Unterschiede
Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen gezeigt.
| Nächste Überarbeitung | Vorhergehende Überarbeitung | ||
|
analyticalengine:typos [2015-04-20 06:49] rainer angelegt |
analyticalengine:typos [2016-06-08 07:22] (aktuell) rainer Wrong item deleted |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
| ====== Typographical Errors and Hints ====== | ====== Typographical Errors and Hints ====== | ||
| - | The //Sketch of the Analytical Enigine.. // uses typgraphical conventions not common today, and there are a few apparent typographical errors. | + | The //Sketch of the Analytical Enigine.. // uses some typgraphical conventions not common today, and there are a few apparent typographical errors. |
| - | It has been typeset anew in several places, e.g. in | + | It is available as a facsimile unter [[https://archive.org/stream/scientificmemoir03memo#page/666/mode/2up|archive.org]] (processed version removing the background: {{:analyticalengine:menabrea_lovelace1843_analyticalengine.pdf|menabrea_lovelace1843_analyticalengine.pdf}}) and has been typeset anew in several places, e.g. in //Charles Babbage and his CALCULATING ENGINES//, edited by Philip and Emily Morrison, Dover Publications 1961, //The Works of Charles Babbage//, edited by Martin Campbell-Kelly, Vol. 3, London 1989, and online at [[http://fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html|http://fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html]]. Follows a list of typographic errors which are not generally all corrected (pagenumbers refer to the original publication): |
| + | |||
| + | * The well-discussed case of the cos on p. 637, where the phrase //when the cos of n=∝ has been foreseen ... // should clearly read //the case of ... // | ||
| + | * In the first equations of //Note E// (p.712), most reprints correctly use the upper index '1' instead of the prime as in the original; the equations referred to are not on p.679, but on p. 684 | ||
| + | * Also in //Note E// p.714, equation 3, there is missing a //cos// in the second term of the right hand side; the formula should read (see page 723):\\ `cos n theta %%*%% cos theta = 1/2 cos [(n+1) theta] + 1/2 cos [(n-1) theta]` | ||
| + | |||
| + | * In the final table ending //Note G//, in operation 4, the operands have to be exchanged: V<sub>4</sub> has to be divided by V<sub>5</sub> | ||
| + | * In the same table in line 21, it must read <sup>2</sup>V<sub>12</sub> instead of <sup>0</sup>V<sub>12</sub> in the result column | ||
| + | * <del>In the same line, the zero in column V<sub>11</sub> must be dropped. If the loop is repeated, the value is needed in the next round.</del> | ||
| + | * In the same line 21, in the 5th column (//Indication...//) the second line <sup>0</sup>V<sub>12</sub> = <sup>2</sup>V<sub>12</sub> is exceptional, as elsewhere in this column only //Variables acted upon// from the 3rd column are used; systematically, it would be `<sup>0</sup>V<sub>11</sub> = <sup>5</sup>V<sub>11</sub>. | ||
| + | * In operation 24, the negative value of V<sub>13</sub> has to be transferred to V<sub>24</sub>, i.e. V<sub>24</sub>-V<sub>13</sub> must be calculated, and in the 6<sup>th</sup> column read =-B<sub>7</sub> | ||
| + | * Also in the same line, in the (forth to last) column for V<sub>13</sub> the digit zero must printed, as is given in the 5<sup>th</sup> column, according to the rule that intermediate variables have to be to set to zero finally. | ||
| + | * The last signature (p.731) is not //A.A.L.//, but //A.L.L.//, which is most probably only a typeset error. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note that in line 25 in the result column and in the next one right to the equals sign should read <sup>2</sup>V<sub>3</sub> instead of <sup>1</sup>V<sub>3</sub>; however AAL argued that the upper index is correct, as this value is for the next round of calculations, and thus must have the upper index 1 for a starting value. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note also that instead of nested parenthesis, parts of equations are overbarred, e.g. (4.) on page 716. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Martin Campbell-Kelley's edition corrects all, but not the wrong division in operation 4 of the table for the calculation of Bernoulli's numbers, although having used a simulation as well as Petrenko, refering to Tee's review, as of the footnote on p.159. Probably both corrected the error during testing, and missed a note on this. | ||
