▲ | lmm 3 days ago | |||||||||||||
> analog computers don't generally compute by operating on symbols. For example see the classic video on fire control computers https://youtu.be/s1i-dnAH9Y4?t=496 > OP's specific phrasing is that they "map symbols to symbols". Analog computers don't do that. Some can, but that's not their definition. How is that not symbolic? Fundamentally that kind of computer maps the positions of some rods or gears or what have you to the positions of some other rods or gears or what have you, and the first rods or gears are symbolising motion or elevation or what have you and the final one is symbolising barrel angle or what have you. (And sure, you might physically connect the final gear directly to the actual gun barrel, but that's not the part that's computation; the computation is the part happening with the little gears and rods in the middle, and they have symbolic meanings). | ||||||||||||||
▲ | defrost 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
There's a confusion of nomenclature. Computers are functional mappings from inputs to outputs, sure. Analog fire computers are continuous mappings from a continuum, a line segment (curved about a cam), to another continuum, a dial perhaps. Symbolic operations, mapping from patterns of 0s and 1s (say) to other patterns are discrete, countable mappings. With a real valued electrical current, discrete symbols are forced by threshold levels. | ||||||||||||||
|