A quote: "This method (and the general idea of an FFT) was popularized by a publication of J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey in 1965,[2] but it was later discovered (Heideman & Burrus, 1984) that those two authors had independently re-invented an algorithm known to Carl Friedrich Gauss around 1805 (and subsequently rediscovered several times in limited forms)."
It's true the writeup didn't mention Gauss, but the PDF that the author linked did mention that.
But either way wouldn't the importance for the field of computing in this case be more on the application of the algorithm and not who published first? I.e. if no one knows about a computable algorithm used sparingly 150 years earlier then I don't think it's completely unfair to give some credit to one who later rediscovers and popularizes that algorithm.
According to the Wikipedia article the Cooley-Tukey algorithm was an independent re-discovery so it's not as if Tukey had read Gauss and then tried to steal the credit (it wasn't even noted until almost 20 years later that Cooley-Tukey was a rediscovery of a Gaussian algorithm).
It's almost unfair though... I think if we really deeply dove into what mathematicians like Gauss, Euler, Cauchy, etc. came up with that there may be other "CS" algorithms that were innovated hundreds of years before computers were available to really popularize them. Every time I read about Euler and Gauss especially I end up even more impressed.
> But either way wouldn't the importance for the field of computing in this case be more on the application of the algorithm and not who published first?
Separate issue. My objection was solely to correct the incorrect claim that Tukey invented the FFT. And this is in no way meant to disparage what Tukey did accomplish, only so that the history reads correctly.
> I don't think it's completely unfair to give some credit to one who later rediscovers and popularizes that algorithm.
Yes, but describing him as the inventor goes too far.
I don't see how this correction adds to the discussion.
How are the actions of "invention" and "rediscovery" different? Is it less impressive that someone came up with a great idea simply because someone else did it first in a different context? Obviously Gauss should be celebrated too (and obviously is), but I don't see anything wrong with applauding Tukey either...
> How are the actions of "invention" and "rediscovery" different?
Simply put, the use of "invention" for a rediscovery deprives the idea's originator of any credit.
> I don't see anything wrong with applauding Tukey either...
My objection was only for misidentifying him as the inventor of the idea. Surely you are aware that in current practice only the originator of an idea gets credit for "inventing".
That's silly. The sentence clearly wasn't about "credit", it was about explaining what a cool guy Tukey was. I think his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed (that is, the thing we commonly think of as "the FFT algorithm" -- for obvious reasons Gauss didn't identify the application correctly) absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect.
If anything, your dismissal of the guy's work is the real crime here. What's your problem with Tukey, exactly?
This is an ad hominem attack that is senseless here. Turkey was a cool guy; "his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect." Yes, you are absulutely right. But that's not what the article said; that's what lutusp said.
Besides Gauss, many others including Runge (yes, that Runge) and Burkhardt (yes, the one on Einstein's committee) independently discovered the FFT well before the 1950s. Like so much of Gauss's work, his work on the FFT was unpublished during his lifetime.
Probably it was the conjunction of the algorithm and the emerging power of the digital computer that caused the Cooley-Tukey paper to take off at that historical moment.
Comments
A quote: "... As if this wasn't enough, he [i.e.Tukey] also invented what is probably the most influential algorithm of all time." (emphasis added)
No, Tukey did not "invent" the FFT. He rediscovered it, as did a number of others over the years since -- who else? -- Gauss first created it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Fourier_transform
A quote: "This method (and the general idea of an FFT) was popularized by a publication of J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey in 1965,[2] but it was later discovered (Heideman & Burrus, 1984) that those two authors had independently re-invented an algorithm known to Carl Friedrich Gauss around 1805 (and subsequently rediscovered several times in limited forms)."
It's true the writeup didn't mention Gauss, but the PDF that the author linked did mention that.
But either way wouldn't the importance for the field of computing in this case be more on the application of the algorithm and not who published first? I.e. if no one knows about a computable algorithm used sparingly 150 years earlier then I don't think it's completely unfair to give some credit to one who later rediscovers and popularizes that algorithm.
According to the Wikipedia article the Cooley-Tukey algorithm was an independent re-discovery so it's not as if Tukey had read Gauss and then tried to steal the credit (it wasn't even noted until almost 20 years later that Cooley-Tukey was a rediscovery of a Gaussian algorithm).
It's almost unfair though... I think if we really deeply dove into what mathematicians like Gauss, Euler, Cauchy, etc. came up with that there may be other "CS" algorithms that were innovated hundreds of years before computers were available to really popularize them. Every time I read about Euler and Gauss especially I end up even more impressed.
> But either way wouldn't the importance for the field of computing in this case be more on the application of the algorithm and not who published first?
Separate issue. My objection was solely to correct the incorrect claim that Tukey invented the FFT. And this is in no way meant to disparage what Tukey did accomplish, only so that the history reads correctly.
> I don't think it's completely unfair to give some credit to one who later rediscovers and popularizes that algorithm.
Yes, but describing him as the inventor goes too far.
I don't see how this correction adds to the discussion.
How are the actions of "invention" and "rediscovery" different? Is it less impressive that someone came up with a great idea simply because someone else did it first in a different context? Obviously Gauss should be celebrated too (and obviously is), but I don't see anything wrong with applauding Tukey either...
> How are the actions of "invention" and "rediscovery" different?
Simply put, the use of "invention" for a rediscovery deprives the idea's originator of any credit.
> I don't see anything wrong with applauding Tukey either...
My objection was only for misidentifying him as the inventor of the idea. Surely you are aware that in current practice only the originator of an idea gets credit for "inventing".
That's silly. The sentence clearly wasn't about "credit", it was about explaining what a cool guy Tukey was. I think his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed (that is, the thing we commonly think of as "the FFT algorithm" -- for obvious reasons Gauss didn't identify the application correctly) absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect.
If anything, your dismissal of the guy's work is the real crime here. What's your problem with Tukey, exactly?
This is an ad hominem attack that is senseless here. Turkey was a cool guy; "his independent rediscovery of the factorization that allows the FFT to be computed absolutely qualifies as evidence to that effect." Yes, you are absulutely right. But that's not what the article said; that's what lutusp said.
> If anything, your dismissal of the guy's work ...
Before going on, locate where I did any such thing.
Here's substantiation of this history:
http://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg716/Gauss_History_FFT.pdf
Besides Gauss, many others including Runge (yes, that Runge) and Burkhardt (yes, the one on Einstein's committee) independently discovered the FFT well before the 1950s. Like so much of Gauss's work, his work on the FFT was unpublished during his lifetime.
Probably it was the conjunction of the algorithm and the emerging power of the digital computer that caused the Cooley-Tukey paper to take off at that historical moment.