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.
Comments
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.