Talk:Konrad Zuse/Archive 1

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

Ceruzzi's Reckoners (1983), Zuse's The Computer -- My Life (1993)

The Z-3 was built as a prototype to test the feasibility of a machine capable of solving the large systems of linear equations required for analysis of resonance in airplane wing designs in order to avoid the problem of aerodynamic "flutter". The limited memory of the Z-3 was not capable of handling the large problems where manual methods were impractical, so it was never used for any practical purpose, only small tests. This was of course the intention. The success of the Z-3 led to the authorization of the full-scale machine, the Z-4, but this machine was not completed before the end of the war, due largely to the impact of Allied bombing raids on Berlin after 1944. Zuse also built a small relay device called the S-1 which executed a fixed sequence of calculations. It was used by the Henschel Company in the production of the HS-293 flying bomb, which was used in large numbers toward the end of the war, against Allied shipping in the Mediterranean and in the German retreat from Poland.

Source: Paul E. Ceruzi, Reckoners (1983) - HWR

Sounds good; put it in where I only hinted at the guided missile. --Yooden
I think you oughta add some things from his autobiography: 'the computer, my life' or whatever its called.
1. he did a hell of alot of his work in a converted room in his parents house
2. he and his buddies were a bit dumbfounded as to what to do about the racism of the government, they seem to have had no idea about what to do about it.
3. when he was trying to hire helpers for his company, the only person he coudl get was a blind person, because under the nazi regime all 'strong' people were devoted to military service, while the 'defectives' such as the blind were considered unusable. However the blind person easily understood the concept of binary arithmetic and helpd him assemble his machines.
4. He tried to get the military interested in his machine to help airplanes, but the guy he talked to basically said "why should we want to improve our planes? they are already perfect"
5. he had a hell of a hard time selling his machine to businesses after the war. they didnt see the point of using his machine.
To the person who added the above, why don't you add this stuff into the article where it fits? Much of it seems relevant, though you might want to change the tone a little --Robert Merkel

From the German Wikipedia

User:Duncharris had asked for a translation of the content of the corresponding German-language article. Except for its references section, etc., and a subset of the biographical info we've already got, here it is. Feel more than free to "mine" this for anything missing from our article. (Looks to me like this is a somewhat exaggerated maximalist case for his importance: it may be suggestive, but I'd want to find the specific citations for some of this.) Also, feel free to further refine my translation, in place here. -- Jmabel 08:25, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Zuse developed the theory and implemented the practice of computer calculation on the basis of exponent and mantissa. Today, this procedure for floating point computation is used by every computer from the pocket calculator to the cluster.

By specifying the programming language Plankalkül, he sketched the world's first universal programming language.

With the development and construction of his first computers (Z1 to Z4), each constructed based on the latest switch technologies of its time, he made his place in the history of research. By his later activity as a computer manufacturer, he was heavily involved in the introduction of the computer into economic enterprises.



How can a computer be Turing-complete but not general purpose? This seems to me like a desperate attempt to defend the ENIAC against Zuse's Z3 as the first computer. The article tries to create the impression that there may be some, quite artificial, definition, according to which Zuse's Z3 might be considered the first computer. But whoever makes such a claim has to explain what exactly it is that is to be expected of a real computer, and why his definitions should be considered "better" than that of Alan Turing.

Zuse's Z-series: (first) real computers? Definitions and comparisons

Looping, Turing completeness, Z3 vs ENIAC

There has been considerable debate over whether the Z-series machines really constituted computers on the talk:history of computing hardware page and the associated timeline page.

The consensus is leaning towards the view that, while they represented something close to a computer and had many interesting features, they didn't have looping constructs which is a prerequisite for a real computer.

This so-called `consensus' comes as a complete surprise to me - of course you could build loops on the Z3 of 1941; there just was no instruction for conditional loops! Quite sufficient for the engineering applications of that era. Nobody back then really cared for Turing completeness, and no machine of that time was used in a way related to the universal sense (e.g., for translating various universal programming languages into each other). For example, ENIAC of 1946 wasn't; it was used for applications similar to those Z3 was used for (and one actually had to rewire ENIAC to `program' it - some say, this does not even qualify as programming, otherwise any type of rebuilding some limited computer might be viewed as programming). Nevertheless, there is a way of implementing a universal Turing machine on a Z3 with sufficient storage. It's an awkward way, but the Turing machine itself is an awkward device, of course, designed to be simple, not efficient. No matter how you look at it, from a theoretical purist point of view, or from a realistic and practical point of view, Z3 was indeed the first program-controlled computer. Z3 10:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think there is no such thing as a first computer, any definition would be arbitrary. All calculating stuff from this time is groundbreaking and should be named 'among the first' or something similar. If enough details are given, anyone can make up his own mind. --Yooden
I disagree. To my mind, there is a fairly clear definition possible - a computer should have equivalent capabilities to a universal Turing machine (modulo storage capacity). From what I've read so far, none of Zuse's machines had this capability, whereas ENIAC (for example) almost certainly did. -- Robert Merkel
Z3 did have it (see other comments on this page). And to program ENIAC you had to rewire it. Z3 14:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have removed the claim that the Z3 is Turing-complete. The note above that it would require a sufficient amount of memory is misleading as it would actually require an infinite amount of memory. Also there was no reference in the article to support this claim. Amoss 12:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I re-added the sentence, that it was proven to be Turing complete. Here is the link you asked for: http://www.zib.de/zuse/Inhalt/Kommentare/Html/0684/universal2.html - To GENERALLY DEMAND for sufficient memory is in fact misleading - of course the PC that you are working on right now CANNOT compute EVERY describable function due to memory shortage – it IS ONLY Turing complete, universal und general purpose insofar as you only have to add sufficient memory needed for a certain function – and there will still be infinitely many that it cannot compute. --217.236.223.163 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Surely, anyone who has read a book on computability (I think mine was my 3rd year University text book :-)) would know what the argument in that paper was going to be without even looking at it? To me a more interesting question is whether the Z3 WAS ever used for iterative calculations (presumably by sticking the ends of the film-stock containing the program into a physical loop). It is not clear to me from (the english translation of) his autobiography that he did (although I shall check). Presumably to do this one would have had to input and/or output values on every loop round the film-program-punched-thing and then stop it once one had achieved what one set out to - there is as far as I can see no conditional halt. Hpengwyn 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of 'computer', von Neumann

OK, you may be right, I'm lacking theoretical knowledge here. In this case, I suggest to write Definition of Computer or something similar and point to it whenever appropiate.

I just checked Computer and the definition there. It uses a Von Neumann model which is mentioned in Konrad Zuse. Could you clear this up? --Yooden

The article Computer needs quite a bit of editing (I hadn't seen that one before, I'll clean it up at some stage). The "Von Neumann model" is a model of the internal organisation of machines that are computers. All single-processor machines currently in use fit this model (multi-processor machines of various types vary from it lesser or greater amounts IIRC). Zeus's machine does not implement a full Von Neumann model, as the program is stored in a logically separate form of memory (paper tape, which was read-only as far as the computer was concerned) to the data (stored in an arrangement of shifting metal bars).
Regardless, whether Zuse's machines were Von Neumann architectures is irrelevant to the question of whether they are computers or not. A Von Neumann computer describes a *design* of a computer, not their capabilities - and capabilities are really what I'm discriminating on here.
However, an article by Zuse's son http://www.epemag.com/zuse/ points to a 1998 scientific paper in an IEEE journal supposedly proving that the Z3 did in fact have the capabilities of a Turing machine. I find this difficult to believe, as the Z3 lacked a type of instruction called a "conditional branch" - in essence, an instruction saying "if (proposition X) is true, go to point (Y) in the program, otherwise keep going to the next instruction. It is difficult to imagine how you could get equivalent capabilities to a Turing machine in a machine without a conditional branch instruction or something similar, but IEEE generally doesn't publish papers with wrong proofs in them. Anyway, I'll go to my old university library and dig up the paper, and if it checks out Mr Zuse's Z3 should be regarded as a computer (though perhaps only in a theoretical sense - it may be that the machine may have been thoroughly impractical to use as a full-blown computer) in my opinion. Robert Merkel

Practicality of Z3 vs Turing machine

But of course the Turing machine itself also is thoroughly impractical to use as a full-blown computer! Z3 14:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have seen the paper; with a trick that Zuse never anticipated and that is thoroughly impractical, Z3 can be made Turing complete. --AxelBoldt
The significance of this Turing argument is really overblown, in my opinion. Turing machines are impractical. Turing machines implemented on Z3 are impractical as well. Nevertheless, the Z3 could run all kinds of really practical programs. That's the only thing that mattered to the engineers of the 1940s who were not really interested in the theoretical limits of computability and provability pointed out by Goedel (1931) and Turing (1936). Z3 14:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Z3 vs Colossus, ENIAC, EDVAC, EDSAC & Manchester Baby

<cite>capabilities are really what I'm discriminating on here.</cite>

Pray do discriminate, you seem to know a lot more than I do; but please do it explicit, like 'Zuse was almost there, but the Z-3 lacked somesuch, so Colossus Mark I is the first computer'. (The fact that Zuse is German does only affect my knowledge about him; I don't care who's first.) --Yooden
Colossus *wasn't* a general purpose computer - there's agreement on that. It was a fascinating electronic device, but it was a special-purpose machine that could do one thing and one thing only. Mark I doesn't meet the definition I've given either. However, the Z3 does - but with the catch that it wasn't known that it could do so until 60 years after it was built and by which time there were many millions of computers meeting the definition in existence.
Zuse built a machine that could have been used as a computer (meeting the Turing-complete definition) before anyone else did, but it's totally impractical to use it as such, Zuse never figured out how it could be done, and indeed nobody knew it was the case until three years after he died and by which time computers millions of times more powerful were available for negligible cost on a single chip. That leaves us with:
  • The analytical engine would have been a computer, if ever built.
  • Zuse's Z3 was a computer, but nobody knew it was until nearly 60 years later, and it wouldn't have really been practical as such.
  • ENIAC was a computer.
  • EDVAC was the first practical stored-program computer of the architecture we know today.
That seems to be the state of play to me.
So, after all that, Yooden's quite right - it's very difficult to anoint anybody with the title of "inventor of the first computer" or a particular machine as "the first computer". However, we should try and edit this information here in to the relevant articles. RM
ENIAC was a programmable computer only if you assume that rewiring counts as programming. And it was the British EDSAC, not EDVAC, which was the first practical stored-program computer. EDVAC was just a draft that influenced the construction of EDSAC. Z3 14:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
One caveat: I think EDVAC was the first design of a stored program computer, but the first functional stored program computer was the Manchester "baby" of 48. --AxelBoldt
Right, but its successor EDSAC was the first practical one. Z3 14:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
<cite>However, we should try and edit this information here in to the relevant articles.</cite>

'Computer', 'Turing machine' article updates

Before I get my hands dirty, I would ask you to update Computer, so that I can rely on that. --Yooden

Shall do. To clarify what I mean by Turing-equivalent my definition, you might want to look at Turing machine, particularly the idea of a Universal Turing Machine. When I say a machine is "Turing-equivalent" or such, it means that the particular computer is capable of acting as a universal Turing machine, except that its storage capacity is limited. There is an important precept of computer science (it's not a theorem because it can't be proved, only disproved, but everybody believes it to be more than likely true) that says that *any* other computer-like system you can construct can be emulated on a Universal Turing machine. So, if you have a computer capable of being a Universal Turing Machine, you have a computer that can do anything any other computer (in the broadest possible sense) can (given enough time and assuming we've got enough storage space). This is why Turing-equivalence (usually called Turing-completeness) is a natural criterion for computer scientists to choose for determining whether a machine is a "computer" or not.
That certainly doesn't sound arbitrary, and Turing machine may serve as a reference. Please add 'Turing-equivalence' and 'Turing-completeness' at the right places in Turing machine. --Yooden

Z3 simulation of Turing machine

The last change is referring to HWR's comment on talk:History of computing. Details anyone? --Yooden

If you mean the simulation of a Turing machine by the Z3: it's at http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~widiger/ICHC/papers/universal/universal.html
--AxelBoldt

German tech restrictions/bans in the aftermath of WWII

I removed the following statement from the main article, pending verification:

The victorious Allies took all patents from Germany and the Allied Military Occupation Government did not allow manufacturing.

The manufacturing statement is extremely strange, since Zuse himself started a manufacturing company in 1949. Were there really no surviving patents of German inventions after 1945? AxelBoldt, Thursday, May 23, 2002

Not computers, not guns, not anything that could remotely be classified as anything usable for war-making. (After all it was long planned by Morgenthau and Henry Dexter White to only leave nothing but a stubble-field). Only things for agricultural or household use were allowed. But this whole subject might make an interesting new topic for wiki, where facts and fiction could finally be explored, since all these records where kept secret for national security for over 50 years. One fact is that Bayer aspirin did not get their patent back until the 1990s, that is from WW I, One - that is !!! User:H.J.
The patent on aspirin is long expired. I believe what that got back was permission to use the Bayer name in America, which had also been confiscated during World War One. So now we have two Bayer companies - one American, one German. But that is not relevant to WWII. It appears that the Allies seized the internal intellectual property rights of enemy nations, that is the U.S. could violate German patents inside the U.S. but not outside. These rights were restored eventually in the 1950s as the Allies returned control to Germany and Japan. Also it appears America allowed Japan to violate German patents in the name of rebuilding civilian industry in Japan. --rmhermen
When people question whether it was ethical for the Allies to seize German intellectual property, it immediately brings up the question of whether it was ethical for Germany to invade Poland (along with Austria, Czech republic, etc.) --Perf
I do not know much about aspirin, but the nascent computer industries of US and UK definitely profited a lot from the fact that Zuse lost many years of his lead when US/UK bombers destroyed much of his work. Zuse was an entrepreneur; he wanted to market his inventions and create an entire new industry. Who knows what the computer industry would look like today if he had had a chance to exploit his lead and develop his inventions in peace? For example, the Z4 (developed under adverse conditions) was almost finished in 1945, but it took 5 more turbulent years in the aftermath of World War II (without any new Z-designs) until Zuse was able to make some money from it (in Switzerland, which is not surprising, since Germany was largely destroyed and had other things to worry about). Despite such setbacks and delays, the Z4 still earned the title "first commercial computer", but in the meantime UK/US researchers had closed the gap, and the future belonged to companies such as IBM. Z3 14:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
History is full of "could have beens." Easy to speculate, but as far as we know, there is only one reality. If WWII had never happened, would Colossus and ENIAC ave been built? I notice that there is almost no mention of the ABC. If Atanasov remained at his University, would he have patented the ABC? -- Perf
rmhermen, I think wikipedians could fill pages on this, should we run out of material user:H.J.
"When people question whether it was ethical for the Allies to seize German intellectual property, it immediately brings up the question of whether it was ethical for Germany to invade Poland (along with Austria, Czech republic, etc.) --Perf " - The greatest theft in history is always justified like that. You say "it's perfectly legal to steal from a thief". If this is American sense of justice: poor U.S. ... --141.91.129.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC).

Z3 64 bit?

Is this correct that the Z3 was "a binary 64-bit floating point calculator"? Going to the article about the Z3 says that it had a word size of 22-bit. Are these different? I'm not too good at understanding this type of thing yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonax (talk • contribs) 07:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Z3 page, it was 64 words of 22 bits each.96.54.53.165 (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)he was avery good computer scientist he also was the first man ever to invent the first digital computer

Please put up a better picture

Can't someone find a better picture to put up other than the one when the man is old and close to death. I often see this for scientists and really do you want people to remember you by your old and dying picture! Sepiraph (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Highly secretive project of the government?

This description of the Z3 sounds like wishful thinking. The link provided (a google book search for the words "Konrad Zuse, Nazi" within some book on the history of computers) can hardly count as a reference - and it doesn't even support the claim. Building the Z3 was essentially a private/business project (i.e., initiated and carried out by Zuse). There was nothing "highly secretive" about it. Since the computer was regarded as being of no importance for the outcome of the war, Zuse didn't get significant support by the government. However, once it was built, it was used for calculations at the aviation research institute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.95.102 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Improving the introduction

Currently the introduction reads: "His greatest achievement was the completion of the first functional tape-stored-program-controlled computer, the Z3, in 1941." This sounds as if there were other computers that maybe stored their programs in a different way. Of course there weren't any. I'll correct this: "His greatest achievement was the completion of the first functional program-controlled computer, the Z3, in 1941 (the program was stored on a tape)." Science History 13:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro also says:"The Z3 is claimed to be the "first computer" as such, though this depends on complex and subtle definitional issues, as the machine was not truly general-purpose in the manner of later machines (see the article of history of computing for a thorough discussion)." This is obsolete for at least two reasons. 1. The Z3 was Turing-complete and therefore truly general purpose (in an inconvenient way like the Turing machine itself). 2. The article on the history of computing does not have a thorough discussion. Science History 14:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Calculating Space

The section says:

In 1967 Zuse also suggested that the universe itself is running on a grid of computers (digital physics); in 1969 he published the book Rechnender Raum (translated by MIT into English as Calculating Space, 1970). Since the publication of Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind of Science, this idea has attracted a lot of attention, since there is no compelling physical evidence against Zuse's thesis. Critics of Wolfram's work claim that the fundamental ideas are essentially due to Zuse.

This is quite misleading - the idea attracted a lot of attention long before Wolfram wrote something about it in 2002. The movie The Matrix (1999) was perhaps the most popular work on the idea that the perceptible world is computed by a computer program. The well-known articles of Edward Fredkin (1980s) and Juergen Schmidhuber (1990s) on the computable universe also predate Wolfram. I'll try to correct this. Science History 11:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The copy needs improvement.

As of 29 July 2007, it is obvious that (1) at least the first section was written by someone whose native language is German (no native English speaker would write "the inventor of the Computers" -- and capitalizing "Computers" is also a giveaway) and (2) a Zuse advocate.

I am going to make take care of this. Jhobson1 16:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

172.173.164.166 made that change
info on the IP you are talking about:
OrgName: America Online
OrgID: AOL
Address: 22000 AOL Way
City: Dulles
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country: US
not exactly in Germany, 217.236.230.194 21:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First computer 'sold'

I would go along with the most recent edit, BINAC was sold in the same sense that the Z4 was, and earlier - the Ferranti was sold as a production machine (multiple copies), but the Z4 was like BINAC in being a single machine shipped to a customer Hpengwyn (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Last Zuse computer

Z43 is the last computer by Konrad Zuse: http://mail.computerhistory.org/pipermail/inforoots/2004-June/001356.html Article already mentions that. 91.94.200.48 (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The artist Konrad Zuse

The artist Konrad Zuse

A first selection of Konrad Zuse´s paintings was published by RT-Distribution as fine art prints and introduced to the public at artexpo New York (USA) in 1994. On June 20 i.e. 21, 1995 the first internet page about artist and computerpioneer Konrad Zuse went online (http://www.rtd-net.de/Zuse.html) at Eunet Dortmund, Germany. This also was the Online-Premiere of Galeria Non+Ultra (http://www.Galeria-NonplusUltra.com), which shows art by Konrad Zuse and other artists.

These facts including the weblinks should be added to the article about Konrad Zuse. RTD, Nov 20, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.1.122.6 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All scientists must be slightly daft

This sentence: "This idea has attracted a lot of attention, since there is no physical evidence against Zuse's thesis" seems to me quite mad. I refer you to the celestial tea pot, against which there is no evidence. Now maybe Zuse was a bit mad or whatever, but this form suggests that all the scientists in their white coats ran around worried, until some normal person told them that it's quite unlikely that Zuse be right.

If the idea was indeed controversial, provide some tangible measure and back up the reasons for it with some evidence. If nobody can be bothered to do so, a better form would be: "The idea sparked some discussion (by whom?)." Better still would be to strike the sentence all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.87.144 (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Konrad Zuse in Popular Culture

In the movie Tron: Legacy a program named Zuse appears. As there is nobody/nothing else named Zuse that has been important to computer history, it is likely that the program is named after Konrad himself.

Should this be included on the page, or should we wait until we have more references?

Sorry for using an IP, apparently user accs aren't shared between localisations of Wikipedia.

90.230.80.104 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they're trying to get rid of "popular culture" trivia sections on WP, right?

You might add it to the Tron article, though.

98.214.101.208 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Whitespace formatting problem

There is a large amount of whitespace (several paragraphs worth) before the first occurrence of the word 'modern' in the article. I had a glance at the markup and couldn't see why, 109.159.9.88 (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This issue appears to have resolved itself? Same computer/browser/OS so no idea what was going on. 109.159.9.88 (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Atheism

I checked the sources given and they don't give any evidence for Zuse being an atheist whatsoever. I checked Zuse's autobiography as well and it appears he had a distanced relationship to the church and organised religion. So perhaps calling him non-religious may be justified, but nothing justifies calling him an atheist (supporting an ontological postulate that God doesn't exist). I suggest to remove any such claim from the article. --2003:5B:E547:1577:6CC4:B570:B912:387A (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The reference number 30 claims that Zuse's parents wanted him to go for communion after Abitur. This looks like a sentence with probably two false claims:
  • He was born in Berlin and it is thus improbable that he was catholic.
  • Abitur happens between 17 and 19 (in his case 17) but communion happens with 13, which is before Abitur.
So this reference does not seem to be a trustworthy source. I recommend to ask Horst Zuse... Schily (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The likelihood of being a Catholic in Berlin is both non-zero and irrelevant; Catholics are not the only Christians who receive Communion. Nor is Communion a once-in-a-lifetime event. The reference neither states nor implies that this would be Zuse's first Communion. Could you please clarify your objections to the source based on its actual content? 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned: there are very few Catholics in Berlin and reformed Christs do not have a communion but a confirmation. For further information, please check the web. Schily (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No. You continue to misuse Christian terminology. Confirmation and Holy Communion (the Eucharist) are not the same thing, equivalents, or alternatives to each other. Both Catholics and most Protestants, including the Reformed Church and Lutherans, celebrate both. Although the timing of Confirmation and First Communion are often related, Confirmation is meant to be a one-time occurrence while Communion is celebrated regularly throughout one's life. 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You are miss-informed: There is nothing like communion in the reformed church and you seem to confuse communion with Lord's supper. Communion is a ritual that takes place in the reformed church and it takes place at aprox. the same age as there is confirmation. Schily (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing like communion in the reformed church ... Communion is a ritual that takes place in the reformed church ...

Seriously?? Come back when you've figured out what you're trying to say. 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Come back when you have informed yourself about reality...It seems that you don't know the vocabulary. It seems that you confuse the celebration of religion maturity with Lords supper. Schily (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hardly. Communion is another term for the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper. Confirmation is a rite in the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches which practice infant baptism; it is, as the name implies, an act of confirming the baptismal vows and/or becoming a full member of the church. Often occurring in the early teenage years, it may also be viewed as a celebration of maturity. If you're having a problem with the common English-language terminology, you might want to review the linked articles. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The catholic church does not use the term confirmation, but rather "(first) communion" in short "communion". On the other side, the reformed church does not use the term communion at all. I cannot help if the WP article you are quoting is not fully correct... Schily (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my! I guess you need to contact the Vatican to inform them that their description of Catholic sacraments is "not fully correct". When you've gotten them to change their teaching, you should also tell the Reformed Church in America that the statement of beliefs on their official web site erroneously equates "Communion", "the Lord's Supper", and "Eucharist". It's such a shame; if you can't trust official church sites to be reliable sources on church practices, who can you trust? 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
We are neither talking about the catholic church nor about the reformed church in the USA but about the reformed church in Germany, Please inform yourself about reality.... Schily (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The Catholics Church has nothing to do with the discussion. I don't know why you brought it up. Of course, neither does the Reformed Church of Germany (which, by the way, shares worldwide affiliation and most beliefs with the Reformed Church in the US), since it has not been shown that the Zuse family were part of that church either. Nor have you been able to show any evidence that any specific major Christian denomination declines to recognize the word communion as a valid English-language alternative to eucharist. Even if that were the case, use of common terminology by a lay biographer is hardly grounds for considering the biography not to be a reliable source. In short, you have offered nothing but unsupported personal opinions to call for the elimination of a biographical source. Somewhat amusing, but rather pointless. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words: you did not read my original remark, you did not inform yourself about the ration of Catholics and reformed in Berlin and you are mainly interested in stealing other peoples time. So this is a strong EOD indication for me. Schily (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have significant problems with English comprehension. I obviously read your original post; as I pointed out in my initial response, your first "point" is totally irrelevant and the second reflects a complete lack of knowledge of common English terminology used by Protestants and Catholics alike. Nothing you have posted since serves to contradict that analysis. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't care whether your problem is that you don't understand the terminology or whether you did not read my original text. It is a matter of facts that your reply ignored the facts I presented and that you don't use the terms in a way that fits the location Berlin. So if you like to continue your jabber, do it but don't expect me to try to correct you again as you just verified that you are not interested in the original topic at all. Schily (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact is, you have not presented any supported relevant facts. You state a complete irrelevancy (of questionable accuracy) about the number of Catholics in Berlin. You pair that with a completely false implication that Communion is a one-time event performed only in one's youth rather than a rite performed regularly by Christians throughout their lives. You then synthesized the irrelevancy with the falsehood to conclude that the cited biography is not a reliable source. You have said nothing worthwhile and proven nothing at all. Perhaps you should stop wasting your own time on this Quixotic crusade. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A few things need clarifying having read (some) of the above debate turned argument.

- Just shy of 10% of Berliners identify as Roman Catholic, therefore from a purely statistical perspective, there is a 10% chance he was catholic.
- Many non-catholic denominations have both confirmation and communion. As far as I am aware most or all Protestant churches have both (the Church of England certainly does, as I was confirmed at 13 years old in a C of E church, so I know this first hand). Anglican churches refer to the communion service as the Eucharist. I don't know if others do.
- Many 'reformed' churches, definitely at least some Pentecostal churches, have communion with no requirement for a formal confirmation first. I have seen this first hand too, having attended various services. Sometimes juice was used instead of wine.
- Methodists also have confirmation and communion, as do the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Jehovas Witnesses have communion although I believe it is a much less common service, only yearly if I remember correctly
- However, only Catholics believe in the concept of transubstantiation; the notion that the bread and wine literally transform into the flesh and blood of jesus. Most other denominations consider them simply to be symbolic (Jehovas Witnesses call them 'emblems'). The wording in high anglican churches follows the catholic liturgy closely from what I remember, This is the body and blood of Jesus Christ...', however the wording is also symbolic as transubstantiation is rejected, the wording is simply based on Mt 26:26-28; Lk 22:17-20; Mk 14:22-24, etc. I mention this as it may be why some people are under the impression 'communion' implies Catholicism. NB: The orthodox tradition is a little more vague on the subject, I think the Eastern Orthodox church believe that transubstantiation occurs at a different point during the ritual. Arguing over such absurdities of when a piece of bread turns into the flesh of god during a ritual seems like a pointless waste of time to me. It certainly doesn't taste like flesh.

I just wanted to clear up this for those under the impression that communion and/or confirmation is exclusively an RC phenomenon; it most certainly is not. This is something that can easily be looked up. 'High Protestants' and most C of E churches have a nearly identical process (I am referring to communion as the service and the administration of bread wafers and wine to the congregation, and confirmation as a service which confers the right to take communion following a period of study; to be absolutely clear)

Now, regarding the original point - the source regarding his religion (supposedly) - There appears to be no indication whatsoever of any particular denomination, the source only evidences that his parents were of a Christian denomination (to the extent that the source is trustworthy); one of the many that hold communion services. The source says nothing of his personal religious views, and any action he took at the age of 13 could not be used to determine his religious views, as he was a child. Like I said, I was confirmed, took communion, was even a crucifer, but I am not religious simply because I was raised in a Christian environment. I think this really should settle the debate - there is nothing in that source of any value to the article; his parents wanting him to take part in a common Christian rite when he was a child is not notable in and of itself.

I am quite sure everything I just wrote is indisputable, and easily verifiable. I don't really understand how it can lead to such a long winded argument. 109.159.9.88 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace and place of death

I've added states to the infobox as this is usual the case with U.S. American, British, Canadian, and Australian people, and is also present on a large number of German articles. If I was wrong please inform me as usually it's city, state, country as opposed to city, country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Konrad Zuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Introduction wrong

Last part of the first sentence is ‘[..] was a [..] computer pioneer who collaborated with the German government during World War 2, which helped finance his projects.’ In fact, the German government never gave him support or a chance to finish his work (see article at ARTE) and even wanted to conscript him, because they didn't recognize benefits from his Z1..Z3 (see also Z3 (computer) and Hans-Willy Hohn (1998). Kognitive Strukturen und Steuerungsprobleme der Forschung. Kernphysik und Informatik im Vergleich (in German). Schriften des Max-Planck-Instituts für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln. ISBN 3-593-36102-7.(literally "not war-important")) --Cvf-ps (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted that part because it's actually wrong. Here is a link, however only in German language, and here it is mentioned that he wasn't financially supported by the Goverment. It seems that he would have collaborated, but didn't get the chance – see the last section in the German link. --Cyfal (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
In the source cited at reference #3 it states he was conscripted into the military, where he was given the resources to build the Z2 and Z3. The source cited at reference #7 states the Third Reich's Aerodynamic Research Institute funded his work. In the source cited at reference #4 at p. 489, it states the Z3 was a highly secretive project of the German government. In his own autobiography, cited at reference #6 at p.76, he acknowledges the war secrecy the German government invoked over his work. At p.61 from his autobiography he writes he received a contract for his work from the Aerodynamic Research Institute, which was funded by the German government. At p. 60 he writes his Hs 293 was deployed by the German military. At the source cited at reference #9 it clearly states Zuse completed his work for the German military. This would make the introduction line "who collaborated with the German government during World War 2, which helped finance his projects" completely factual. The line should actually read "who collaborated with the Nazi Germany, which supported, financed, and deployed his projects," because he started working with them as early as 1939. Because the German government didn't support his computer idea based on electronic valves because of immediacy reasons doesn't dispel the fact they supported many of his other projects. You also have to be careful of denazification revisionist sources, which are no longer academically credible.
I agree with a lot you wrote, but what does the last sentence actually mean? --2003:5B:E547:1577:6CC4:B570:B912:387A (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ferocious osmosis (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual correctness aside, the intro seems slightly biased. The first sentence should describe the reasons for Zuse's notability (which are his achievements in computing) instead of giving a political evaluation. Also, per Merriam-Webster, collaborate means to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force. One cannot collaborate with his own country. --Tgr (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, anglosaxon Wikipedia is a pathetic anti-German joke anyway, full of fucking propaganda and achievement-theft, cultural theft and often laying claim to various German technological achievements (see the MP3 article for example; a well-known German invention but made "american" by way of obfuscation and unnecessary complexity; tricky bastards) and biased allegations unseen in cases of other nations. Fucking pathetic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.212.214 (talk) October 5, 2010
Quite the contrary... I agree it doesn't go along with the German world view, but it's all the better for that, frankly. For me it seems to be the national German pastime to hijack all human achievement and make it theirs. Let's search the whole timeline of any given achievement, technology, discovery etc. for any German contribution whatsoever and then use this single contribution, no matter how insignificant to claim the whole thing for themselves. I see this German nationalism every day on German television. Last week there was a Galileo Program where they did just this, using the very Konrad Zuse of the article to claim Germany invented the whole of modern computing. Not one mention of Babbage, Turing etc. Look at the German Wikipedia article for Babbage for another example. It hardly mentions his contribution. Give me "Anglo-Saxon" Wikipedia any day to the German. The German one is only interesting for it's insight into a fundamentally sick psyche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.132.17 (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries give the pejorative meaning of 'collaborate' as second to the simple one of 'to work with another or others on a joint project', which is what the etymology implies ('co' - together 'labor' - work). So one can collaborate with one's own country or government. However, given that the initiative was his, not the German government's, the introduction could be more neutrally worded. --TedColes (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation then. Collaboration implies secrecy as every native speaker can tell. The sentence in question: Many of his projects were in collaboration with the Nazi Germany, which supported, financed, and deployed many of them --> Nazi Germany supported and deployed some of his projects. Looks like the ridiculous allegation that it actually is. Sure you anglosaxon anti-German propaganda clowns want that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.212.214 (talk) October 5, 2010
Not sure this comment dignifies a response, but as every native speaker knows, collaboration has the primary meaning of (as already stated) "to work with another or other on a joint project". And thank you I gladly accept the anti-German title. People of your ilk make it very easy to be, and in my experience, deep down, or in most cases, not so deep down, most Germans are of your ilk. All got a bee in your bonnet because the whole world just doesn't see you as the Übermenschen you would like to see yourself. "Like to see", because deep down "den Scheiß glaubt ihr doch selbst nicht"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.142.105 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Source for Zuse character in Tron Legacy

See: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0209988/ not sure how to cite the "presumed" part though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.119.186 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Zuse Article

I made no changes to this page, because I have never edited a Wikipedia page, but a number of items on the page are either factually, verifiably, incorrect, or are at best worded so as to be misleading. It sounds more like propaganda than encyclopedic, fact-based information.

For example, the claim that Zuse's Z22 was the first computer with a memory based on magnetic storage is contradicted by readily available, well-sourced information on the Wikipedia pages on magnetic drum storage and magnetic core storage, among many other sources. The first Z22 was released for use in February 1958. The IBM 603 released in 1953 had magnetic drum memory. MIT's Whirlwind had magnetic core memory in 1953.

The claim near the top of the article that Zuse is often regarded as the "inventor of the computer" is very misleading at best and not very useful. Apart from a few revisionist German authors and Zuse's own family, very few people would regard Zuse, who did not build a fully electronic functioning computer until 1957-58, as the "inventor of the computer."

Many of the references cited are not verifiable or orignial material, such as note 7, which references a comment made by his son about an event that happened before the son was born and given in a talk 65 years after the event. Several citations are from Zuse's own reminiscing in later life.

Zuse was an intelligent tinkerer with some novel ideas, but this article in Wikipedia contains dubious claims. Zuse was about 10 years behind others in most of his work. He was not the breakthrough pioneer that this article makes him out to be.

Thses comments are not meant to be about Zuse-- he did a lot of good work, They are about a misleading Wikipedia article, and a plea for someone with the time and knowledge to correct it.

68.80.26.175 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Chuck Herbert, cherbert@ccp.edu

Yes, I agree with you! The Problem is, many Germans think (the Media Propaganda is here horrible in Germany!) this Guy is the Father of all Computers in the World! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.198.131 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm... You may be a 'bit' wrong here, Zuse was the first one to create fully functional, digital, fully and freely programmable, Turing-complete computer resembling modern computers, it operated on binary, had separation of control and storage etc. It was definitely a breakthrough, and he did this(Z3) two years before Alan Turing. He built the first commercial computer, invented the first high level language, Plankalkuel, FORTRAN came atleast a decade later... He also founded the world's first computer startup company Zuse-Ingenieurbüro Hopferau.

And another thing, no one is the father of the computer... Zuse invented the first fully functioning modern computer, the German, Wilhelm Schickard was arguably the father of the computer age... You can say the German Leibniz to be the first computer engineer because of his invention of binary, without which, Microsoft would have been a coffee company... Babbage envisioned programmable computers, but was not able to build them without binary... Alan Turing and Kurt Goedel contributed significantly to computers too... If someone names anyone of them singly as the father of the computer, either he/she doesn't know about computers, or he/she didn't read history during school.

And to the one who thinks that media propaganda is rampant in Germany, well you are rookies, ever heard of BBC? ———— Belegthorn of Gondor (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Konrad Zuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse  ???

64.175.40.84 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Zuseum e.V. ::

http://www.zuseum.de/gtas/index.php 64.175.40.84 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

IEEE Computer Pioneers by J. A. N. Lee

Short: Biography, Education, Honors and Awards

Zuse, Konrad, Computer Design-Past, Present, Future: talk given by Prof. Konrad Zuse, in Lund/Sweden, Oct. 2, 1987, IEEE

"Computer Pioneers - Konrad Zuse". history.computer.org. --89.25.210.104 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated

From about the fifth page of An Introduction to Digital Philosophy, by Edward Fredkin, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 42, No. 2, February 2003:

"We then discovered Konrad Zuse, who in the late 1960s, came up with a similar general concept of DP, and published a book called Rechnender Raum (“Calculating space”) (Zuse, 1969). We invited him to come to MIT where (according to his account) he found the ideas in his book appreciated for the first and only time during his life."

I believe that was the occasion of the 1981 Physics of Computation conference at MIT, organized by Fredkin, Landauer and Toffoli, papers from which were published in 3 issues of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics in 1982. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Konrad_Zuse/Archive_1&oldid=1137503828"