Comments on: Today We Celebrate a Woman Who Saw the Future of Computers http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/10/today-we-celebrate-a-woman-who-saw-the-future-of-computers/ Keeping You Current Tue, 21 May 2013 01:58:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: Betty A Toole Ed.D. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/10/today-we-celebrate-a-woman-who-saw-the-future-of-computers/comment-page-1/#comment-1324 Betty A Toole Ed.D. Tue, 16 Oct 2012 23:26:01 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/?p=5729#comment-1324 Another point about the Bernoulli numbers. Babbage many years later wrote he had finished the table, but at the time Ada clearly wrote that her husband was inking them over. Babbage was supposed to check the table, but there is a bug in the table, so either he made a mistake or failed to catch Ada's mistake. Another point about the Bernoulli numbers. Babbage many years later wrote he had finished the table, but at the time Ada clearly wrote that her husband was inking them over. Babbage was supposed to check the table, but there is a bug in the table, so either he made a mistake or failed to catch Ada’s mistake.

]]> By: Betty A Toole Ed.D. http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/10/today-we-celebrate-a-woman-who-saw-the-future-of-computers/comment-page-1/#comment-1322 Betty A Toole Ed.D. Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:47:29 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/?p=5729#comment-1322 As the author of Ada, the Enchantress of Numbers I take issue with calling into question her authorship of the Bernoulli numbers. In correspondence at the time she suggested to Babbage the inclusion of Bernoulli numbers since she was studying them at the time. As to previous programs I included those as a background in my Scientific American article only to realize after it went to press that there is a problem with attributing those very simple programs to Babbage. Yes, they are in the Babbage files, but not in his handwriting, nor in his style and doing a data check with his correspondence at the British Library, Babbage was traveling on those dates. Ada working out a strategy for the game solitaire many years before her table for the Bernoulli numbers showed she had that capability. Dubbey and other mathematicians give her full credit. Sincerely, Dr Betty A Toole As the author of Ada, the Enchantress of Numbers I take issue with calling into question her authorship of the Bernoulli numbers. In correspondence at the time she suggested to Babbage the inclusion of Bernoulli numbers since she was studying them at the time. As to previous programs I included those as a background in my Scientific American article only to realize after it went to press that there is a problem with attributing those very simple programs to Babbage. Yes, they are in the Babbage files, but not in his handwriting, nor in his style and doing a data check with his correspondence at the British Library, Babbage was traveling on those dates.

Ada working out a strategy for the game solitaire many years before her table for the Bernoulli numbers showed she had that capability.

Dubbey and other mathematicians give her full credit.

Sincerely,
Dr Betty A Toole

]]> By: Sarah Laskow http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/10/today-we-celebrate-a-woman-who-saw-the-future-of-computers/comment-page-1/#comment-1315 Sarah Laskow Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:23:54 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/?p=5729#comment-1315 True. Thanks for catching that. True. Thanks for catching that.

]]> By: Anita Ashbaugh http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/10/today-we-celebrate-a-woman-who-saw-the-future-of-computers/comment-page-1/#comment-1314 Anita Ashbaugh Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:15:41 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/?p=5729#comment-1314 It would behoove you to proofread better. As she lived from 1815-1852, she was hardly from the "seventeenth century" as you erroneously state in the very first sentence of your article. It would behoove you to proofread better. As she lived from 1815-1852, she was hardly from the “seventeenth century” as you erroneously state in the very first sentence of your article.

]]>