Talk:Konrad Zuse

Introduction wrong

Last part of the first sentence is ‘[..] was a [..] computer pioneer who collaborated with the German government during World War 2, which helped finance his projects.’ In fact, the German government never gave him support or a chance to finish his work (see article at ARTE) and even wanted to conscript him, because they didn't recognize benefits from his Z1..Z3 (see also Z3 (computer) and Hans-Willy Hohn (1998). Kognitive Strukturen und Steuerungsprobleme der Forschung. Kernphysik und Informatik im Vergleich (in German). Schriften des Max-Planck-Instituts für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln. ISBN 3-593-36102-7.(literally "not war-important")) --Cvf-ps (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted that part because it's actually wrong. Here is a link, however only in German language, and here it is mentioned that he wasn't financially supported by the Goverment. It seems that he would have collaborated, but didn't get the chance – see the last section in the German link. --Cyfal (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In the source cited at reference #3 it states he was conscripted into the military, where he was given the resources to build the Z2 and Z3. The source cited at reference #7 states the Third Reich's Aerodynamic Research Institute funded his work. In the source cited at reference #4 at p. 489, it states the Z3 was a highly secretive project of the German government. In his own autobiography, cited at reference #6 at p.76, he acknowledges the war secrecy the German government invoked over his work. At p.61 from his autobiography he writes he received a contract for his work from the Aerodynamic Research Institute, which was funded by the German government. At p. 60 he writes his Hs 293 was deployed by the German military. At the source cited at reference #9 it clearly states Zuse completed his work for the German military. This would make the introduction line "who collaborated with the German government during World War 2, which helped finance his projects" completely factual. The line should actually read "who collaborated with the Nazi Germany, which supported, financed, and deployed his projects," because he started working with them as early as 1939. Because the German government didn't support his computer idea based on electronic valves because of immediacy reasons doesn't dispel the fact they supported many of his other projects. You also have to be careful of denazification revisionist sources, which are no longer academically credible.

I agree with a lot you wrote, but what does the last sentence actually mean? --2003:5B:E547:1577:6CC4:B570:B912:387A (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ferocious osmosis (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual correctness aside, the intro seems slightly biased. The first sentence should describe the reasons for Zuse's notability (which are his achievements in computing) instead of giving a political evaluation. Also, per Merriam-Webster, collaborate means to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force. One cannot collaborate with his own country. --Tgr (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, anglosaxon Wikipedia is a pathetic anti-German joke anyway, full of fucking propaganda and achievement-theft, cultural theft and often laying claim to various German technological achievements (see the MP3 article for example; a well-known German invention but made "american" by way of obfuscation and unnecessary complexity; tricky bastards) and biased allegations unseen in cases of other nations. Fucking pathetic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.212.214 (talk) October 5, 2010

Quite the contrary... I agree it doesn't go along with the German world view, but it's all the better for that, frankly. For me it seems to be the national German pastime to hijack all human achievement and make it theirs. Let's search the whole timeline of any given achievement, technology, discovery etc. for any German contribution whatsoever and then use this single contribution, no matter how insignificant to claim the whole thing for themselves. I see this German nationalism every day on German television. Last week there was a Galileo Program where they did just this, using the very Konrad Zuse of the article to claim Germany invented the whole of modern computing. Not one mention of Babbage, Turing etc. Look at the German Wikipedia article for Babbage for another example. It hardly mentions his contribution. Give me "Anglo-Saxon" Wikipedia any day to the German. The German one is only interesting for it's insight into a fundamentally sick psyche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.132.17 (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries give the pejorative meaning of 'collaborate' as second to the simple one of 'to work with another or others on a joint project', which is what the etymology implies ('co' - together 'labor' - work). So one can collaborate with one's own country or government. However, given that the initiative was his, not the German government's, the introduction could be more neutrally worded. --TedColes (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation then. Collaboration implies secrecy as every native speaker can tell. The sentence in question: Many of his projects were in collaboration with the Nazi Germany, which supported, financed, and deployed many of them --> Nazi Germany supported and deployed some of his projects. Looks like the ridiculous allegation that it actually is. Sure you anglosaxon anti-German propaganda clowns want that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.212.214 (talk) October 5, 2010

Not sure this comment dignifies a response, but as every native speaker knows, collaboration has the primary meaning of (as already stated) "to work with another or other on a joint project". And thank you I gladly accept the anti-German title. People of your ilk make it very easy to be, and in my experience, deep down, or in most cases, not so deep down, most Germans are of your ilk. All got a bee in your bonnet because the whole world just doesn't see you as the Übermenschen you would like to see yourself. "Like to see", because deep down "den Scheiß glaubt ihr doch selbst nicht"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.142.105 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Zuse Article

I made no changes to this page, because I have never edited a Wikipedia page, but a number of items on the page are either factually, verifiably, incorrect, or are at best worded so as to be misleading. It sounds more like propaganda than encyclopedic, fact-based information.

For example, the claim that Zuse's Z22 was the first computer with a memory based on magnetic storage is contradicted by readily available, well-sourced information on the Wikipedia pages on magnetic drum storage and magnetic core storage, among many other sources. The first Z22 was released for use in February 1958. The IBM 603 released in 1953 had magnetic drum memory. MIT's Whirlwind had magnetic core memory in 1953.

The claim near the top of the article that Zuse is often regarded as the "inventor of the computer" is very misleading at best and not very useful. Apart from a few revisionist German authors and Zuse's own family, very few people would regard Zuse, who did not build a fully electronic functioning computer until 1957-58, as the "inventor of the computer."

Many of the references cited are not verifiable or orignial material, such as note 7, which references a comment made by his son about an event that happened before the son was born and given in a talk 65 years after the event. Several citations are from Zuse's own reminiscing in later life.

Zuse was an intelligent tinkerer with some novel ideas, but this article in Wikipedia contains dubious claims. Zuse was about 10 years behind others in most of his work. He was not the breakthrough pioneer that this article makes him out to be.

Thses comments are not meant to be about Zuse-- he did a lot of good work, They are about a misleading Wikipedia article, and a plea for someone with the time and knowledge to correct it.

68.80.26.175 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Chuck Herbert, cherbert@ccp.edu

Yes, I agree with you! The Problem is, many Germans think (the Media Propaganda is here horrible in Germany!) this Guy is the Father of all Computers in the World! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.198.131 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm... You may be a 'bit' wrong here, Zuse was the first one to create fully functional, digital, fully and freely programmable, Turing-complete computer resembling modern computers, it operated on binary, had separation of control and storage etc. It was definitely a breakthrough, and he did this(Z3) two years before Alan Turing. He built the first commercial computer, invented the first high level language, Plankalkuel, FORTRAN came atleast a decade later... He also founded the world's first computer startup company Zuse-Ingenieurbüro Hopferau.

And another thing, no one is the father of the computer... Zuse invented the first fully functioning modern computer, the German, Wilhelm Schickard was arguably the father of the computer age... You can say the German Leibniz to be the first computer engineer because of his invention of binary, without which, Microsoft would have been a coffee company... Babbage envisioned programmable computers, but was not able to build them without binary... Alan Turing and Kurt Goedel contributed significantly to computers too... If someone names anyone of them singly as the father of the computer, either he/she doesn't know about computers, or he/she didn't read history during school.

And to the one who thinks that media propaganda is rampant in Germany, well you are rookies, ever heard of BBC? ———— Belegthorn of Gondor (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alleged Atheism

I checked the sources given and they don't give any evidence for Zuse being an atheist whatsoever. I checked Zuse's autobiography as well and it appears he had a distanced relationship to the church and organised religion. So perhaps calling him non-religious may be justified, but nothing justifies calling him an atheist (supporting an ontological postulate that God doesn't exist). I suggest to remove any such claim from the article. --2003:5B:E547:1577:6CC4:B570:B912:387A (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The reference number 30 claims that Zuse's parents wanted him to go for communion after Abitur. This looks like a sentence with probably two false claims:

• He was born in Berlin and it is thus improbable that he was catholic.
• Abitur happens between 17 and 19 (in his case 17) but communion happens with 13, which is before Abitur.

So this reference does not seem to be a trustworthy source. I recommend to ask Horst Zuse... Schily (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The likelihood of being a Catholic in Berlin is both non-zero and irrelevant; Catholics are not the only Christians who receive Communion. Nor is Communion a once-in-a-lifetime event. The reference neither states nor implies that this would be Zuse's first Communion. Could you please clarify your objections to the source based on its actual content? 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned: there are very few Catholics in Berlin and reformed Christs do not have a communion but a confirmation. For further information, please check the web. Schily (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. You continue to misuse Christian terminology. Confirmation and Holy Communion (the Eucharist) are not the same thing, equivalents, or alternatives to each other. Both Catholics and most Protestants, including the Reformed Church and Lutherans, celebrate both. Although the timing of Confirmation and First Communion are often related, Confirmation is meant to be a one-time occurrence while Communion is celebrated regularly throughout one's life. 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are miss-informed: There is nothing like communion in the reformed church and you seem to confuse communion with Lord's supper. Communion is a ritual that takes place in the reformed church and it takes place at aprox. the same age as there is confirmation. Schily (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing like communion in the reformed church ... Communion is a ritual that takes place in the reformed church ...

Seriously?? Come back when you've figured out what you're trying to say. 2600:1006:B12C:E4B8:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Come back when you have informed yourself about reality...It seems that you don't know the vocabulary. It seems that you confuse the celebration of religion maturity with Lords supper. Schily (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. Communion is another term for the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper. Confirmation is a rite in the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches which practice infant baptism; it is, as the name implies, an act of confirming the baptismal vows and/or becoming a full member of the church. Often occurring in the early teenage years, it may also be viewed as a celebration of maturity. If you're having a problem with the common English-language terminology, you might want to review the linked articles. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The catholic church does not use the term confirmation, but rather "(first) communion" in short "communion". On the other side, the reformed church does not use the term communion at all. I cannot help if the WP article you are quoting is not fully correct... Schily (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my! I guess you need to contact the Vatican to inform them that their description of Catholic sacraments is "not fully correct". When you've gotten them to change their teaching, you should also tell the Reformed Church in America that the statement of beliefs on their official web site erroneously equates "Communion", "the Lord's Supper", and "Eucharist". It's such a shame; if you can't trust official church sites to be reliable sources on church practices, who can you trust? 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We are neither talking about the catholic church nor about the reformed church in the USA but about the reformed church in Germany, Please inform yourself about reality.... Schily (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, of course. The Catholics Church has nothing to do with the discussion. I don't know why you brought it up. Of course, neither does the Reformed Church of Germany (which, by the way, shares worldwide affiliation and most beliefs with the Reformed Church in the US), since it has not been shown that the Zuse family were part of that church either. Nor have you been able to show any evidence that any specific major Christian denomination declines to recognize the word communion as a valid English-language alternative to eucharist. Even if that were the case, use of common terminology by a lay biographer is hardly grounds for considering the biography not to be a reliable source. In short, you have offered nothing but unsupported personal opinions to call for the elimination of a biographical source. Somewhat amusing, but rather pointless. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In other words: you did not read my original remark, you did not inform yourself about the ration of Catholics and reformed in Berlin and you are mainly interested in stealing other peoples time. So this is a strong EOD indication for me. Schily (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have significant problems with English comprehension. I obviously read your original post; as I pointed out in my initial response, your first "point" is totally irrelevant and the second reflects a complete lack of knowledge of common English terminology used by Protestants and Catholics alike. Nothing you have posted since serves to contradict that analysis. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't care whether your problem is that you don't understand the terminology or whether you did not read my original text. It is a matter of facts that your reply ignored the facts I presented and that you don't use the terms in a way that fits the location Berlin. So if you like to continue your jabber, do it but don't expect me to try to correct you again as you just verified that you are not interested in the original topic at all. Schily (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact is, you have not presented any supported relevant facts. You state a complete irrelevancy (of questionable accuracy) about the number of Catholics in Berlin. You pair that with a completely false implication that Communion is a one-time event performed only in one's youth rather than a rite performed regularly by Christians throughout their lives. You then synthesized the irrelevancy with the falsehood to conclude that the cited biography is not a reliable source. You have said nothing worthwhile and proven nothing at all. Perhaps you should stop wasting your own time on this Quixotic crusade. 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A few things need clarifying having read (some) of the above debate turned argument.

- Just shy of 10% of Berliners identify as Roman Catholic, therefore from a purely statistical perspective, there is a 10% chance he was catholic.

- Many non-catholic denominations have both confirmation and communion. As far as I am aware most or all Protestant churches have both (the Church of England certainly does, as I was confirmed at 13 years old in a C of E church, so I know this first hand). Anglican churches refer to the communion service as the Eucharist. I don't know if others do.

- Many 'reformed' churches, definitely at least some Pentecostal churches, have communion with no requirement for a formal confirmation first. I have seen this first hand too, having attended various services. Sometimes juice was used instead of wine.

- Methodists also have confirmation and communion, as do the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Jehovas Witnesses have communion although I believe it is a much less common service, only yearly if I remember correctly

- However, only Catholics believe in the concept of transubstantiation; the notion that the bread and wine literally transform into the flesh and blood of jesus. Most other denominations consider them simply to be symbolic (Jehovas Witnesses call them 'emblems'). The wording in high anglican churches follows the catholic liturgy closely from what I remember, This is the body and blood of Jesus Christ...', however the wording is also symbolic as transubstantiation is rejected, the wording is simply based on Mt 26:26-28; Lk 22:17-20; Mk 14:22-24, etc. I mention this as it may be why some people are under the impression 'communion' implies Catholicism. NB: The orthodox tradition is a little more vague on the subject, I think the Eastern Orthodox church believe that transubstantiation occurs at a different point during the ritual. Arguing over such absurdities of when a piece of bread turns into the flesh of god during a ritual seems like a pointless waste of time to me. It certainly doesn't taste like flesh.

I just wanted to clear up this for those under the impression that communion and/or confirmation is exclusively an RC phenomenon; it most certainly is not. This is something that can easily be looked up. 'High Protestants' and most C of E churches have a nearly identical process (I am referring to communion as the service and the administration of bread wafers and wine to the congregation, and confirmation as a service which confers the right to take communion following a period of study; to be absolutely clear)

Now, regarding the original point - the source regarding his religion (supposedly) - There appears to be no indication whatsoever of any particular denomination, the source only evidences that his parents were of a Christian denomination (to the extent that the source is trustworthy); one of the many that hold communion services. The source says nothing of his personal religious views, and any action he took at the age of 13 could not be used to determine his religious views, as he was a child. Like I said, I was confirmed, took communion, was even a crucifer, but I am not religious simply because I was raised in a Christian environment. I think this really should settle the debate - there is nothing in that source of any value to the article; his parents wanting him to take part in a common Christian rite when he was a child is not notable in and of itself.

I am quite sure everything I just wrote is indisputable, and easily verifiable. I don't really understand how it can lead to such a long winded argument. 109.159.9.88 (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace and place of death

I've added states to the infobox as this is usual the case with U.S. American, British, Canadian, and Australian people, and is also present on a large number of German articles. If I was wrong please inform me as usually it's city, state, country as opposed to city, country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Konrad Zuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130522022610/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/features/article_1566782.php/Z-like-Zuse-German-inventor-of-the-computer to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/features/article_1566782.php/Z-like-Zuse-German-inventor-of-the-computer
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://epemag.com/zuse/part7e.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.epemag.com/zuse/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418164050/http://www.epemag.com/zuse/ to http://www.epemag.com/zuse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Source for Zuse character in Tron Legacy

See: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0209988/ not sure how to cite the "presumed" part though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.119.186 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Konrad Zuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210150041/http://www.zib.de/zuse/English_Version/Inhalt/Texte/Chrono/40er/Pdf/0233.pdf to http://www.zib.de/zuse/English_Version/Inhalt/Texte/Chrono/40er/Pdf/0233.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829164932/http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Zuse.html to http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Zuse.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703013338/http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/bios/Konrad,Zuse/ to http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/bios/Konrad,Zuse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse  ???

• http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/
• http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse-or.JPG
• http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse-z1-1bit-adder-2.JPG
• http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse-z1-1bit-adder.JPG
• http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse-z1-aequivalenz.JPG
• http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse-z1-negation.JPG
• http://www1.inf.tu-dresden.de/~ua1/Fotos/Assmann/zuse-z1-or.JPG

64.175.40.84 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Zuseum e.V. ::

http://www.zuseum.de/gtas/index.php 64.175.40.84 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

IEEE Computer Pioneers by J. A. N. Lee

Short: Biography, Education, Honors and Awards

Zuse, Konrad, Computer Design-Past, Present, Future: talk given by Prof. Konrad Zuse, in Lund/Sweden, Oct. 2, 1987, IEEE

"Computer Pioneers - Konrad Zuse". history.computer.org. --89.25.210.104 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Appreciated

From about the fifth page of An Introduction to Digital Philosophy, by Edward Fredkin, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 42, No. 2, February 2003:

"We then discovered Konrad Zuse, who in the late 1960s, came up with a similar general concept of DP, and published a book called Rechnender Raum (“Calculating space”) (Zuse, 1969). We invited him to come to MIT where (according to his account) he found the ideas in his book appreciated for the first and only time during his life."

I believe that was the occasion of the 1981 Physics of Computation conference at MIT, organized by Fredkin, Landauer and Toffoli, papers from which were published in 3 issues of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics in 1982. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)