Talk:Z3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Info wanted on Z1, Z2, Z4, and Z5 2 Z3 and computer criteria; Turing 3 No. of relays in Z3 implementation 4 Operational use 5 Was Z3 part of war effort?

[edit] Info wanted on Z1, Z2, Z4, and Z5

What about the other computers Z1, Z2 and Z4 and Z5? --HJH

Re: the above, I note that the Z1 is also mentioned on Computer. -- IMSoP 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Z3 and computer criteria; Turing

[Also,] I've weakened the claim about "criteria for a computer", since several definitions of "computer" are in wide use. However, does anyone know if the Z3 was Turing-complete, and whether it was [one of] the first to achieve this classification, as I feel that would be worth mentioning. -- IMSoP 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was proven to be Turing complete in 1998. It is capable of doing any computation that can be done by a Turing machine on a finite tape. It's just terribly inefficient at it since it has no branch instruction and has to simulate it arithmetically with large amounts of program tape, but that's irrelevant to the question. Andreas B. 00:11, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] No. of relays in Z3 implementation

According to the TU-Berlin Z3 web page, the machine had 600 relays in its FPU plus 1600 in its "constant & variable memory" (actually, 1408 for the 64 words of 22 bits, and some read/write access logic I guess, making the total roughly 1600 gates). Hence, I get 600 + 1600 = 2200. --Wernher 23:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is wrong. I have his book (reference given in article). It reads: "600 Relais im Rechenwerk, 1400 Relais im Speicherwerk"). Which is 2000. I think we should give the book more trust than the TU-Berlin webpage—until we know more :). I have thus changed the article. --Ligulem 12:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operational use

Does anyone have any authoritative sources that describe what the Z3 was intended for and whether it was put into operational use? It would be good to have this information in the article. Adrian Robson 16:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK was Zuse an civil engineer, and his main goal was to create a device to lift of him the burden of calculating boring statics. --195.82.76.228 14:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Z3 part of war effort?

The ENIAC article says: "The Z3, Colossus and ENIAC were developed independently and in secret as part of each country's war effort in World War II. The Z3 was destroyed by Allied bombing of Berlin in 1944.... For these reasons, histories of computing formerly mentioned only ENIAC and the Harvard Mark I from this period."

Certainly Colossus was part of the war effort but is this true for the Z3? The Z3 article is rather sparse and doesn't mention it. But the Konrad Zuse article says: "Zuse never received the official support that computer pioneers in Allied countries, such as Alan Turing, managed to get. The telephone relays used in his machines were largely collected from discarded stock. A request by his co-worker Helmut Schreyer to the war-time government for federal funding for an electronic successor to the Z3 was denied as 'strategically unimportant'."

Does anyone know which article is correct? Was the Z3 part of the war effort or not? As for "histories of computing (mentioning) only ENIAC and the Harvard Mark I", maybe this statement is just based on English language histories. Is it certain that German language histories of computing mentioned only ENIAC and the Harvard Mark I? Adrian Robson 16:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

While building the Z3 Zuse received financial support from the federal DVL (Deutschen Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt, i.e. German Experimentation-Institution for Aviation), who desired automating their extensive calculations. But this restricted official financing does not make the Z3 a German wartime effort. The Zuse article is right. Christian Storm 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it correct to use the word "federal" when talking about the German Government (of the Nazi era)? Sounds a bit too American to my ears. 213.169.27.166 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Federal" is used in the sense of "referring to the central government", meaning that it was a nationwide organization and not part of a "Gau" etc. When using the word federal there's obviously no bijective mapping possible. Christian Storm 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)