Anzeigen des Gesamtinhalts (oder Logo links anklicken) oder des Impressums.

Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen gezeigt.

Link zu dieser Vergleichsansicht

Beide Seiten der vorigen Revision Vorhergehende Überarbeitung
Nächste Überarbeitung
Vorhergehende Überarbeitung
analyticalengine:typos [2015-10-08 16:22]
rainer
analyticalengine:typos [2016-06-08 07:22] (aktuell)
rainer Wrong item deleted
Zeile 3: Zeile 3:
 The //Sketch of the Analytical Enigine.. // uses some 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 is available as a facsimile unter [[https://​archive.org/​stream/​scientificmemoir03memo#​page/​666/​mode/​2up|archive.org]] (processed version removing the background: {{:​analyticalengine:​menabrea_lovelace1842_analyticalengine.pdf|menabrea_lovelace1842_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):​+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 ... //      * 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     * 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
-    * 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]`+    * 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 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     * 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>​     * 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.     * 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.
Zeile 19: Zeile 21:
 Note also that instead of nested parenthesis,​ parts of equations are overbarred, e.g. (4.) on page 716. 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 ​he claims ​having used a simulation as well as Petrenko, refering to Tee's review, as of the footnote on p. 159. This still has to be clarified.+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. 
 + 

Anmelden