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.
Comments
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.