1 comments about Great Moments in Mathematics After 1650.

1. This book, a sequel to the one with the same title with "Before" replacing "After", is just as good as the "predecessor." Eves has no peer in exploring the development of mathematics by identifying and describing some of the "inflection points" of mathematical progress. That is a term made famous by businessman Andrew Grove and is used to refer to a time when dramatic change is occurring.
   Mathematicians, despite many conceptions to the contrary, work in a field where astonishing results sometimes occur. Eves, through his set of great moments selected from his series of lectures on the topic, ably describes some of those moments of astonishment. He also explains why the result was significant in a manner that almost everyone, including mathematically sophisticated high school students, can understand. Eves also includes problems at the end of each section, and these are excellent. They are well written and serve to solidify and expand the main points of the section. He also includes solution hints for most of the exercises.
   A partial list of the topics includes the birth of probability, the invention of the calculus, the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry, the creation of group theory, the organization of set theory, and my favorite, transfinite numbers.
   There is no better set of books available for courses in mathematical history than the two in this short series. Mathematics occasionally progresses in great bounds rather than small leaps and Eves gives detailed, understandable explanations of some of those of greatest length.

No comments about From Newton to Hawking: A History of Cambridge University's Lucasian Professors of Mathematics.(Book Review): An article from: Canadian Journal of History.

No comments about History of Algebraic Geometry: An Outline of the History and Development of Algebraic Geometry (Wadsworth Mathematics Series).

No comments about Ecology of Infectious Diseases in Natural Populations (Publications of the Newton Institute).

4 comments about The First Electronic Computer: The Atanasoff Story.

1. This book tells the story of Dr. John Vincent Atanasoff (a Bulgarian name; Dr. Atanasoff was native born in Hamilton, New York, 1903. He is credited by court decision in 1973 with the invention of the computer. The case in dispute was between Honeywell and Sperry Rand for claims of the computer invention. If either party have prevailed, the winner might have had patent rights. IBM was worried and introduced JV (as he was called) who showed that he had invented the computer at Iowa State in 1938 when he was in the mathematics department (JV was a 1930 PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin). The computer invented belonged to JV and his assistant, Charles Berry (hence the name ABC = Atanasoff Berry Computer). There were several versions built, some in 1939 and in 1940.

   The court decision was that as there was a prior invention (the ABC) which had not been patented by anyone, no one could patent the computer comcept. I am delighted that that was the decision and told JV that several times (I lived near him, his home was New Market Maryland and I was in Frederick Maryland) until he died about 10 years. He was always grouchy about my view but did concede (mostly by remaining silent) that the speed of computer advances was because there was no patent restriction in effect.

   ENIAC owed much to Dr. Atanasoff as Mauchly saw the ABC in visits to Iowa State. Some visits were for several days ("for the better part of a week" was JV's court testimony). Programming and program languages were not part of JV contribution. Dr. Mauchly's own testimony as reproduced in the book shows he grudgedly agreed that he owed ideas and examples to others.

   The original case was filed in 1968 as Honeywell v. Sperry Rand and Illinois Scientific Developments. Among the almost 100 issues pushed by Honeywell and the ENIAC, the judge, Earl R. Larsen, ruled "Eckert and Mauchly did not themselves first invent the automatic electronic digital computer, but instead derived that subject matter from one Dr. John Vincent Atanasoff". Other equally strong language was used to assert that JV and Berry held nothing back concerning the machine's theory, design, construction, use or operation; that Mauchly went to Ames Iowa and had correspondence with Atanasoff.

   Judge Larsen's decision was not appealed by anyone. A blessing to us all.

   Dr. Atanasoff did not realize until late in life that he had done something tremedous. He retired wealthy but not from his computer invention.




2. The First Electronic Computer: The Atanasoff Story is an excellent historical and technical document of the ABC Computer. It traces the ENIAC lineage directly to the ABC and J.V.Atansoff. If there are any Atanasoff skeptics out there, this book is the definitive prescription to win their minds. A must have book for the personal library.



3. If you have heard something like "Atanasoff computer, or Atanasoff-Berry Machine was never built", or "ABC machine was not a computer", then the best thing you should do is to consult this book. It will tell you everything about the ABC machine, including technical details. An exact replica of the original ABC machine was built in 1997, and the team for this project consulted this book, and the authors. One of the authors, Alice Burks tells us, in her new book "Who invented the computer?" (2003), an amusing story. One day, a member of this team asked Arthur and Alice Burks, "How did you know these details?" They answered "By weekly phone talks with Atanasoff", and the inquirer was delighted.

   This book also contains many quotations from the ENIAC patent trial, and you can check yourself the credibility of Atanasoff and Mauchly, and also the credibility of the Judge Larson. Anyone who denounces the ABC machine is either a fake or ignorant; they either ignore this book, or did not read this monumental book.




4. 
   I read the Alice Burks book "Who Invented the Computer?" before I read this one, and I'm surprised to find this one even worse. It appears to have been written by a god and goddess who know what is in the hearts of men, especially John Mauchly and Pres Eckert. I think the first page should have started with their philosophy of John and Pres's characters expressed on p.181, "they were greedy, for fame and fortune, and did not want to acknowledge any prior invention." This is the premise under which they operate so of course they interpret everything as a proof of this premise. I knew Arthur Burk as a nice, mild-mannered man in the style of the Mr. Milquetoast depicted in the New Yorker cartoon. Apparently, he married a woman with magical powers who turned him into this vicious all-knowing author. I wonder if he would have been as self-righteous if he had been included on the ENIAC patent. He would probably have been able to stifle his virtue and never even dream of beating the drums for Atanasoff. They even include testimony of Mrs. Atanasoff that makes her sound as gracious as a pig at a trough. Of course, she knew Mauchly was staying with them. Her husband had told him that they had plenty of room and he was welcome.
   
   John Mauchly was delighted to meet Atanasoff, who attended one of his lectures and came up to talk to him later. Both were interested in computers and eager to communicate with a kindred spirit. I'm sure they learned many things from each other and discussed many ideas. This was 1940 when they met and not very many people were interested in discussing computing. Both had things they wanted to do and current tools didn't allow them to do them very well. John was eager to find out if Atanasoff's computer could help him with his problems. Does anyone for a moment believe that the passage of knowledge flowed only in one direction? One would think that Atanasoff must have learned something from John, but this book would have you believe that Atanasoff had all the knowledge. If so, why was he so eager to have John come to see his computer, which I believe was never built until the ENIAC Trial.
   
   Page 181 also displays their heavenly knowledge when they state, "It was not long before they realized that this machine would surpass the analyzer in the range of problems it could solve as well as in speed, and they began to call it a general purpose computer." How do they know that? John always told the ENIAC Women that it was general purpose and he always tried to get us to try to program a matrix inversion.
   
   Their castigating of Kay Mauchly is shameful. Her arguments are always discounted while anything a lawyer, Atanasoff. or the judge says is pure truth. John's statements are all discounted and made fun of. This is such a vicious prejudiced book, with its venom repeated over and over again, it should be held up to ridicule. It cannot be taken seriously. And to think, Arthur has a Ph.D. Jean J. Bartik

No comments about Mercenary Companies and the Decline of Siena (The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science).

No comments about The Complete Idiot's Guide to Canadian History: The Simple Way to Learn about Your Country, All the Facts and Dates from before Confederation to Present Day, Easy Format Makes History Come to Life.

No comments about Connections: A World History, Combined Volume, VangoBooks (MyHistoryKit Series).

No comments about Brahmagupta, Man who found zero, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division (1).

1 comments about The Statistical Analysis of Recurrent Events (Statistics for Biology and Health).

1. These authors along with Wayne Nelson have been doing the pioneering work on recurrent events. Recurrent events are outcomes that occur more than once for the subjects under study. One example that Wayne Nelson used in his course and text is the time of birth and the total number of births by an adult woman. In reliability it could be the number of times and mileage when the car battery fails or a tire goes flat. In onco;ogy it can be the recurrence of a tumor. The methodology is a modification to survival analysis accounting for multiple events. The problem can also be posed as a multvariate survival problem where the multiple events for each subject are represented by a vector times of occurrence. It differs from the standard approach such as given in the text by Hougaard. Nelson concentrates on the mean cumulative function whereas Lawless and Cook are more concerned with hypothesis testing.
   
   This text is very clearly written and covers the state of the art in recurrent event theory. These methods should and will see much more use in the future as there are many applications in reliability with maintenance, warranties and clinical trial data analysis.