Magazine: Review
Turing's Enduring Importance
The path computing has taken wasn't inevitable. Even today's machines rely on a seminal insight from the scientist who cracked Nazi Germany's codes.
- Wednesday, February 8, 2012
- By Simson Garfinkel
When Alan Turing was born 100 years ago, on June 23, 1912, a computer was not a thing—it was a person. Computers, most of whom were women, were hired to perform repetitive calculations for hours on end. The practice dated back to the 1750s, when Alexis-Claude Clairaut recruited two fellow astronomers to help him plot the orbit of Halley's comet. Clairaut's approach was to slice time into segments and, using Newton's laws, calculate the changes to the comet's position as it passed Jupiter and Saturn. The team worked for five months, repeating the process again and again as they slowly plotted the course of the celestial bodies.
Today we call this process dynamic simulation; Clairaut's contemporaries called it an abomination. They desired a science of fundamental laws and beautiful equations, not tables and tables of numbers. Still, his team made a close prediction of the perihelion of Halley's comet. Over the following century and a half, computational methods came to dominate astronomy and engineering.
By the time Turing entered King's College in 1931, human computers had been employed for a wide variety of purposes—and often they were assisted by calculating machines. Punch cards were used to control looms and tabulate the results of the American census. Telephone calls were switched using numbers dialed on a ring and interpreted by series of 10-step relays. Cash registers were ubiquitous. A "millionaire" was not just a very rich person—it was also a mechanical calculator that could multiply and divide with astonishing speed.
All these machines were fundamentally limited. They weren't just slower, less reliable, and dramatically poorer in memory than today's computers. Crucially, the calculating and switching machines of the 1930s—and those that would be introduced for many years to come—were each built for a specific purpose. Some of the machines could perform manipulations with math, some could even follow a changeable sequence of instructions, but each machine had a finite repertoire of useful operations. The machines were not general-purpose. They were not programmable.
Meanwhile, mathematics was in trouble.
In the early 1920s the great German mathematician David Hilbert had proposed formalizing all of mathematics in terms of a small number of axioms and a set of consistent proofs. Hilbert envisioned a technique that could be used to validate arbitrary mathematical statements—to take a statement such as "x + y = 3 and x – y = 3" and determine whether it was true or false. This technique wouldn't rely on insight or inspiration on the part of the mathematician; it had to be repeatable, teachable, and straightforward enough to be followed by a computer (in Hilbert's sense of the word). Such a statement-proving system would be powerful stuff indeed, for many aspects of the physical world can readily be described as a set of equations. If one were able to apply a repeatable procedure to find out whether a mathematical statement was true or false, then fundamental truths about physics, chemistry, biology—even human society—would be discoverable not through experiments in the lab but by mathematicians at a blackboard.
But in 1931, an Austrian logician named Kurt Gödel presented his devastating incompleteness theorem. It showed that for any useful system of mathematics, it is possible to create statements that are true but cannot be proved. Then came Turing, who drove the final stake through Hilbert's project—and in so doing, set the path for the future of computing.
As Turing showed, the issue is not just that some mathematical statements are unprovable; in fact, no method can be devised that can determine in all cases whether a given statement is provable or not. That is, any statement on the blackboard might be true, might be false, might be unprovable ... and it is frequently impossible to determine which. Math was fundamentally limited—not by the human mind but by the nature of math itself.
The brilliant, astonishing thing was the way Turing went about his proof. He invented a logical formalism that described how a human computer, taught to follow a complex set of mathematical operations, would actually carry them out. Turing didn't understand how human memory worked, so he modeled it as a long tape that could move back and forth and on which symbols could be written, erased, and read. He didn't know how human learning worked, so he modeled it as a set of rules that the human would follow depending on the symbol currently before her and some kind of internal "state of mind." Turing described the process in such exact detail that ultimately, a human computer wasn't even needed to execute it—a machine could do it instead. Turing called this theoretical entity the "automatic machine" or a-machine; today we call it a Turing machine.
In a 1936 paper, Turing proved that the a-machine could solve any computing problem capable of being described as a sequence of mathematical steps. What's more, he showed that one a-machine could simulate another a-machine. What gave the a-machine this power was that its tape could store both data and instructions. In the words of science historian George Dyson, the tape held both "numbers that mean things" and "numbers that do things."
Turing's work was transformative. It made clear to the designers of early electronic computers that calculating machines didn't need a huge inventory of fancy instructions or operations—all they needed were a few registers that were always available (the "state of mind") and a memory store that could hold both data and code. The designers could proceed in the mathematical certainty that the machines they were building would be capable of solving any problem the humans could program.
These insights provided the mathematical formulation for today's digital computers, though it was John von Neumann who took up Turing's ideas and is credited with the machines' design. Von Neumann's design had a central core that fetched both instructions and data from memory, performed mathematical operations, stored the results, and then repeated. The machine could also query the contents of multiple locations in memory as necessary. What we now call the von Neumann architecture is at the heart of every microprocessor and mainframe on the planet. It is dramatically more efficient than the a-machine, but mathematically, it's the same.
Incidentally, this essential feature of computers helps explain why cybersecurity is one of the most troubling problems of the modern age. For one thing, Turing showed that all a-machines are equivalent to one another, which is what makes it possible for an attacker to take over a target computer and make it run a program of the attacker's choosing. Also, because it's not always possible to discern what can be proved, a Turing machine cannot—no matter how much memory, speed, or time it has—evaluate another Turing machine's design and reliably determine whether or not the second machine, upon being given some input, will ever finish its computations. This makes perfect virus detection impossible. It's impossible for a program to evaluate a previously unseen piece of software and determine whether it is malicious without actually running it. The program might be benign. Or it may run for years before it wipes the user's files. There is no way to know for sure without running the program.
In 1938 Turing began working with the British government and ultimately helped design a series of machines to crack the codes used by the Germans in World War II. The best source for that story is Andrew Hodges's biography Alan Turing: The Enigma. Unfortunately, some details about Turing's wartime work were not declassified until 2000, 17 years after Hodges's book (and nearly 50 years after Turing committed suicide). As a result, his full contributions have not been well told.
Many histories of computing give the impression that it was a straightforward set of engineering decisions to use punch cards, then relays, then tubes, and finally transistors to build computing machines. But it wasn't. General-purpose machines required Turing's fundamental insight that data and code can be represented the same way. And keep in mind that all of today's computers were developed with the help of slower computers, which in turn were designed with slower computers still. If Turing had not made his discovery when he did, the computer revolution might have been delayed by decades.
TR contributing editor Simson L. Garfinkel is an associate professor of Computer Science at the Naval Postgraduate School. His views do not represent the official policy of the United States government or the Department of Defense.
dtutelman
117 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Except for the title, I think Soma nailed it. Points that are particularly relevant are:
* Failure to mention Babbage or Lovelace is somewhere between ignorant and deliberately revisionist.
* Engineering and Computer Science are wildly different. (I have degrees in both, so I think I can speak to this.)
Turing is undoubtedly brilliant, and has made a major contribution to computing. But the article's thesis -- that his work made computing possible decades before it otherwise would have happened -- isn't even close. (Hmmm. Maybe "drivel" wasn't such a bad title.) Given the technological evolution, the contemporary pressures (war and commerce especially), and knowledge of Babbage, Lovelace, and other more recent prior art, the early development of the computer would not have been very different. Turing may have made a difference of months (though even that is a stretch) but not years and certainly not decades.
IMHO, Turing's contribution was not in the early development of computers so much as in the understanding of what they can and can't do, and the theoretical underpinnings of these pragmatically designed machines. It wasn't until the computer was technologically "there" that those working in computing were able to appreciate Turing's conceptual model underlying the technology. Computing would have happened on substantially the same time frame in the 1940s and early '50s without Turing, but his work provided remarkable insight into what we had starting in the late '50s.
Elroch
56 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
I am a mathematician, so maybe I look at this a little differently. I see Turing as being very similar to Godel, discovering some deep truths which change the way that people see things for ever. The notion of computability and the notion of a universal computer are tremendously important and powerful ideas which Turing has to be given a great deal of credit for.
But the focus of the article is not aimed at people who are as familiar with the theoretical significance of Turing's work. His work, followed by Von Neumann's pointed the way to a sort of architecture for a general computer (central processor plus storage) which may seem utterly obvious now, but which was a radical departure from the architectures of computing machines before this time.
I can't see why anyone would wish to downplay the significance of this pivotal work by a long dead genius.
brian.bergstein
31 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Elroch, I think you've captured the essence of what we at TR meant this piece to do.
For one thing, there was no political or cultural reason we chose to write about Turing. We chose to revisit Turing's legacy because he is interesting and yet many people might not know him for more than the "Turing Test," if they know him at all; there is a new book by George Dyson, "Turing's Cathedral," about the history of computing; and this year marks the 100th anniversary of Turing's birth. All of that is what occasioned this review.
None of this also is to somehow deny that Babbage was important, or Mauchly and Eckert, or Robert Noyce or anyone else you'd want to trot out. This piece merely argues that Turing had a seminal insight. Is it arguable that his contribution accelerated the digital computing age? Yes. It is necessarily, absolutely, our assertion? Of course not -- there's no way to know how history would have otherwise unfolded. But it's a fair matter for discussion.
Brian Bergstein
Deputy Editor
kevin_neilson
12 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Soma is strident, but essentially correct. The von Neumann or Harvard architectures are obvious, inevitable designs that would have been built whether or not Turing ever came up with any theoretical basis for them.
simsong
7 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Good design is always obvious in retrospect.
The von Neumann architecture was not obvious, as it was not implemented by the other contemporaneous computing machines. That's why his "first Draft Report on the EDVAC" was so important. (http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/~mak/CS185C/EDVAC.pdf)
Mapou
357 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
I must be the black sheep of the community. Amid this renewed adoration of Turing, am I the only one who believes that the computer industry will one day vilify Turing's contributions? Other than the fact that Turing brought really nothing new to the field that Charles Babbage and Lady Ada had not thought about 100 years before (the Analytical Engine is a Turing Machine at core), it must be noted that the current parallel computing crisis is beginning to erode the cultivated saintly image of Alan Turing.
Click on the linked articles below if you are interested in knowing why the Turing cult instituted by the baby boomers in the last half of the previous century, is the cause of all the major ills that plague the computer industry. The industry is moving quickly toward a major crisis that can be linked directly to Turing's ideas of how a computer should work.
Parallel Computing: The End of the Turing Madness
Computer Scientists Created the Parallel Computing Crisis
JEBranch54
6 Comments
- 466 Days Ago
- 02/09/2012
You appear to neglect the fact that the work of Babbage and Lovelace had been essentially forgotten by the time 20th-century computing machines were being designed and built.
mattgroom
290 Comments
- 466 Days Ago
- 02/09/2012
If it was forgotton, he would not be able to tell you about it.
Ideas, float around for years without being written down. It was how the bible was written...mostly stories told and passed down long before they were penned.
The question you should ask is, was Turing aware of any previous computer research done. The answer would have to be an emphatic YES.
Infinite Connection
1 Comment
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Simson:
I always read your posts with relish. I read this one with relish AND ketchup -- and learned things about Hilbert, Godel and Turing that I'd not known. Super good -- thank you.
pfhenshaw
5 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Turing's big contribution to evolution too
We shouldn't overlook Turing's "Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis", a quite important if less recognized contribution of a very provocative model for the mode of emergence for large scale complex systems. [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 237, No. 641. (Aug. 14, 1952), pp. 37-72.]
His logic envisioned the emergence of systemic feedbacks in static gradients, essentially undisturbed. So he envisioned it as occurring WITHOUT attributing it to "random perturbation" but to the potential for networks to appear spontaneously in undisturbed environments. You'd call them "Turing circles" for short I think.
That fits the classic quite mysterious origins of macroscopic growth systems, erupting from imperceptible seeds of organization at some smaller or faster than observable scale of organization, allowed by environments ripe for nurturing them. I think it's a very high quality alternate to the fabled indefinable "butterfly effects" for phase space used by chaos theory, in my opinion. It fits the empirical evidence far better, as well as the physics for the beginning and ending of energy transfers required by energy conservation too.
http://synapse9.com/drtheo.pdf
other stuff http://synapse9.com/signals
mattgroom
290 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
I personally think his ideas on AI were idiotic. Computers were much faster before the general purpose calculator.
It was inevitable the "von neuman design" it is the only way to do a general purpose machine. Sorry but it is. Therefore any contribution by Turing on this is worthless in the context that no one else would ever come up with it. I agree he perhaps accelerated the field by 2 years. Which wasnt made use of until after the war by the way.
Smart, gay, genius whatever you want to call him, but in the same league as Newton, Einstein no. He was just a good mathematician that is all.
Again you can see how stupid he is by looking at his ideas on AI.
driwatson
1 Comment
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Great summary of Turing Legacy
True computers would have been invented without Turing (e.g., Konrad Zuse's independent work in Germany), but Turing laid down a strong theoretical grounding for the computer, which other engineers didn't do.
But, Turing wasn't just a theoretician he became a talented electrical engineer and recent documents show he was much more hands on with the design and build of the ACE computer than was originally thought and we was a keen programmer. Add this to his pioneering work on machine intelligence and bio-informatics and you already have a man, many times our equal, before you even consider his code-breaking work at Bletchley Park during WWII.
I've recently written a book about Turing's legacy called, The Universal Machine
andrewppp
8 Comments
- 466 Days Ago
- 02/09/2012
It's about fundamental contributions
And as such a contributor, Turing shines like a beacon in the dark. Not only was his work of deep theoretical significance, it was superbly practical. It enabled the computer industry and it saved our backsides in WWII. And what have you done for us lately?
He would be in hog heaven if he returned today. PC's, smartphones and supercomputers. How DNA works. Being gay without guilt. He deserves it all.
robert99
1 Comment
- 466 Days Ago
- 02/09/2012
Re: It's about fundamental contributions
Turing's most important legacy — the scientific one — is going stronger than ever. An example is this week's announcement by scientists at the Scripps Research Institute in California and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology of their development of a biological computer, based on an idea first described by Turing in the 1930s.
His life was far shorter than those of Newton or Einstein and much was kept top secret past WW2 and into the cold war period. What his WW2 work did show to Governments is that their very national security depended on vital support of the rapid advance of computing. Indirectly, that vital stimulus alone deserves some accolade.
Even after his death in 1954 his vision of what could be achieved was not apparently appreciated in the commercial computer world:
"The earliest known citation on the Internet is from 1986 on Usenet in the signature of a poster from Convex Computer Corporation as "'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943". Another early article source (May 15, 1985) is a column by Neil Morgan, a San Diego Evening Tribune writer who wrote: "Forrest Shumway, chairman of The Signal Cos., doesn't make predictions. His role model is Tom Watson, then IBM chairman, who said in 1958: 'I think there is a world market for about five computers.'"
S0ma
90 Comments
- 465 Days Ago
- 02/10/2012
Re: It's about fundamental contributions
i was arguing the OPINION of the author of THIS
article. NOT the credentials, influence and/or
relative genius of Turing.
deification often leads to blindness; in this
case, you have completely ignored the context
of this particular conversation.
youve won the straw man argument as comments
of this type are wont to do...
your statement about him "deserving it all"
negates any level of credibility you might
have brought to this discussion.
i get the impression you want me to take pity
on Turing; give him more than his due...
cry me a river
"superbly practical"
i had no idea you had access to infinite storage!
emc2alfa
1 Comment
blindwanderer
7 Comments
- 461 Days Ago
- 02/14/2012
Not enough Babbage in this stew
So the question all these comments left me with "How much impact has Babbage had?"
Lazy answer: Google Scholar or JSTOR search by decade published.
JSTOR:
1791 - 1871/09 (life) - 230 results
1871/10 - 1879 - 26
1880 - 1889 - 30
1890 - 1899 - 25
1900 - 1909 - 19
1910 - 1919 - 22
1920 - 1929 - 41 (about 10 have nothing to do with Babbage)
1930 - 1939 - 44
1940 - 1949 - 61
1950 - 1959 - 77
1960 - 1969 - 189
1970 - 1979 - 259
1980 - 1989 - 553
1990 - 1999 - 581
2000 - 2010 - 432
Observations by decade: (with a quick look at the free articles)
AO - Accidental occurrence of "Charles" and "Babbage" in the same document.
SS - Statistical Society of London - founding member.
ND - Name Dropping / passing reference.
EV - Evolution - 9th Bridgewater treatises
TT - Tectonics (mostly ND)
CO - Contemporary / Friend
LA - Manufacturing & Labor (Economy of Machinery)
BA - Brain (in alcohol)
OB - Obituary
AE - Analytical Engine (not calculating engine or machine or mechanism)
MA - Numbers, Calculus, Statistics
DE - Difference Engine
NF - No free titles to view to gather more information.
BI - Biography
DC - (Digital) Computers
1870s - ND, AO, 12 are SS
1880s - ND, AO, EV, CO, TT, OB, 6 are SS (Scientific Celebrity - British mathematicians)
1890s - ND, AO, SS, LA, TT (popular), EV
1900s - AO, BA, LA, TT, OB, AE
1910s - TT, SS, LA, AO, OB, ND (In the Top 10 British Physicists)
1920s - LA, TT, MA, SS
1930s - DE, SS, LA, MA, NF, BI
1940s - DE, BI, LA, SS, NF
1950s - DE, TT, MA, LA, DC
1960s - Not going to bother.
Some quick observations: During the first 50 years after his death, his major contribution in literature was in Tectonics and Labor/Manufacturing. The 9th Bridgewater treatises gets regular mention but less than both of the preceding. His involvement in the Statistical Society of London is mostly down played. His work in mathematics only being appreciated later 20s and into the 30s. Articles on computers as we think of them only started appearing in the 50s.
I'll write more when I have time. Would just be easier to write a program to do this.




S0ma
90 Comments
drivel
your " apologist's " tone is quite obvious to me.
Turing's work is substantial, influential and
masterful. but im not going to act for one
moment with the sentiment of 'had it not been for Turing...'
[in the guise of one Charles Babbage]
that 'modern computing would not have been inevitable.'
there is this growing mentality that due his
having been treated atrociously by the British
government that he deserves to be elevated to
the echelons of Newton or Leibniz. Two men for
whom you can actually make the statement;
'had it not been for [insert brilliant person]...'
delayed by decades... really? as if he were the
only intelligent person in mathematics during
the WWII era... one need only consider that
during that same era, the manhattan project
went from paper concept to proof of engineering
in four years, ending inevitably at the
devastation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
computer 'science' is perpetually becoming
an oxymoron. it started when programmers
were granted the title of engineers...
Reply
Elroch
56 Comments
Re: drivel
The title of this comment is not inappropriate.
The article itself was interesting and informative. Given that there were decades before Turing when his insights were not reached by other people, it is plausible that without his work they might have been delayed still further.
Are you sure there is no reason why you feel some irrational antipathy against Turing and computer scientists (a term which Turing's work alone justifies)?
Reply
S0ma
90 Comments
Re: drivel
in my opinion, the title is an appropriate
description of the tone of the article
[not the facts of the person the article
pertains] which really began with the
'enduring importance' inclusion; the article
fails to site any progression, technologically,
that would fit into a timeline or progression
which would counter-argue the lack of inevitability
which the writer is seemingly pushing...
where do i see the "had it not been for Robert Noyce..." articles ?
or
"the enduring importance of Dr. Sam Hurst..."
to me the article and writer wants to elevate
and deify a person as a way to abdicate the
historically villainous acts against him.
to me this gives less credence to the engineers
whose toil in research DID bring about the
computing age we enjoy now. not just speculating
'if it had not been for [person]... this -might- not have happened...'
its that type of tone that i take offense.
technology review and MIT associative writers
are wont to deify people whom i view as
seemingly influential but unworthy of obvious
adoration [e.g. steve jobs but not steve wozniak?]
additionally consider how many lives Stephanie
Kwolek has saved [indirectly]? in comparison to
her level of infamy. where is her big link
banner and article about the 'enduring
importance' of her work?
here and now, researchers are working on
break-throughs in labs which WILL [not might]
bring about new eras in computing; and most
of the world at large will never know their
names...
im loathe to put emphasis on the software side
of the genre due to my obvious bias to the
hardware side. consider the work of Bardeen,
Shockley and Brattain at Bell Labs in 1948.
then tell me why my terming this as drivel is
unfounded. programmers think theyve done
something special. meanwhile the engineers
and chemists have built nearly everything
else i consider substantial.
when true 64bit computing became prevalent,
where was all the mature 64bit software?
knowingly, if 128bit computing is inevitable,
will programmers be scurrying to play catch-up
again? is coding for 128bit even on their
respective horizons... ? if one is blind to
obvious inevitability, then the answer is no.
i will stand by my assessment; programmers are
not engineers. computer science is an oxymoron...
Reply
S0ma
90 Comments
Re: drivel
"Are you sure there is no reason why you feel some irrational antipathy against Turing and computer scientists (a term which Turing's work alone justifies)?"
yes and no. at no point did i downplay
the role of Turing's work. i believe i
even used the word 'masterful'.
first, no, my first response is my basis
for my lack of empathy for computer 'scientists' because of Ada Lovelace:
where " [in] 1842 and 1843, she translated an article by Italian mathematician Luigi Menabrea on the engine, which she supplemented with a set of notes of her own. These notes contain what is considered the first computer program—that is, an algorithm encoded for processing by a machine..." [wiki]
its my view here that a cognizant person was
aware of the inevitable need for coding nearly
a century before what the article writer is
implying...
the difference here is that her work was one
of discovery [imo] and not one of progressivity
[sp?]; to Ada, the concept of a mechanical
computer did not yet exist and yet upon
learning of its existence, she instantly was
able to discern compounded solutions for this
machine to perform work and calculations.
secondly, yes. Turing's work is substantial, BUT
one that was inevitable in terms of the
progression of computing; especially with
consideration to the emergence of 'transfer
resisters' in 1947 and the research with
germanium which predates all that...
so as to say since Babbage, the hardware side
had been toiling away to progress its prowess
and Turing has a significant role in that
history computing.
so in summary, i was attacking the terms
'enduring importance' and the tone of the
article that suggested there was a lack
of inevitability and failing to reference all
the work that predated Turing.
Reply
S0ma
90 Comments
Re: drivel
and because im belligerent; arther c. clarke
was first credited with the idea of
geo-synchronous satellites for global
communication. while being a brilliant
man in his own right; one finds themselves
completely ignoring the work it took to
design the rocket, the control systems, and
the technology of the satellite itself to
perform the function of someone's idea.
i could easily postulate that bio-chemical-
based memory will be our inevitable future,
whilst denying that i know any level of
expertise in order to perpetuate that
inevitable technology. i say this due to the
idea that computing needs to eventually
mimic the human brain, which is the only
source of intelligence we have to measure [against]
Reply
S0ma
90 Comments
Re: drivel
rereading the article i see that the writer
practically [purposefully] ignores babbage's
difference engine in hopes to say that
a mechanical computer, its working components
and algorithms were non-existant. that is patently
false.
typically the style of a history-revisionist.
reminds me of physicists who dont like to
acknowledge that daVinci wrote about and
studied friction, even assigning it a coefficient
and made notes about turbulence;
but only consider him a 'great artist' and
not a scientist.
its all very laughable;
[unapologetic browbeating at this point...]
Reply
peggers
1 Comment
Turing's contribution
I associate Turing with Computational Theory, and would not "group" Turing's contribution with that of engineers or applied physicists, but rather mathematicians.
His theoretic a-machine (which assumed infinite storage) allowed thought experiments to be performed, loosely akin to Einstein's mental based experiments, that could prove / disprove computational theorems, such as NP-complete concepts. These are relevant for example when one consider how algorithms scale with input - i.e. if we double input volume, does the algorithm take twice as long, or four times?
Reply
DebraBen
1 Comment
Re: drivel
Let's be clear: nothing rivals male invention: http://goo.gl/obiC
Reply
andrewppp
8 Comments
Manhood Academy?
Nope. That rag should be entitled "Control Freakery 101". It's written by a person with profound sense of disenfranchisement. Poison.
Reply