Talk:Ada Lovelace/2012/December

Named After

Possible addition to the 'named after' section - one of the University buildings on Nottingham Trent University's Clifton campus is named Ada Byron King. 80.156.44.33 (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"it"

The article states:

In one letter to Judith, she referred to Ada as “it”: “I talk to it for your satisfaction, not my own, and shall be very glad when you have it under your own.”

The questionable typographical quotation marks aside (this is such a typical "I wrote an essay for a class, and then cross-posted it to Wikipedia" sentence), it contributes nothing to the article.

It so happens that the subject of Annabella's preceding sentence is "the child". The noun "child" is of neuter gender, the third-person pronoun of which is "it". Referring to "the child" as "it" was, and is, perfectly correct English.

Given that context, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "I talk to it for your satisfaction,...." Unless, that is, one intends to vilify the mother, as the rest of the paragraph in the article does. But the implicit "Ooooh, the horrid mother referred to the child as 'it'" is just 21st century self-righteousness that simply does not apply to the 19th century. As Woolley states in the very next sentence (and look up what Dorothy Stein had to say about the "it" sentence), "for Annabella, motherhood existed only in the abstract, as a medium for expressing her virtues and justifying her actions." This is equally true for any noblewoman of the period. To some degree, it still is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.89.179 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012

In the second paragraph, the sentence "She had no relationship with her father, who separated from her mother just a month after Ada was born, and four months later he left England forever and her farther died in Greece in 1823 when she was eight." Has a typo in it.

"her farther" in that sentence should, I think, be "her father"

The sentence could be improved by removing the two works completely as they are unnecessary. Kitschweb (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that typo; I am assuming your request is Already done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012

In the article's second paragraph, there is a better way to phrase the second sentence: "She had no relationship with her father, who separated from her mother just a month after Ada was born, left England forever four months later, and died in Greece in 1823 when she was eight." Regards, Degradia (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And what is that better way? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC).

I am setting this to "answered" per the above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

First computer program

Someone should find a link to her notes. If this is the first computer program it would be very interesting to read.  — [Unsigned comment added by 38.113.183.93 (talk • contribs).] 14:16, 9 March 2010

Here's a link to a copy of the 1843 program which calculates Bernoulli numbers. I have contacted the people at Fourmilab.ch to see if I can get permission to upload this image of the first computer program to Wikipedia. It is historically significant, even though it is a translation from French.

[1]

Trying to decipher this table, as a modern programmer, can be difficult, unless you ignore some of the clutter at first, since there's a lot of redundant information.

I think it's important that, eventually, a modern Wikipedia article is written that compares this 150 year old computer program to a modern programming language, in modern terminology, to help a typical computer programmer (with some mathematical experience) understand what is going on in the 1843 'program'.

The first 4 columns ("Number of Operation", "Nature of Operation", "Variables acted upon", "Variables receving results") as well as the 3 data variable columns ("1V1", "1V2", "1V3"), is the actual "computer program".

The first column is akin to a line number (line #1 may actually be 3 lines, because we need to store to 3 variables)

The second column describes the main instruction (modern assembly language equivalents: ADD, MUL, DIV, SUB)

The third column describes which variable pair (register pair) to execute the operation on

The fourth column describe which variable (register) receives the result

Diagram has a set of data variables, working variables, and result variables.

There's a loop, from line number 13 through line 23. The loop is triggered via a condition check.

The three data columns (1V1, 1V2 and 1V3) are variable assignments, each value is akin to modern assembly language 'MOV' instruction where a number exists.

The "Statement of Results" is akin to just program comments of what the row does, since the 'microcoded' operation is already documented in the first 4 columns, with the sole exception for the condition check which appears to be indicated in parantheses in line 7, 12 and 23 of the column of "Statement of Results" of this 150-plus year old computer program.

The values under the "Working Variables" columns is just program comments, too, since it's just documenting the results of what the first 4 columns would be after the instruction is "executed".

I may have a flawed understanding and http://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html explains the algorithm much better, but, eventually, it would be important to see an "Idiot's Guide to Interpreting the First Computer Program" type of article, or instead, a Wikipedia article that accomplishes the same thing, using the Fourmilab resources as references.

While there is debate on what constitutes a 'computer program', this is the oldest recorded program-like algorithm designed to be run by machine. It is very, very roughly akin to assembly/machine/microcode language with a series of variables (equivalent of registers), including the equivalent of a LOOP triggered by a condition check (branching), resulting in a turing-complete language. It may deserve its own article, eventually, at least to compare this program to a modern programming language to make it easier to understand by modern programmers, perhaps two pararllel diagrams side-by-side describing the 1843 language and a modern computer's language (perhaps assembly language), perhaps both calculating bernoulli numbers -- with the same line numbering scheme and similar variable names as in the 1843 program.

The Note G table has now been added (thanks to the Google Doodle giving me the impetus to do so). It is the closest thing resembling source code to the first "computer program" (algorithm designed for a machine, complete with conditionals and loop) and is extremely interesting. I finally obtained permission from the author who declared it as a public domain LaTeX reproduction of the table in a british book from year 1842 (copyright expired). The image of this 170-year-old "source code" is now up! Mdrejhon (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why the quotes in First "computer program"? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

fixed Bhny (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

Please change:

Ada was the only legitimate child of the poet Lord Byron and his wife Anne Isabella Byron. She had no relationship with her father, who separated from her mother just a month after Ada was born; four months later Byron left England forever and died in Greece when Ada was eight.

to:

Ada was the only legitimate child of the poet Lord Byron and his wife Anne Isabella Byron. Ada's father separated from her mother just a month after Ada was born, and four months later Byron left England for Greece. Byron remained in Greece for the remainder of his life and died when Ada was eight years old.

because:

The paragraph that needs changing makes no sense. The word "She" can refer to Ada or "his wife Anne Isabella Byron," as such it is not clear who had,"no relationship with her father," as well as, "who separated from her mother," and therefore this sentence is meaningless. I have read another source where it says that Ada had no relationship with her father because her mother divorced her father. Her father was a poet and her mother wanted Ada to be a mathematician. So, her mother won a sole custody of Ada.

Could an established editor fix this grammatical problem and proof read the article to catch more errors?

the reference where I got the information I am talking about: [2].

Dima-Ofek (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am closing this edit request as protection of this article has expired and it appears you have already made several edits to the article. Cheers, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rearrangement of information; revisiting Ada vs Lovelace

I haven't changed any of the page's content as such, but I have made several rearrangements to the existing content. Before I did this, the article jumped back and forth through her life in a few places, and there was a lot of repetition. This gave the article an unpolished, amateur feel, and it was confusing to read. I think my rearrangements have put things in a more logical order and have hopefully clarified some of the sections I was initially confused by. I'm happy to discuss further if anyone wants.

I've also used the name "Ada" instead of "Lovelace" in some places. I did this initially before reading the discussion above (sorry - I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I didn't realise it would have been best to read the previous discussions first; I won't make that mistake again). I understand the points above about "Ada" appearing to be less respectful than "Lovelace", and about inconsistency with using both names at different places, however I think my name changes make sense, at least to some extent. Happy to hear disagreements. :) Here's my reasons for the name choices I made:

- When I first read the article, I was a little confused by all the different names and by who was related to whom (Lord Byron's affairs don't help with this!) I found it odd that Ada Lovelace was being referred to as "Lovelace" during her childhood when she only took on that name upon marriage. I felt that using "Ada" for her early years makes more sense.

- I started using "Lovelace" after she married, except where it wouldn't be clear whether "Lovelace" referred to Ada or her husband. For example, immediately after the description of her marriage, the article originally talked about "Lovelace" being sick, and about "Lovelace's mother". Nothing in the context made it immediately obvious without any doubt which Lovelace it referred to (e.g., it could have been Ada'a husband's mother that told her about Lord Byron's incest instead of Ada's own mother). I know that if her husband was being discussed, then he would probably always be referred to by a more formal title than "Lovelace", but people who are new to English peerage conventions might not realise this and hence might have trouble working out whether "Lovelace" referred to the husband or wife.

- I used "Lovelace" or "Ada Lovelace" exclusively when talking about her post-marriage work with Charles Babbage. I know this is inconsistent with using "Ada" earlier, but I introduced this section by initially using "Ada Lovelace", so I think the transition from "Ada" to "Lovelace" won't be too startling.

- The External links section has two references that refer to Ada Lovelace merely as "Ada". It seems that this is not an unacceptable naming convention for her in modern literature. Thus I don't believe that calling her "Ada" in the article is disrespectful, especially when it lends clarity to the article.

Lady alys (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ada Augusta Byron married William King, the 8th Baron King. As such, her surname changed from Byron to King. If she had lived in America, she would have been known as Ada King or Mrs. King. When he was created the 1st Earl Lovelace, that title superseded "Baron King" and became her title as well ("the Countess Lovelace"). Since her husband was a peer, he would have been known as Lord Lovelace or merely "Lovelace", just as Ada's father (also a peer) was known as Lord Byron or "Byron". To refer to Ada Augusta Byron King as "Lovelace" is absurd; it was her title, NOT her surname. The wife of an Earl is called a Countess, and is addressed as "Lady Lovelace" not because "Lovelace" is her surname, but because it is her husband's title. She would never have been addressed as "Lady Ada", nor would anyone have called her "Lovelace". The prep-school attitude of Wikipedia, which calls people by their surnames even if those people would never have been called by their surnames in their lifetimes, only adds confusion to the debate. For the sake of clarity, she should be called "Ada". If that's too hard to swallow, call her "Lady Lovelace", just as we call her father "Lord Byron" rather than "George" or "George Byron". But don't, for the love of heraldry, call her "Lovelace" or "Ada Lovelace". Neither usage is correct.Munchkyn (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, the page now appears with "Ada" everywhere instead of "Lovelace". During her childhood and the period of her marriage, it is understandable that she be referred to as "Ada" but from that point only "Lovelace" (which is how she identified herself in letters) should be acceptable. The article is protected now but given renewed interest in her at the moment I think it's particularly pressing 134.226.254.178 (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the Guardian, for example here, and the Financial Times, for example here, refer to her as "Lovelace". (Of course, Wikipedia isn't the Guardian or the Financial Times and doesn't use their style guides, but it shows that respected British publications accept Lovelace as her last name -- it's not "American ignorance of English titles" or "prep-school attitude".) I do think it's mildly disrespectful to refer to her by her first name when she's an adult and there's no need for disambiguation with another Lovelace. It's also ironic that it'd happen in an article for a woman known for her contribution to a traditionally male field, who's likely to be a hero to young women and girls. There's no analogous situation where, if the situations were reversed, they'd see a male subject referred to by his first name throughout the article. (But I'm just noting that this is ironic; Wikipedia policy shouldn't necessarily be based on equality between the sexes. My main point is that Lovelace is accepted by respectable sources to be used as her last name.) I prefer "Lovelace" or "Lady Lovelace". M-1 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)