>>> But, at that time,
>>> such things where nearly impossible to replicate, so when the ship it
>>> was one sank...
>>
>> We're talking about something from a /long/ time ago. The fact that no
>> others have been found yet doesn't mean none existed.
>>
> This is true, but from a purely practical standpoint, the expense,
> precision, and engineering needed to get just "one" to work, using
> basically copper and bronze gears, and little if any fast and replicable
> casting methods (where talking hand making each gear here), the odds of
> an exact copy is pretty much nil. The odds of something similar, still
> close to zero. Something much simpler.. possibly, but its basically a
> clock, more or less, and I am pretty sure that water clocks where just
> about as close as they ever got, based on everything known/found/written
> about, other than this thing, to that level of precision.

That's interesting, because Wikipedia claims there's a long documented 
history of ideas similar to this one, starting with Archimedes...

>>> Arguably, its gearing system had to have some sort of "algorithm".
>>
>> By that description, the way that trees use the laws of physics to move
>> exactly the right amount of water from their roots to their leaves could
>> be considered an "algorithm". Which would mean that algorithms predate
>> mankind by several billion years...
> Umm, well.. I would argue that what makes it an algorithm is the
> "intentional" development of the steps and process needed to form a
> predictable result.

Indeed.

Post a reply to this message