Communications of the ACM

In this sense, the variety of topics and the diversity of approaches of Turing’s work, embracing both the practical and the theoretical, reflects an essential aspect of computer science. However, if one celebrates Turing mainly because of his theoretical work, one runs the risk of increasing already existing divides. Instead of favoring one reading of Turing and crowding out others, why not view Turing’s own accomplishments as an invitation? The historian could integrate Turing into a more complex historical account. The computer scientist could look back and reflect on the state of computer science, finding new ways of rapprochement between the many branches of computer science, between theory and practice.

References

1. ACM Council Meeting, August 27, 1965. Available from the “Saul Gorn Papers,” the University of Pennsylvania Archives (unprocessed collection).

2. ACM Council Meeting, August 29, 1966. Available from the “Saul Gorn Papers,” the University of Pennsylvania Archives (unprocessed collection).

3. Brown, J. and Carr, J. W. III. Automatic programming
and its development on the MIDAC. In Symposium
on Automatic Programming for Digital Computers,

Washington D.C., May 1954. Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy, 84–97.

4. Bullynck, M. Reading Gauss in the computer age: On the U. S. reception of Gauss’s number theoretical work.

Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 65, 5

(2009), 553–580.

5. Cooper, B.S. and van Leeuwen, J., Eds. Alan Turing— His Work and Impact. Elsevier, 2013.

6. Daylight, E.G. Towards a Historical Notion of ‘Turing— The Father of Computer Science’. To appear in History and Philosophy of Logic; http://www.dijkstrascry.com/ TuringPaper.

7. Daylight, E.G. A Turing Tale. Commun. ACM 57, 10

(Oct. 2014).

8. Gorn, S. Real solutions of numerical equations by high speed machines. Technical Report 966, Ballistic Research Laboratories, October 1955. Available from the “Saul Gorn Papers” from the University of Pennsylvania Archives (unprocessed collection).

9. Haigh. T. Actually, Turing did not invent the computer.

Commun. ACM 57, 1 (Jan. 2014), 46–51.

10. Klein. F. The present state of mathematics. In

Mathematical Papers read at the International Mathematical Congress, held in Connection with the World’s Columbian Exposition Chicago (1893), 133–135.

11. Parshall, K.H. and Rowe, D.E., Eds. The Emergence of the American Mathematical Research Community,

1876–1900: J.J. Sylvester, Felix Klein, and E.H. Moore.

AMS, 1994.

12. Underwood, S. The Alan Turing year leaves a rich legacy. Commun. ACM 56, 10 (2013), 24–25.

Maarten Bullynck ( maarten.bullynck@univ-paris8.fr) is associate professor at Département de mathématiques et histoire des sciences, Université Paris 8. He is currently on sabbatical leave at the research Sphère (UMR 7219, Paris) funded by the CNRS.

Edgar G. Daylight ( egdaylight@dijkstrascry.com)—also known as Karel Van Oudheusden—has a Ph.D. from KULeuven in Belgium and is a researcher in software engineering and the history of computing at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

Liesbeth De Mol ( liesbeth.demol@univ-lille3.fr) is a CNRS researcher at the Université de Lille 3, France. She is the president of the international DHST commission for the History and Philosophy of Computing ( www.hapoc.org).

Copyright held by authors.

This started in the 1970s with the disclosure of some of Turing’s war work for the Allies, followed by Andrew Hodges’ authoritative 1983 biography, which also added a personal dimension to Turing’s story: his life as a gay man in a homophobic world. This made Turing also known outside of computer science. The second wave culminated in the 2012 Turing centenary celebrations that nurtured the perception of Turing as the inventor of the modern computer and artificial intelligence. Some even claim Turing anticipated the Internet and the iPhone.

The year 2012 was full of activities: there were over 100 academic meetings, plaques, documentaries, exhibitions, performances, theater shows, and musical events. The celebrations also brought together a group of people with diverse backgrounds and promoted computer science to the general public, an achievement of which the longer-term impact has yet to be awaited. 12 A discipline has its heroes for good reasons.

As Hodges’ biography shows, Turing’s work was multifaceted. Not only did Turing contribute in 1936 to the foundations of mathematics, which later proved to be fundamental for theoretical computer science, he also worked at Bletchley Park during World War II to help break the Enigma. He became an experienced programmer of the Ferran-ti Mark I for which he wrote a programmer’s manual and even designed a computer, known as the ACE. He reflected on thinking machines and contributed to the field of morphogenesis.

It is therefore not surprising that for many today the multidisciplinary nature of computer science is personified in Turing who achieved all these different things in one short lifespan. Along these lines, Barry Cooper, the driving force behind the Turing centenary, said the following in 2012: The mission of [the Turing Centenary] was to address concerns about how science was fragmenting. We wanted to return to more joined-up thinking about computability and how it affects everyone’s life. More generally, too, the Turing Year was important in highlighting the need for fundamental thinking. 12

From this perspective, Turing’s the-
oretical work gives new impetus to the
sciences as a whole, not just to com-
puter science per se. The recent volume
Turing’s collected papers cum essays
from renowned scientists—also wants
to bring this point home. It echoes
even on the political level. The House of
Commons has considered naming the
new Technology and Innovation elite
centers after Turing. According to the
chairman of the Science and Technolo-
gy Committee, “There isn’t a discipline
in science that Turing has not had an
impact upon.” As such, computer sci-
ence, and especially theoretical com-
puter science with its focus on com-
putability, becomes the connecting
discipline among the other sciences,
and thereby turns into a fundamental
science, not unlike mathematics.

The focus on computability and fundamental thinking is certainly not accidental. To a large extent the drive behind the Turing Year came from theoreticians. They do not ignore that Turing also worked in engineering. However, many of them argue that Turing must have invented the computer because of his theoretical 1936 paper. According to this view on science and technology, also present in Klein’s Gauss interpretation, theory precedes practice.

Looking Backward into the Future

Over the past century, the one-dimen-sional image of Gauss has been replaced by a multitude of images. This shows a discipline in constant evolution assesses its own identity through its heroes and allows for a multiplicity of readings. Certainly, each reading may further the agenda of a particular community, but the diversity of all images taken together, all grounded in some way in Gauss’ legacy, positively stimulates the openness and generosity of a field.