Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- analyticalengine:typos [2015-04-20 09:15] – to be continued rainer
+++ analyticalengine:typos [2016-06-08 09:22] (aktuell) – Wrong item deleted rainer
@@ 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.
-It 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,
+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):
-and online at [[http://fourmilab.ch/babbage/sketch.html]]. Both contain some additional typographic errors.
-  * Instead of nested parenthesis, parts of equations are overbarred instead, e.g. (4.) on page 716
+    * 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.684), most reprints correctly use the upper index '1' instead of the prime as in the original
+    * 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 `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 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>
+    * 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.
+    * The last signature (p.731) is not //A.A.L.//, but //A.L.L.//, which is most probably only a typeset error.
+Note that in line 25  in the result column and in the next one right to the equals sign should read <sup>2</sup>V<sub>3</sub>  instead of <sup>1</sup>V<sub>3</sub>; however AAL argued that the upper index is correct, as this value is for the next round of calculations, and thus must have the upper index 1 for a starting value.
+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 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.