Talk:Punched card/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What did Hollerith's patent describe?

Does anyone know what Hollerith patented? This reference http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/cards/history.html says that "Babbage's proposed use of cards played a crucial role in later years, providing a precedent that prevented Hollerith's company from claiming patent rights on the very idea of storing data on punched cards." It may be that Hollerith patented the size of card if it's correct that he wasn't able to patent the general idea of punched cards. Can anyone help? Adrian Robson 10:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hollerith patented a complete system for processing the cards. See his patents from 1889: U.S. patent 395,781 U.S. patent 395,782 U.S. patent 395,783--agr 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom 108.34.143.147 (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but the fact that the Jacquard loom used cards with holes or not-holes to control pattern-weaving is not exactly news to anyone even minimally familiar with the history of this tech. Jeh (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Babbage Number Cards

I made a couple of very simple edits in an attempt to clarify this paragraph, but then I started to have doubts and reverted them. Perhaps others, who are more knowledgeable about Babbage, may wish to follow up these points.

1. Year of Charles Babbage's proposal for Numbered Cards? My original edit was simply to add the year of Babbage's proposal to fit in with the rest of the history section. I used the year (1837) of the referenced paper by Babbage, but then became unsure if this was indeed the original date and reverted the edit. The reason I gave (wrongly) attributed this paper to his son Benjamin Herschel Babbage, based on this page: https://collection.sciencemuseum.org.uk/documents/aa110067592/printed-sheet-babbages-calculating-machine

2. Calculating or Analytical Engine? The current text refers to the cards proposal being part of Babbage's "Calculating" Engine - presumably based on the title of the referenced article. Calculating Engine currently redirects to Difference Engine which, as far as I can see, did NOT use punched cards. I think, therefore, this article (and/or the redirection) should refer to the Analytical Engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigchip (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Cost of a box of cards

I think we need a much better source for the cost of a box of cards, and also a good source for the fact that cards were typically sold, and stored in boxes of 2,000. Anyone? - Snori (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

More

1. "A punched card or punch card is a piece of stiff paper that can be used to contain digital data represented by the presence or absence of holes in predefined positions."

The "recording of music as it is played" conflicts with "predefined" thus cannot be digital, not a precursor. Please delete that claim.

2. "very much believable to me" Ahhh, yes -- computer people are going to write the history of punched cards, what possibly could go wrong? "much believable to you"? A Wikipedia standard? Punch card input declined at some rate, as you've observed. But punched card output declined at a much faster rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.197.209 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply to eddit

1. People used to think that looms had something to do with punched cards. But Not so - Hollerith begins from scratch - nothing to do with looms. It's that foolish book "Jacquard's Web" that caused you problems. Eventually all the loom stuff will be deleted.

2. The card shown had round corners, introduced in 1965 - only used for another 20 years or so of decline. So it is very unlikely they were "the type most widely used".

Simple stuff...... I thought. [[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.197.209 (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

1 - I see your point here, I've added "In most cases there is no evidence that each of the inventors was aware of the earlier work", but while this seems to be the case from what I can see, proving a negative is not easy. However, regardless of whether these directly led to one another, they are relevent to the concept, and show that the development of the ideas that were "in the air" during the period.

2 - It would be hard to come up with solid number, but computers became much more widespread from 1965 onward, and punched cards were in near-universal use for input up until the late 1970s - so it seems very much believable to me that the round cornered version was "the type most widely used". - Snori (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Rounded corners is a side issue. More to the point, the card shown uses the EBCDIC encoding introduced with the IBM System/360. I've updated the caption.--agr (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

**Severe** NPOV

This article literally reads like a glossy brochure you might find on the table in the waiting room at IBM HQ. It completely neglects the fact that punched cards were used originally for [teletype], 5-bit [Baudot]'s card was patented (in Europe) a full ten years before Hollerith's, and [ITA2] (encoding and cards) was an international standard in 1924 (by the same body now known as the [ITU-T]. It was used extensively through the Second World War. This article doesn't even mention anything of these other punched cards. Its "precursors" -> Hollerith (who founded IBM) -> IBM Punch Cards -> IBM Invents Computing.

This is not the article on "IBM's contribution to Punched Cards". It is "punched card".

International Telegraph Alphabet 2 brightened

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Gsnxn (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying that French patent 103,898 "Système de télégraphie rapide", from June 1874, describes a system that uses punched cards rather than punched tape, or that can use punched cards as well as punched tape? Guy Harris (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

digital

I believe there is a rule against discussions in comments in pages, so I am copying the discussion here:

<!-- note that (1) a hole punched to command a musical instrument is not digital -- and (2) Hollerith's first census cards were not all digital (source please?) -- hence "digital" deleted in this 1st pp --><!-- Response (1) yes, "presence of absence of holes in predefined positions" eliminates meaningful musical instruments. Fanfold [[Punched tape]] may have been the source of confusion. Enlarge the article's "dance organ" photo (which I'm about to delete!) to see "slots", not punches.  (2) Hollerith's cards were - and are - digital.  For example, marriage may not be digital, but you can count (digital) the holes for married. "Digital" restored in text above. -->

See digital signal and you will find that a signal with discrete values, but continuous in time is still digital. That is true, for example, for the holes in a player piano tape. The timing is arbitrary, but the key is either up or down, not in between. In digital signal processing, signals can be continuous or sampled (evaluated only at discrete times), and quantized or not (only discrete values, or a continuum of values). Gah4 (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree; they aren't analog (with a range of narrow or wide values for the holes), so they're digital. --A D Monroe III (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden discussion removed from article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A recent edit summary seems to indicate that this question is back. In most common cases, digital signals are both quantized and discrete time, while analog signals are not quantized and continuous time. That leaves two situations not covered: discrete time but not quantized, and continuous time quantized signals. There are audio storage devices that store analog voltages on discrete capacitors, so not quantized. Player piano rolls are, as well as I know, quantized but continuous time. Since digital isn't in the title of this article, as well as I know, it can include these cases. Gah4 (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Punchcard

What is punch card 196.249.97.107 (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Prior Art

The article lists five examples of prior art then for some reason still assigns the invention to Hollerith. Even if you're drawing the, rather dubious, distinction between instructions and data; Babbage's and Carpentier's designs still fit the category and predate Hollerith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.188.94 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)