Abstract
At this time, the construction of computing machines had proved to be more essential for the war effort than the first opinion of Dr. Bush might have indicated. [...] There was a continual going and coming of those interested in these fields. We had an opportunity to communicate our ideas to our colleagues, in particular to Dr. Aiken of Harvard, Dr. von Neumann of the Institute for Advanced Study, and Dr. Goldstine of the Eniac and Edvac machines at the University of Pennsylvania. Wiener, N. Cybernetics (61c [48f1], 14–15).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Established by Franklin D. Roosevelt with Executive Order 8807 of 28 June 1941.
- 2.
Cf. Summary Technical Report of the Division 7. Part 1: Gunfire Control.
- 3.
Cf. “Report of conference on the methods of N. Wiener,” 3 October 1944. Cit. by Bennett 1994, 60–61 and note 15.
- 4.
Weaver to Boyce , 24 Mar. 1942, Record Group 227, OSRD, Division 7, General Project Files, 1940–46, General Mathematical Theory of Prediction and Application, MIT, Wiener, NDCrc-83, NA-LC. Cit. by Galison 1994, 241.
- 5.
Weaver to Stone, 6 December 1943, cit. by Owens 1988, 291.
- 6.
Ibid.
- 7.
Among the other papers presented at the seminar, we should at least mention the following: William Feller, Stochastic Processes; Harold Hotelling, Some Unsolved Problems of Statistical Theory; Abraham Wald, A Problem in Multivariate Analysis; Paul Samuelson, A. Gram-Charlier Series; Richard von Mises, The Probability of Occupancy; Dirk J. Struik, The Foundations of the Theory of Probabilities.
- 8.
This is the theme of some letters: Cf. Rosenblueth to McCulloch, 21 June 1941; 5 September 1941, 3 December 1941; McCulloch to Rosenblueth, 1 May 1941 (MCAPS), ff. Rosenblueth. Cit. by Piccinini 2003, p. 28.
- 9.
Cf. McCulloch to Ralph Lillie, ca. February 1943 (MCAPS, ff. Lillie). Cit. by Piccinini 2003, 28–9.
- 10.
The date of spring 1941 can be considered pretty safe. In fact, McCulloch says he does not remember whether the meeting took place in the spring of 1940 or 1941. He remembers, however, that it had definitely happened before Pearl Harbor (December 1941). We know, in addition, that in the spring of 1940, Wiener had not yet started working on “predictive filters”, a theory which, in McCulloch’s historical reconstruction, seemed to be in a fairly advanced stage. Finally, McCulloch added that Wiener was already working with Bigelow, assigned to the project in January 1941. [Cf. McCulloch 1974] McCulloch had known Roseblueth at least since 1938 (Cf. McCulloch to J.F. Tönnies, 11 April 1938 (in MCAPS, ff. Tönnies); McCulloch to Rosenblueth, 22 December 1939 (in MCAPS, ff. Rosenblueth). Cit. by Piccinini 2003, 27 and note 38.
- 11.
Actually, after the discovery by McCulloch and Pitts, in Representation of Events in Nerve Nets and Finite Automata, Kleene (1951) proved that the neural networks of McCulloch and Pitts can compute only a sub-class of Turing-computable problems, i.e., the so-called “regular events”. However von Neumann corrected Kleene’s conclusions. Although Kleene’s proof was correct, the McCulloch-Pitts neural nets do constitute a Universal Turing Machine under certain broader conditions, in particular, if they have an unlimited memory (von Neumann 1956, 56). Then another condition was that the neurons should be able to self-refer.
- 12.
Rashevsky to McCulloch, 9 August 1943; McCulloch to Wiener, 1 September 1943. Warren S. McCulloch Papers. p. 67 MCAPS, ff. Rashevsky; McCulloch to Wiener, dated 27 August 1943. Cit. by Piccinini 2003, 66–67.
- 13.
Wiener to McCulloch, 30 August 1943 (WAMIT) Box 4, ff. 65, cit. by Piccinini 2003, 67.
- 14.
Actually, Pitts had been visited by doctors and judged “pre-psychotic”, (on the basis of interviews with Pitts’ friends, Smalheiser 2000, 221).
- 15.
Cf. Rosenblueth to McCulloch, 26 October 1943 (MCAPS) cit. by Piccinini 2003, 67.
- 16.
Comments here on the history of the Manhattan Project are derived from Frank, Cochran and Norris 1996, Hawkins 1946, Rhodes 1986, Fitzpatrick 1999, Maurizi 2004, Greco and Picardi 2005.
- 17.
The manual computer service was referred to as T5. Cf. Metropolis and Nelson 1982, 349; Cf. also Hawkins 1946, 84.
- 18.
Cf. Telegram from J. Robert Oppenheimer to S.L. Stewart, 28 January 1944, B-9 Files, Folder 413.51, Drawer 96, in LANLA, It was still “Secret-RD” in 1999 Cit. by Fitzpatrick 1999, 64.
- 19.
Ulam 1969, cit. by Aspray 1990a, note 21, p. 260. Italics added.
- 20.
Cf. Warren Weaver to Marshall Stone, 19 January 1944, and Bigelow to Weaver, 22 April 1944, (NARA) AMP. Cit. by Owens 1988, 291.
- 21.
Cf. von Neumann to Weaver, 14 January 1944 (UPA). Cit. by Stern 1981, 71.
- 22.
Cf. Weaver to Emory L. Chafee of Harvard University, 22 March 1944; Weaver to J. von Neumann, 22 March 1944 (VNLC); von Neumann to Weaver 27 March 1944 and 28 June 1944 (HSRC). Cit. by Aspray 1990a, 30, and notes 22 and 24 on page 260.
- 23.
We read at the official Los Alamos website: “The first implosion calculation showed that the fissile material would be strongly compressed and that a high yield would result from assembling a relatively small amount of fissile material if a spherically symmetrical implosion was produced. Although much work on explosives, lenses, detonators and other components of the device was required to accomplish this, the Trinity test July 16, 1945, showed that the calculation was correct. About a dozen other calculations of implosion were done to refine it before the end of the war.” [50th Anniversary].
- 24.
Von Neumann to Weaver, 10 April 1944, VNLC. Cit. by Aspray 1990a, 32.
- 25.
Checking the days of the week with the perpetual calendar we discover that 6 and 7 January 1945 were a Saturday and Sunday, a strange fact for Anglo-Saxon habits, but perhaps consistent with the idea of an informal and largely secret meeting is that everyone was in a hurry at that time, especially von Neumann. On this date, the literature is quite unanimous [Cf. among other Aspray 1990a, notes 46, 47, 48 at p. 315; Heims 1984 [1980], 185; Hellman 1981, 229–230; Piccinini 2003, 79] and it can itself be placed on a solid documentary basis: the summary of the meeting prepared by von Neumann and sent to the participants, dated 12 January 1945 (VNLC) refers to a “meeting on 6–7 January in Princeton.” von Neumann sent Wiener two copies of the summary, with a cover letter dated 12 January 1945 (VNLC). The dates of all letters concerning the conference (VNLC, WAMIT, and HGAP) relate to the turn of 1944 and 1945 and are consistent. In any case, Wiener also failed to correct the indication of winter 1943–44, even in the second edition of (61c [48f1], 15), even though many of the errors that plagued the first edition were amended. In addition, Wiener proposes the same date in the autobiography, anticipating by one year—compared to the epistolary sources—a series of events described in the letters, such as his trip to Mexico to attend the conference of the Mexican Mathematical Society in Guadalajara, documented by various letters to von Neumann sent during the course of 1945, and which took place between 28 May and 2 June 1945 (Science, vol. 102, No. 2647, 21 September, 1945, 296–297), a meeting that Wiener stubbornly places a year before (64g [56g], 276 ss.); so Wiener does also for the told of his crisis of conscience as a result of the atomic bombing of Japan, starting from the end of 1944 (Cf. 64g [56g], 293 ss).
- 26.
The Harvard Mark I “was taken over by the US Navy Bureau of Ships” (Cohen 2003, 1079).
- 27.
About the “AMP Study 171” Weaver speaks of a “Survey of Computing Machines” (Weaver, 1946, Foreword, VIII). Owens (1996 n. 29, p. 41) says that it is in the archive (NARA), RG 227, OSRD, Records of the Applied Mathematics Panel, Box 62. We know that “AMP Study 171” collects various reports. In particular, about Eckert J.P. et al. 1945, and its presence in “AMP Study 171” was discussed in the trial Honeywell vs Sperry Rand (Cf. Verdict 1973). Stibitz 1945a and 1945b (Cf. Stibitz 1986). It is interesting to note that, among the recipients of the distribution list in Stibitz 1945, we find John von Neumann, Norbert Wiener, E[dmund] C. Berkeley, Howard Aiken, Warren Weaver, Herman Goldstine, and J.G. Brainerd. (Cf. Hook, Norman and Williams 2002, 457).
- 28.
Bigelow a Weaver, 22 April 1944, (NARA), AMP, cit. by Owens 1988, 295.
- 29.
Ibid.
- 30.
The name of John Vincent Atanasoff emerged during the last of the legal battles over patents for EDVAC, which began in 1945. The court recognized the priority of invention to him for creating, between 1937 and 1942, with his student Clifford E. Berry , a small electronic computer, the Atanasoff-Berry Computer (ABC), designed to solve large systems of linear equations, based on a device for addition and subtraction with 300 vacuum tubes, derived from the technology used for nuclear computations. The entire dispute over EDVAC and ABC is summarized in detail by Morelli 2001.
- 31.
Ceruzzi observes that “it appears that this thesis was partially the inspiration for work that Eckert later did at the Moore School.” (Ceruzzi 1998, note 88, p. 322).
- 32.
J.G. Brainerd, “Report on an Electronic Diff. [sic] Analyzer,” Submitted to the Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, by the Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, First Draft, April 2, 1943. Cit by Goldstine 1973 (1980, 149).
- 33.
Cf. Harold L. Hazen, Diary of Hazen, 14 April 1943, (NARA) OSRD GP, Project#62, Box 46 and Caldwell to Warren Weaver, 15 May 1943 (NARA) OSRD GP, Ballistics, General Correspondence Folder, Box 80. Cit by Mindell 1996, 455 and 456.
- 34.
Memorandum by S.H. Caldwell to Harold L. Hazen, 23 October 1943, NDRC. Cit by Wildes e Lindgren 1986, 231. Cf. also Goldstine 1980 [1973], 151.
- 35.
Cf. Memorandum from G.R. Stibitz to W. Weaver, 6 November 1943, cit. by Goldstine 1980 [1973], 151–2.
- 36.
Gillon to Hazen, 7 October 1943, cit. by Goldstine 1980 [1973] 152–3.
- 37.
On 15 May 1943 Caldwell had written to Weaver: “There is a certain amount of agitation, coming primarily from Brainerd at the University of Pennsylvania, for the development of an electronic differential analyzer to do high-speed numerical integration. This is a huge undertaking. I doubt that it can be finished until five years after the war is over.” (NARA) OSRD GP, Ballistics, General Correspondence Folder, Box 80, cit. by Mindell 1996, 456.
- 38.
On 5 September 1944, von Neumann asked the Moore School for official permission to see the ENIAC for two months from 7 September 1944 (HSRC). But from a letter by J.G. Brainerd to Paul N. Gillon, on 13 September 1944 (HGAP), we can argue that he had been already to the Moore School before having “extensive discussions” with the ENIAC staff about scientific problems with the computer. To do this von Neumann had the permission from the BRL at the Aberdeen base. Cf. Aspray 1990a, note 50, pp. 262–3.
- 39.
Goldstine to Simon, “Further Research and Development ENIAC,” 11 August 1944. Cit. by Goldstine 1973 (1980, 185).
- 40.
Goldstine to Gillon, 21 August 1944, cit. by Goldstine 1980 [1973], 199.
- 41.
Goldstine to Gillon, 2 September 1944, cit. ibid, 198.
- 42.
Brainerd to Gillon, 13 September1944 (HGAP). Cit. by Goldstine 1980 [1973], 187, integrated with the quotation from Aspray 1990a, 37.
- 43.
Wiener to Pitts, 17 October 1944 (WAMIT) Box 4, ff. 66, cit. by Piccinini 2003, 77.
- 44.
Wiener to Rosenblueth, 19 October 1944 (WAMIT), Box 4, ff. 66. Cit. by Piccinini 2003, 77.
- 45.
Wiener to Giorgio de Santillana, 16 October 1945 (WAMIT), box 2, folder 69. Cit. by Hellman 1981, 242.
- 46.
Von Neumann, “Report of Computer Project,” 16 March 1946. Cit. by Goldstine 1980 [1973], 252.
- 47.
Von Neumann to Wiener, 29 November 1946 (VNLC), General Correspondence, Box 7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Montagnini, L. (2017). Wiener and Computers. Act 2. In: Harmonies of Disorder. Springer Biographies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50657-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50657-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50656-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50657-9
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)