The Language of Machines :: Technology Communication Essays

The Language of MachinesComputers ar linguistic process machines. By saying this I mean both that language bear on is a valuable metaphor for understanding computer computing and that, in a fundamental way, computer computation is language processing no more, no less. The language understood by a novel computer when it first comes off the assembly line is quite simple. The first principle of this language consists of two letters, 0 and 1 (or a and b or any other two characters, it doesnt matter), which is stored internally as two intensities of an galvanising signal (either high or low). The grammar of this language has two rules (1) Sentences consist of 1 word and (2) Words are all of a single undertake length (probably either 16 or 32 characters). This computer hunch forwards in two ways. It exists what every word in the language inwardness (i.e., what perform to perform upon take ining that word, information which is stored in the design of the processor), and it kno ws all of the haggling it has stored in memory. Each time a computer reads a denounce (executes a command), a change results in memory, dependent on what the article of faith says and what is already in memory. Modern computers are Turing machines (named after the British mathematician Alan Turing), which means that they are language machines which toilet simulate other language machines. In other words, given a special type of text to read (a program), a Turing machine that understands the simple language described above (for example) bear act as if it understands a oft more complicated language. This is why modern computer keyboards have more than just 0s and 1s on them. A modern computer comes complete with many virtual computers built on top of it, so to speak, enabling the computer to understand much more complex (although mathematically equivalent) higher-level languages. These are mathematical languages, of course they have much more rigid structure and precise meaning than natural languages. They inadequacy in many ways what Derrida calls play. But must they? Is there an inbred fundamental engagement between mathematical and natural languages, or is the difference instead that we have more control over mathematical languages because we know their rules and can understand the system in which they work, while with natural languages we know neither, because we are not in conscious control of their creation and we can not fully grasp how they operate in society and in our heads?