journey!

------
stupidcar
A real shame that Wolfram gives credence to "handwriting analysis"
pseudoscience in what is otherwise an interesting piece.

> “The writing style is entirely different. Personality-wise, the writer of
> sample B has a quicker, more intuitive thinking style than the one of sample
> A.”

How can anybody of Wolfram's intelligence unquestioningly accept this
nonsense?

~~~
c3534l
Because handwriting analysts tell people they are an accepted branch of
psychology and there is not enough time in the day to question everything. At
some point, I heard handwriting analysis was pseudoscience, so I looked into
it and they were right. I've not looked into whether quantum physics is
pseudoscience because the people in my life who appear to be experts in the
subject tell me it's real and I don't feel like pursuing a physics degree to
tell if they're full of it. Regardless of the perception you have of yourself
as a critical thinker, for most things we accept thinds as true by default and
only flag certain suspicious things for further criticism.

~~~
knodi123
my magic 8 ball says "Insightful"

------
galonk
I know SW is famous for his arrogance/egotism, but it still kills me how he
always discusses everything in terms of Mathematica's programming language,
instead of mathematical notation or pseudo-code. It's like giving a
linguistics lecture using the made-up language you invented with your twin.

~~~
baddox
I don't think your criticism is very accurate here. Wolfram Language code
doesn't show up until the second half of the (very long) article, in the
sections where he is explaining how to represent the mathematical concepts in
the Wolfram Language. In fact, in several cases he mentions the traditional
mathematical notation and follows it with the Wolfram Language notation.
What's strange or arrogant or egotistical about this? Yes, he's the founder
and CEO of the company that created the language, but that doesn't strike me
as a problem. It's a good language for doing this sort of thing, and it's
pretty clear that he's genuinely interested in both the mathematical concepts
and how to create a programming language to represent them. This is hardly
just content marketing blogspam.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Every single piece Wolfram writes, without exception, is arrogant content
marketing blogspam. Even his books. Sometimes very clever, sometimes
interesting (though I'd find him 1,000x more interesting if say 1 article in
10 made no mention of how clever he and Mathematica are); _always_ arrogant
and self-promotional. This piece is no exception - because it's Turing I made
exception to my usual personal hard-ban on reading Wolfram. It's no exception
to the above. It is, however, interesting despite being arrogant and self-
promotional.

If you asked Stephen Wolfram what time it was, he would be arrogant and self-
promotional, and mention Mathematica at least as much as the time.

~~~
baddox
It’s definitely self-promotion, but I don’t see why this is a bad thing. He’s
clearly spent a large portion of his life developing a programming and
computing environment to handle mathematics (and other things). What is he
supposed to do? Write a blog post about something he's interested in, without
using the programming language he has intentionally developed to deal with the
things he’s interested in?

~~~
mhh__
Mathematical notation.

When in Rome, do what the Romans do. Given his previous career as a particle
physicist I doubt he has any issues with it

------
acangiano
My unpopular opinion is that Stephen Wolfram doesn't get enough credit. Yes,
he has a large ego, but he remains one of the most remarkable people in
science today.

~~~
scottlocklin
Can you state in a few lines what you think he should get more credit for?

He's an interesting guy, a good businessman, and I enjoy reading his
anecdotes, but I kinda figure he gets about the right amount of credit for his
achievements.

If you mean "new kind of science" for example -I think he got about what he
deserved on that.

~~~
tlb
You shouldn't judge the value of conjectures until you know whether they're
true or not. Right now, we have no computable model for physics. NKS
conjectures that some particular types of CA could compute our universe. If
this turns out to be true, it'll be huge.

~~~
scottlocklin
I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to judge the value of not easily testable
wacky conjectures. I don't think much of Penrose's idea that brains are
quantum gravitic computers either, and that is vastly more close to being
testable, and Penrose's achievements and track record _in actual science_ are
also vastly more impressive.

Putting that aside; computer guys seem to think "computability" is important
in physics. I don't. The strong Church Turing thesis is an ideological idea,
not a physical one. In fact, it is an ideological idea with very little
evidence in its favor either in computer science or in the world of matter.

~~~
tlb
The conjecture that our universe is isomorphic to a CA is absolutely testable.
When we find a CA that behaves just like the universe, we'll know it's true.
If we find a completely different way of computing it that doesn't map to a
CA, we'll know it's false.

Computable physics would be extremely useful. Even with coarse approximations
you can only integrate the Schrödinger equation among hundreds of particles.
So you can't do accurate computational biochemistry except maybe one small
molecule at a time.

~~~
schwurb
> If we find a completely different way of computing it that doesn't map to a
> CA, we'll know it's false.

This is wrong. You would have to additionally prove that the other thing is
the only alternative.

Also, CA is not testable in the sense that the theory of relativity is
testable. The latter makes measurable predictions that can be satisfied, the
former does not. I can imagine any model - unicorns and fairies included - and
say that is behaves like the universe. The only way to falsify my claim is to
empirically contradict one of my claims. NKS does not put forth such claims.
Not the kind you would build a new CERN for.

~~~
tlb
A CA model of physics would certainly make measurable predictions, probably
including some surprising ones that would suggest experiments to confirm them.

~~~
schwurb
Where do you take your certainess from? If even Stephen Wolfram could not
produce such predictions, then I doubt anyone else could. In all likelyhood,
it is just not a good physical model.

------
creepypeepy
Some folks here enjoy reading it but Wolfman is often out of line when putting
his comments and twists in. It also displays a creepy nature of wolfman to
want to know very personal things.

Example, recording private phone calls and releasing them to the public or
releasing those to lawyers when he feels they might serve his purpose.

Creepy and borderline dangerous. But for the average Joe all this seems to be
enjoyable.

~~~
dang
Please stop.

