Talk:Antikythera mechanism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Analog computer or "Analogue computer"?

From Merriam-Webster:[1]

"The word analogue entered English from French in the 19th century and ultimately traces back to the Greek word logos, meaning "ratio." (The word analogy, which has been a part of English since the 15th century, also descends from logos.) The noun analogue is sometimes spelled analog, particularly when it refers to a chemical compound that is structurally similar to another but slightly different in composition. Adding to the confusion, there is also an adjective spelled analog, which came into use in the 20th century. The adjective can refer to something that is analogous (as in an analog organ), but it is most often used to distinguish analog electronics from digital electronics (as in an analog computer or an analog clock)." (emphasis added)

From Encyclopædia Britannica:[2], [3]

"Analog computer: any of a class of devices in which continuously variable physical quantities such as electrical potential, fluid pressure, or mechanical motion are represented in a way analogous to the corresponding quantities in the problem to be solved. The analog system is set up according to initial conditions and then allowed to change freely. Answers to the problem are obtained by measuring the variables in the analog model. See also digital computer."
"Analogue: in literature, a story for which there is a counterpart or another version in other literatures. Several of the stories in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales are versions of tales that can be found in such earlier sources as Giovanni Boccaccio’s Decameron and John Gower’s Confessio amantis. The French medieval beast fable Roman de Renart has analogues in several languages, including Flemish and German. The word is from the Greek análogon, 'to have a relationship' or 'proportional.' "

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Analogue is a perfectly acceptable spelling in UK computing. For instance, here the BCS talks of analogue computers in the 1950s. I don't see anything in your research that negates that. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The article states that it should be presented in BR-eng. It seems fairly cut and dried that the correct usage here is "analogue". This is exacly why we have the BR-Eng templates in the first place, so these kind of discussions aren't necessary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Can some actual British spelling expert contribute here? I very much suspect the quote above is a typo/mispelling. It seems unlikely that "analogue" would have morphed in American English into "analog" only for a subset of the meanings. I suspect the spellings are distinct in British english as well. I have certainly never seen "analogue" used this way it is a different word.Spitzak (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The template tells us which English variant to use on a page. It does not tell you whether individual phrases are UK English or US English.
The criteria for deciding whether a term is British English or American English is how the term is commonly used in the UK. Chaheel Riens Escape Orbit did provide one example from the early 1950s, but Chaheel Riens ignored Merriam-Webster and Encyclopædia Britannica, not even bothering to explain why he rejected those two sources.
So let's look at some statistics. We will start by looking at how a word that everyone agrees is spelled differently in the two English variants: centre/center
The above is what you see when a word is consistently spelled differently in the two English variants.
To get a feel for the limitations of this method, let's try queue/line:
The above does not demonstrate that in the UK a bunch of people waiting is a "line". It simply means that the word "line" also has another, more common meaning in both places.
So, what happens when we try analogue computer/analog computer?
Conclusion: the term "analogue computer" is less popular in the UK than "analog computer", and has been since 1967.
Let's look at some other common engineering terms.
It seems fairly cut and dried that in an engineering or computing context the correct usage is "analog" in both English variants with "analogue" being a less-used but still acceptable term in the UK. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#UK or US English here is a quote from that discussion:

"My understanding is that in the UK, the American spelling is used in computing contexts; e.g. "program" instead of "programme" but for other uses we revert to the traditional British spelling. So in this case, "analog computer" but in another context, "the human hand is the analogue of a cat's paw". Our English in computing article is silent on the issue however." -- Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, the sources for this article consistently use "analog computer". --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, if you're going to cast aspersions, please at least toss them in the right direction. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The OED lists 'analogue' as the normal spelling for both the noun and the adjective, and refers to 'analog' as being 'chiefly US'. https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/7029. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The the page at [ https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/7029 ] says:
b. Of technologies, media, etc.: making use of analogue computers or devices; involving analogue signals or data. Also: of or relating to such technologies or media.
1947 Electronic Engin. 19 178/1 Electrical analogue computing.
1959 Instruments & Control Syst. 32 384/1 Direct analog recording is the familiar process used in the recording of speech and music.
1978 Aviation Week & Space Technol. (Nexis) 25 Sept. 58 Economics..convinced Boeing to stick with analog technology rather than switch to digital.
1981 N.Y. Mag. 23 Mar. 13/1 The first movement on the album..was recorded in 1978 by the conventional analog techniques.
1987 S. Brand Media Lab i. ii. 18 Telephones, radio, TV, and recorded music began their lives as analog media.
2007 Independent 23 Nov. (Extra section) 4/5 Analogue television will shortly be another casualty of paradigm shift.
Four out of the six OED examples used analog.
There are many examples of UK engineering using the same words as US engineering. www.dailywritingtips.com/get-with-the-programme says:
What is difference between program and Programme? The basic difference is between different languages: American English always uses program. British English uses programme unless referring to computers."
and https://academiccomputing.wordpress.com/2014/12/11/how-to-spell-program/ says
This word is spelled “program” in the US, and “programme” in the UK: one OED example usage is “The dance programme featured four works”. Fine. However, the word program also has a special meaning in our domain: a computer program, which is programmed by programmers. Over to OED again:
Noun: A series of coded instructions and definitions which when fed into a computer automatically directs its operation in performing a particular task.
Verb: To write a computer program.
Let’s be clear: this sense of the word is now spelt program, not programme, even in the UK. Even the OED admits it (in its definition of the verb above, and the note on the noun: “Now usu. in form program”)."
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding those four OED examples using "analog": Instruments & Control Systems is a journal published in Pennsylvania. Aviation Week & Space Technology is an American magazine. New York (magazine) is an American publication. Stewart Brand is an American writer, and the MIT Media Lab is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is no surprise that they all use American English. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, he left out the first two cases, 'analogue computers' and 'analogue signals', so it's 4/8 and the dictionary entry explicitly says 'chiefly U.S.'. Let's not argue with the source. I have no strong preference either way, but I get the impression Guy Macon is inventing a distinction that doesn't exist. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, aren't you indulging in synthesis somewhat? Just because the UK now uses the spelling "program" instead of "programme" it doesn't automatically equate that we also use "analog" instead of "analogue"? You seem to be placing a lot of weight and emphasis on a word that isn't actually the one we're discussing?
PS - still waiting for the correction. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
CORRECTION: I previously stated the "Chaheel Riens did provide one example from the early 1950s". That was an error. Escape Orbit provided an example from the early 1950s. Chaheel Riens has provide zero examples. I regret the error and apologize for any distress my careless mistake caused.
When dealing with someone who refuses to even address the claim that you can't apply the overall rules for British English to engineering and computing, examples where British English uses different rules for various words used in computing are relevant. Also relevant: the documentation I provided above showing that the term "analogue computer" is less popular in the UK than "analog computer", and has been since 1967. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
No distress caused, it just lessens your case when careless errors are made and not corrected, especially when they've been pointed out. It's a little off to state that I provided zero examples - I did point out that the article has been specifically tagged with the BR-Eng template, and now that I look - it happened back in June 2016 (although there has been a DMY tag since a year prior to that as well) and one of the changes to make the article consistent was the change from "analog" to "analogue".[4]. Let's not count the attempt by Guy to remove the BR-Eng template here with what could be construed as a misleading edit summary of "Re: Analog vs. Analogue, the greek work is αναλογικό, which transliterates to analogikó". BR-Eng is applicable here, and don't feel the need to demonstrate, primarily now because you've done a sterling job of that yourself - all your examples have been either American, or have qualified their usage with phrases along the lines of "US Usage" etc.
Also, just as an aside, I've reverted the article back to the - admittedly slightly confusing - original which contains "analog" in the short description and "analogue" in the article. I'm almost embarrassed to point it out in a group of such experienced editors, but this is BRD - when things are discussed we keep the original in place, rather than the proposed version - especially when it turns out to be contended by multiple editors. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You appear to not understand what the purpose of the BR-Eng template is. It exists to notify editors that a page is written in British English. You appear to think that the purpose of the BR-Eng template is to allow you to use a phrase that is less common in British English instead of a phrase that is more common in British English. See Google Books Ngram Viewer, British English Corpus, analogue computer vs. analog computer. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at all - you just have yet to prove the "more" part. See Google Books Ngram Viewer, British English Corpus, analogue computer vs. analog computer - which gives a very different view of the term's usage, just by choosing "2009" instead of "2012". Is this a case of "lies, damn lies, and statistics"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

From [ https://books.google.com/ngrams/info ]
"Compared to the 2009 versions, the 2012 versions have more books, improved OCR, improved library and publisher metadata. The 2012 versions also don't form ngrams that cross sentence boundaries, and do form ngrams across page boundaries, unlike the 2009 versions.
With the 2012 corpora, the tokenization has improved as well, using a set of manually devised rules (except for Chinese, where a statistical system is used for segmentation). In the 2009 corpora, tokenization was based simply on whitespace."
So yes, you do get worse answers when you start with a worse Corpus. The fact remain that, using the best tool that we have available using the best Corpus we have available, "analogue computer" is less common in British English and "analog computer" is more common in British English.
Just so you know, I was taught the Queen's English as a child, and it still seems more natural to me, but I consciously use the English variant used in California where I reside. On multiple occasions I have looked at the ngrams for words in Wikipedia articles marked as British English and corrected americanisms that have crept in. It's just that this time the ngrams went the other way. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please Guy Macon, stop the google hit counting. I'm not reading your original research into spelling differences in the technology field, because it is irrelevant. "Analogue computers" is demonstrably a UK English spelling, therefore there really is no need to alter the article. Unless you want to present a case how the reader would be better served some other way??

And the example I cited is an article written in 2010. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

One example does not prove your point. If, as you claim, analogue computers is demonstrably a UK English spelling. why can't you demonstrate it? The best method we know of is to check ngrams. Do you have a better method? If so, please explain your method in detail. The worst method is "the unsourced personal opinion of an individual Wikipedia editor" --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

One example does indeed prove my point. Unless you are saying the BCS mis-spelled a word very much in their specialist field? If not, then I have demonstrated that this is acceptable spelling, which is all I set out to demonstrate. Do you really want me to waste everyone's time looking up dictionaries and citing them? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can we short-circuit this discussion a little? The first arguable distinction was made with the edit of 23 September 2002 by an IP resident in bucolic Shropshire. Shortly afterwards (s)he edited our article analog computer. The next edit of note was the following day, introducing the word "artifact", perfectly acceptable in British English although "artefact" is preferred. As a matter of historical interest, the contributor (who probably lives in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire), was approved for adminship without requesting it after fifty words of discussion. The point about "analog" is that it wikilinks to the article spelled thus; no conclusions can be drawn from the spelling.
Next of note is the edit of 8 January, 2005 introducing the word "analyzed", from an IP resident in the mysterious geolocation centre of 38° N, 98° W. We have consensus that the article is written in British English, and I see no reason to edit war over the spellings introduced by British contributors. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:C00D:B72D:851B:45CF (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
...until someone tries to use a phrase that we can prove is less common in British English and reject a phrase that we can prove is more common in British English. We have a simple rule here on Wikipedia: Articles written in British English should use the spelling and grammar that is most common in British English. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
And you have not done this. All you've done is counted hits on google ngram, which are at best inconclusive. All it shows is that both terms are in decline (unsuprisingly). Also, no-one has 'tried' to use this spelling. It has been there for some while. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You say that my evidence is inadequate, but you have presented zero evidence at all supporting your claim. If you have a better method of determining how often a phrase is used in the UK, we would all love to see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. As a compromise, can we use both terms? One could be in brackets: "analogue computer (also analog computer)". Dr. K. 22:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, but of course the phrase most often used in British English should come first: "analog computer (also analogue computer)" Writing it that way would have the advantage of telling the reader that both terms are used in the UK. I have been reading very carefully and I have yet to see a shred of evidence that analogue computer is more commonly used. Yes, there are a few individual examples of it being used, but I can find a few individual examples of UK sources using center or color, even though the ngrams clearly show that centre and colour are far more common in the UK. What I don't' want is for anyone's personal preferences -- including mine -- to override what the sources tell us is the more commonly used phrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It would be encouraging if others agreed also. The order of the two terms could pose a problem, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Dr. K. 23:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Consensus is against the term "analog" though. Or if you don't like the term "consensus" in this context - there is definite opposition from multiple editors to its use. There is no way other editors here would agree to using "analog" as the primary term when we're doing all we can to remove it from the article completely. It's all well and good claiming one term takes precedent over another, but even Guy Macon agrees that both are BR-Eng - and there is clearly a preference to use the term "analogue". In this case consensus overrides the (so far not well proven, and pretty shaky) claim that "analog" is the favored favoured BR-Eng term and thus should be used in the article. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with the editors of this page deciding to not use the phrase most common in British English (until there is a broader consensus on the question, per WP:LOCALCON). I have no problem if the editors of this page decide to call it an informatique or a mahh'shev if that's how the local consensus decides to mangle the English Language. I will however, repeat that what you have decided to do here is not British English, and I reject the absurd claim that I somehow agreed that the term used less is also British English. Having a minority of UK sources use a phrase does not make it British English. I can also find a minority of UK sources that use "center" and "color". That does not make those words British English. Yes, you do have a 4:1 4:2 consensus. Yes, I do agree with following the consensus. Just keep in mind that the consensus is based 100% on a personal preference among four editors to use the less common phrase, not on any actual evidence that the less common phrase is the correct one. Please don't confuse willingness to abide by the local consensus as agreement with it or with agreement that it is based upon a shred of evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
We'd make better progress if you'd stop ignoring or misrepresenting what others have said. I have said repeatedly, all I have demonstrated is that "analogue" is valid British English spelling. I don't have to demonstrate that it is the more common. You are the one wanting to change what has been there for some while. You are the one who must demonstrate a good reason for doing this. I'm not convinced that any of your original research, where it manages to be relevant, does this. It is obvious that both spellings are used by reliable British sources, and "analogue" is used by many sources that are UK specialists in relevant fields. So your claim that 'analogue' is "not British English" is patently incorrect, and the fact you insist in making this ridiculous claim does nothing for your case. If you are going to maintain this is your position, I suggest you start contacting the sources that are "wrong" and take it up with them.
The "analogue computer (also analog computer)" solution strikes me as needless and clutter. Does the reader needs this clarification? I doubt it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said, you can prove anything by citing individual sources and ignoring evidence of which phrase is more commonly used. For example, www.independent.co.uk uses "analog",[5] so that one example makes analog the official British spelling, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
No. It makes it a spelling, which no-one has ever said it wasn't. It is you who have decided you know better than numerous sources about how the word should be spelt. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
There is absolutely no "consensus" especially that "analogue" should be used! Don't you dare lie. I (and many others I'm sure) have been watching this nonsense and not saying anything because it seemed fruitless, but this is quickly getting REALLY stupid. In American English the words "analogue" and "analog" ARE DIFFERENT, and using the different one is very very confusing and makes everybody think it is a typo. And when in fact the one that matches is more popular in England (as has been pointed out over and over and over again yet you refuse to acknowledge it!!!) means there is absolutely no reason to use a weird spelling that is not used by any majority anywhere in the world.Spitzak (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I have corrected the above "4:1 consensus" to "4:2 consensus". It will be interesting if more editors weigh in and the consensus shifts the other way. Will the editors who believe that the less often used phrase is preferred agree to accept a consensus that they disagree with, as I have done?
BTW, it isn't just in the US that the two are different words with different meanings. The most British of computers is the BBC Micro Bit. The UK engineers who designed it wrote the documentation for it with the intent of giving away a million of them -- with the documentation included -- free to every UK year 7 student.
So, what spelling does the BBC Micro bit use in its official documentation at microbit.org? "Analog Read Pin".[6] That's because the British engineers know the rule "analogue and programme for general use, analog and program when referring to computers". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Also see: Derek P. Atherton, Control engineering and the analog computer, academic and industrial machines in Britain. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 25(3):63–67, 2005. Derek P. Atherton, BEng, PhD, DSc, CEng, FIEE, FIEEE, HonFInstMC, was professor of Control Engineering at the University of Sussex until he retired.[7] He is an authority on the spelling of "analog computer" in British English. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The IEEE Editorial Style Manual uses Webster's College Dictionary for a spelling reference, which prescribes "analog computer", presumably even for authors who may speak and write the Queen's English. Again, citing an article in an American publication is not robust evidence for British usage. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Whilst the microbit is a jolly British device, the code documentation appear to be for both Python & Javascript, which are not - both use "color" for a start. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

https://makecode.microbit.org/device/pins has nothing to do with Python or Javascript. It is pure hardware documentation. What labels do you see on pins 1, 2, and 3?
Also, the BBC Micro Bit runs MicroPython, not Python. The creator of MicroPython is Damien P. George. You can find him in his office at Centre for Mathematical Sciences on Wilberforce Road in Cambridge. Mycropython does resemble Python, which was invented by Guido van Rossum, who is, of course, Dutch.
You got you way. The consensus was with you and against me, 4:2. The page has your preferred spelling, which is the spelling less often used in British English. Don't you think it is time to drop the stick? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

lunar year

The article should be updated to take this paper into account. It proposes based on X-ray studies that the calendar ring marks are for a 354-day lunar year rather than a 365-day civil year. It is pretty interesting. Link found via this which includes this video link about the discovery, in the course of building a physical reconstruction of the original mechanism. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked on that today after I watched the Clickspring video about it. It was updated yesterday (Sunday, 13 Dec) by one of the authors of the paper. SkoreKeep (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Images from recently published UCL paper

@Joofjoof: re: your question on ITN. You can use images from the paper, as "The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.". As they're CC-BY 4.0 (unless explicitly stated), that's okay on Wikipedia according to this table, so you can upload the images right to Wikimedia Commons and then add them to the article if you wish. Uses x (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

A computer or not a computer, computer expert comment

Computer expert comment. I am a computer expert, I believe. I have been working for over 30 years in the industry. During that time I have worked with many major computer systems, from UNIX, telephony, Assembly, C/C++, to modern web/cloud technologies. Finally, I have a postgraduate degree in IT Management.

So FWIW: My opinion is that the Antikythera mechanism fills the definition of a computer clearly; I hope that my perspective will be useful to this conversation. The fact that people think about laptops when referring to computers should not be used as a valid reference for the definition of the term. As a Greek expert, do you take what "people" say about the Greeks for reference? Do you use a google search as a reference in your essays? Why do we do that to define computer?

So then, what is a computer? I could not find a definitive sentence in English, but I suggest understanding it as any tool that helps us work/simplify numbers/accounts.

Reason one, because that is the historical definition of the word:

  1. The word computer seems to come from the Latin "putare", which means to reduce or trim. I will let everyone check your Latin references for that.
  2. For some reason, Romans had concerns with the definition and made sure to clarify that it relates to calculating numbers/accounts; therefore, they documented that. Examples here: http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=LatinAugust2012&query=Gell.%207.5&getid=1
  3. ... and there are many other references to "computare" as related to numbers, well before electronics were invented. Help your self with your favorite source of classic Latin texts.


Reason two, because today we call computers other similar, nonelectronic machines.

  1. As taught by most Universities, and according to sources like Bromley, the first programmable computer was mechanic, more similar to the Antikythera Mechanism than to modern electronic computers. This was Charles Babbage's Analytical engine. Picture: https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co62245/babbages-analytical-engine-1834-1871-trial-model-analytical-engines (Bromley (1982) Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine, Annals of the History of Computing, Volume 4, Number 3, July 1982, Url: http://athena.union.edu/~hemmendd/Courses/cs80/an-engine.pdf)
  2. And, there are many modern examples of computers based on rotating dials, like the Antikythera mechanism. For instance, Pilots call this a computer: https://www.asa2fly.com/AirClassics-E6-B-Circular-Flight-Computer-P2136.aspx


Finally, most importantly, because a modern computer is not that different from the Antikythera Mechanism.

Allow me to explain: The primary misconception that people have about modern computers is that modern computers do their things with many complex micro hardware designed for each individual task. That is not correct, let me try to clarify by comparing the Antikythera Mechanism to the AGC, the Apollo Guidance Computer, as designed by the MIT, and used by NASA to take people to the moon.

Antikythera mechanism:

  1. Input: Apparently, just the date, by setting the sun indicator in a particular place along the Zodiac/Ecliptic ring.
  2. Processing with gears:
    1. Moon's orbit
    2. Lunar phase
    3. Metonic cycle
    4. Game dates
    5. Lunar orbit precession
    6. Exeligmos / eclipses
    7. Presumably: Orbits of all 5 known planets but corresponding pieces are lost.
  3. Output, the position and phase of the moon, position of 5 planets, eclipses, and important dates.


Apollo Guidance Computer (Refer to page 34 here: https://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/apollo/public/archive/1689.pdf )

  1. Input: Read data bus: 16 bit number (In other words, a number between 0 and 65,535).
  2. Processing
    1. Instruction set
    2. AD (add)
    3. MP (multiply)
    4. DV (divide)
    5. SU (subtract)
    6. TC (transfer control)
    7. CCS (count, compare, and skip)
    8. INDEX (adding that helps handling list of numbers )
    9. RESUME (Program control flow)
    10. XCH (exchange memory vs contents of results register)
    11. CS (clear and subtract)
    12. TS (transfer to storage results)
    13. MASK
  3. Output: Write data bus: 16 bit number


Comparison comments
The AGC is capable of a few more instructions than the Greek computer, but if we only consider the arithmetic instructions and not the control and bitwise instructions, we see that the ACG can only add, subtract, multiply, and divide, which is less and more simple. The Antikythera mechanism can do significantly more complex processing, _in one cycle_. The issue is that mechanical computers, like the Antikythera Mechanism, are very slow and complicated to change. The advantage of the ACG, and all modern computers, is that, while they perform only a few basic operations, they can do that millions of times per second and store millions of instructions in memory. But modern computers do not perform much more, or more complex, operations than the Greek machine. As incredibly as it might sound, actual modern computers and most computer languages are not capable of large numbers of different mathematical or other operations. All programs, ( facebook, netflix, all ) are made from relatively small instructions sets. The C computer language only has 32 words. Think like this, it is like Japanese, with only a few thousand characters you can express any thought or write any instructions, the speaker, or the programmer's imagination is what limits what you can do. If you want to know how the AGC's 11 instructions get you to the moon, feel free to read the code: https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/
Caveat, read this: https://medium.com/@borja/a-glimpse-into-the-apollo-guidance-computer-8ee06e5e1a5c

In conclusion, I think the Antikythera mechanism's capabilities are very respectable, just much slower. In addition, and like any computer, the actual hardware is not the important thing, but the science and research behind its programming/construction. The science behind the Greek mechanism is comparable to the science needed to program the ACG, and arguably, even more complicated. Calling the Antikythera mechanism anything other than a computer only reveals incorrect assumptions on what a computer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8280:2330:D01D:2C7E:4D5E:2615 (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas what was intended by “ Fragment D is a small quasi-circular constriction that deal titles and has”?

The Gearing section has a sentence beginning “Fragment D is a small quasi-circular constriction that deal titles and has”. What do you think “deal titles” meant, please ? Wprlh (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be unintended debris left over from this edit. May still need checking. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Antikytheta Mechanism

this is the first computer 2409:4073:4D9F:D606:F856:486F:9F59:1EE8 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

New BBC source

Another BBC video, focused on the 3D X-ray results. Not yet cited here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/reel/video/p09pcwnz/unlocking-the-secrets-of-the-world-s-oldest-computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.125.40 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Last sentence in the section Roman world (Similar devices in ancient literature)

Does the following sentence sound correct to a native speaker?

"The scientists who have reconstructed the Antikythera mechanism also agree that it was too sophisticated to have been a unique device. "

To me, it doesn't sound correct, as I think that what the article implies is that the mechanism is unique because it's too sophisticated compared to others, not the other way around. So, the sentence should read

"The scientists who have reconstructed the Antikythera mechanism also agree that it was too sophisticated not to have been a unique device. "

Does this sound correct and should I change it in the article then? I can't find the sentence in the cited sources to check if it was [SIC].

DxhaFFer (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

No. There must have been multiple devices built for them to figure out that level of complexity. Current text is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzak (talk • contribs) 13:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Gearing

In this section I am having difficulties with the sentence:

"The epicyclic Solar System of Ptolemy (c. AD 100–170)— still 300 years in the future from the apparent date of the mechanism — carried forward with more epicycles, and was more accurate predicting the positions of planets than the view of Copernicus (1473–1543), until Kepler (1571–1630) introduced the possibility that orbits are ellipses.[62]"

It isn't that I think it is wrong, just expressed confusingly. In trying to clean it up I keep running into issues with punctuation and meaning, including that I am not 100% certain what the original author had in mind by the phrase "carried forward with more epicycles"

Then the thought occurred: "As this is indeed referring to 300 years in the future, what is the sense of it here?" So could not the solution be to drop the whole sentence, which appears to be a bit of an unnecessary diversion from the subject? Any objections? CatNip48 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I may have been the author; it's been a long time. What the phrase means is that the ancients were trying to approximate what we now know as elliptical motion with their "pure" circular motion. That happens more and more accurately as the number of epicycles (that is, epicycle upon epicycles) imposed on the motion is increased. As with numerical integration, the step size, when reduced, makes for more steps and better accuracy. Copernicus' calculations did not improve the accuracy, though it made the computations easier. It wasn't until Kepler decreed ellipses that epicycles as approximations were finally abandoned. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curtis Buxton, Jgabe, Bactx9. Peer reviewers: Cole Phinney.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Gearing and Model sections are hard to follow

The gearing section uses 3 or more systems of names for the gears: "x, b, r, n..." "sun3, ven2..." and "A1, B1, B2..." Almost none of those gears have the number of teeth listed so there is no way to translate between the 3 naming conventions or to verify the math. It seems like this could be solved with a single table of gears, names, and teeth, like in my link below.

Then the models section uses at least 6 different names for the 3 models, which is confusing. It then refers to them in a different order in different sections, adding to the confusion -- the first image is of the 3rd model, then it discussed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, then starts with the 3rd in the next section. It mentions one was the first to use a certain gear, which is not mentioned either way in the others. Accuracy is given for one model but not the other 2. By my count, the 1st mentioned/3rd model graphic is missing 3 gears: I2 (53T), R1 (63T) aren't used, and Q1/Q is listed as 60T when it's really 20T according to https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7119/extref/nature05357-s1.pdf

They should at least be discussed in the same order, or even better, split that into 3 sections for the 3 models, each with a subsection on front and rear plate design, gears, gear layout, accuracy, etc. Personally I think that would be much easier to follow than scrolling up and down hunting for info.

I will try to correct some of it in the future, and double check the math, but I'm still hunting down reliable information on the gearing.--Skintigh (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antikythera_mechanism/Archive_5&oldid=1163457785"