DOCSLIB.ORG

Embodying Turing's Machine: Queer, Embodied Rhetorics in the History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Embodying Turing's Machine: Queer, Embodied Rhetorics in the History Rhetoric Review ISSN: 0735-0198 (Print) 1532-7981 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrhr20 Embodying Turing’s Machine: Queer, Embodied Rhetorics in the History of Digital Computation Patricia Fancher To cite this article: Patricia Fancher (2018) Embodying Turing’s Machine: Queer, Embodied Rhetorics in the History of Digital Computation, Rhetoric Review, 37:1, 90-104, DOI: 10.1080/07350198.2018.1395268 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2018.1395268 Published online: 26 Dec 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 156 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hrhr20 Rhetoric Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 90–104, 2018 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0735-0198 print / 1532-7981 online DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2018.1395268 PATRICIA FANCHER University of California, Santa Barbara Embodying Turing’s Machine: Queer, Embodied Rhetorics in the History of Digital Computation Although Alan Turing has been cast as a thinker who separates mind and body, this article approaches his technical writing anew through the theoretical lenses of embodied rhetoric and queer rhetoric. Alan Turing’s technical and theoretical writings are shown to be lively with embodied, gendering, and queer rhetoric. This article also argues that queer, embodied experiences ground Turing’s contributions toward early digital computation. Turing’s rheto- ric resists norms in technical communication that expect stable and complete knowledge. Instead, Turing is an outlier who reminds us that queer, embodied rhetorics can complicate and expand our understanding of technical and scientific communication. “Bodies never quite comply.” — Judith Butler, Bodies that Matter “Machines take me by surprise with great frequency.” —Alan Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” Alan Turing has been celebrated as a father of digital computation and as a visionary of Artificial Intelligence (AI).1 He earned a “whiz kid” reputation in mathematics for solving the problem of decidability: An abstract axiom that had been puzzled over by the world’s leading mathematicians for decades. In the process, Turing also laid a theoretical foundation for the development of digital computation.2 He was only twenty-four years old at the time. But before he turned forty, his life took a tragic turn: The British government found Turing guilty of “gross indecency” because he was a gay man. He was sentenced to chemical castration and died of an apparent suicide at the age of forty-two. Now, he is both celebrated as an innovator and mourned as a victim. Alan Turing’s theories and inventions helped move computation out of human hands and into computers. He argued that machines—not just humans of flesh and blood—could perform intelli- gence. For these accomplishments he has long been identified as a key figure who continues to widen the chasm between bodies and minds. In different ways, this has been argued by J. David Bolter, Katherine Hayles, Friedrich Kittler, and Wendy Chun. 90 Embodying Turing's Machine 91 However, Alan Turing’s technical writing tells a fully embodied story. I argue that Alan Turing’s writing and his theoretical and technical innovations are constituted through embodied rhetoric, and that his embodied rhetoric is the ground upon which his theoretically and technically inventive thinking were based. Additionally, I locate ways in which Turing’s embodied rhetoric is a queer rhetoric not only because Turing was a gay man, but also because Turing’s rhetoric sustains a queer resistance to complete, stable conclusions. Turing is an outlier in technical discourses: His queer rhetorics make visible the significance of bodies, gender, and sexuality within fields that are typically understood as objective, abstract, and purely logical. I find that Alan Turing’s embodied experience and his rhetorical strategies do not comply with the disciplinary conventions for producing and composing knowledge. While Judith Butler’s influential early theories reveal the disciplining that composes gendered performances, she also reminds us that “bodies never quite comply” (2). The disciplined performances of our bodily styles are never perfectly applied or regulated. Alan Turing was surely disciplined into the conventions of mathematics, which enforce disembodied, objective standards for writing. He was also disciplined into a culture of heteronormativity and homophobia. As I will show, Turing’s body, writing, and inventions do not quite comply—not completely. His texts are lively with embodied experience and his arguments leave questions open and prevent conclusive arguments. I will proceed by analyzing two of Turing’s most famous articles: “On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem” which was published in 1936 and “Computing Machinery and Intelli- gence” from 1950.3 I also relate these texts to Turing’s life by drawing upon Andrew Hodges’s extensive biography, Alan Turing: The Enigma. In my analysis of both articles, I locate queer, embodied rhetoric within Turing’s innovative thinking and his technical writing. Turing’s Dual Legacy: Disembodied Logic or Queer Epistemology Within cultural and media theory, Alan Turing has been placed as a figure who wedges even wider the separation between mind and body through his theories of computation and artificial intelligence. This claim is most extensively argued by Bolter in Turing’s Man, which posits “Turing’s Man” as a way of understanding human bodies and human lives as immaterial, purely logical, and regulated. Bolter’s larger argument is that digital computation has become the primary metaphor for understanding human minds: bodiless, logical, information processors. Hayles also identifies Turing’s article, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” as an important “birth” for what she identifies as a posthuman subjectivity: At the inaugural moment of the computer age, the erasure of embodiment is performed so that “intelligence” becomes a property of the formal manipulation of symbols rather than an action in the human life-world ...Inthepush to achieve machines that can think, researchers performed again and again the erasure of embodiment at the heart of the Turing test. (xi) Hayles’s posthuman subject, like Bolter’s “Turing’s Man,” is part of a larger cultural shift in which information loses its material specificity and thinking loses its body (3–4). Kittler and Chun both reinscribe this narrative and focus specifically on Turing’s split between code and machine in the Turing Machine. According to their arguments, this split erased the materiality of technology under the rule of code. 92 Rhetoric Review This erasure of bodies is consistent with dominant rhetorical conventions in mathematics. G. Mitchell Reyes identifies the norms of mathematical discourse as a contemporary form of “Platonic Realism” (475). Mathematics denies “precisely the Person—who is finite, lives outside of the formal mathematical code” (479). Evelyn Fox Keller argues that mathematics maintains a different relation to knowledge than sciences like chemistry, biology, or physics (39–55). These latter fields locate knowledge within some material, observable reality. Mathematics, on the other hand, is separate from material reality and draws knowledge from abstract proofs. Mathematics—perhaps more than any other field of study—has cultivated a stringent objectivity and a discursive exclusion of the material, embodied sites of knowledge production. Given that Alan Turing was a trained mathematician, we should expect his scientific writing to conform to these conventions. There is, however, another narrative that causes me to look more closely at Alan Turing’s writing and rhetoric. Turing has been re-narrated as a foundational figure in digital computation. This time, the narrative is not of disembodied logic, but rather of queer affect within digital computation. At a time during which England enforced anti-homosexuality laws, Alan Turing was a relatively open gay man. In 1952, he was a victim of homophobic laws, one of the many victims of “gross indecency” laws and punished through chemical castration.4 Several scholars have interpreted Turing’s life and his writing as rich and productive examples of queer affect, queer writing, and queer epistemology (Wilson; King; Clinton; Gaboury). Impor- tantly, all of these scholars, most explicitly Elizabeth Wilson and Alan Clinton, argue queer subjectivity and experience as epistemic: Queer embodiment and subjectivity shape Alan Turing’s thinking. This is not to say that Turing’s inventions and theories are reducible to products of a queer sexuality (although this is what Lassègue posits). Rather, Wilson makes a more nuanced claim that emotions and thinking are “projected into each other. Cognition inhabits and modifies feeling, as feeling inhabits and modifies thinking” (22). Knowledge and thinking are intertwined with a complex network of practices, institutions, and power relations. The co-assembling relationship between affect and thinking is consistent with current rhetorical research regarding embodied rhetoric and queer rhetoric. Theoretical Frame: Embodied Rhetorics and Queer Rhetorics We have, as a field, widely theorized the interconnected and interacting relations between embodiment and rhetoric. As Johnson et al.’s “Key Concept Statement” in Peitho opens, “To think about rhetoric, we must think about bodies” (39). Similarly,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Can Machines Think? the Controversy That Led to the Turing Test, 1946-1950
    Can machines think? The controversy that led to the Turing test, 1946-1950 Bernardo Gonçalves1 Abstract Turing’s much debated test has turned 70 and is still fairly controversial. His 1950 paper is seen as a complex and multi-layered text and key questions remain largely unanswered. Why did Turing choose learning from experience as best approach to achieve machine intelligence? Why did he spend several years working with chess-playing as a task to illustrate and test for machine intelligence only to trade it off for conversational question-answering later in 1950? Why did Turing refer to gender imitation in a test for machine intelligence? In this article I shall address these questions directly by unveiling social, historical and epistemological roots of the so-called Turing test. I will draw attention to a historical fact that has been scarcely observed in the secondary literature so far, namely, that Turing's 1950 test came out of a controversy over the cognitive capabilities of digital computers, most notably with physicist and computer pioneer Douglas Hartree, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, and neurosurgeon Geoffrey Jefferson. Seen from its historical context, Turing’s 1950 paper can be understood as essentially a reply to a series of challenges posed to him by these thinkers against his view that machines can think. Keywords: Alan Turing, Can machines think?, The imitation game, The Turing test, Mind-machine controversy, History of artificial intelligence. Robin Gandy (1919-1995) was one of Turing’s best friends and his only doctorate student. He received Turing’s mathematical books and papers when Turing died in 1954, and took over from Max Newman in 1963 the task of editing the papers for publication.1 Regarding Turing’s purpose in writing his 1950 paper and sending it for publication, Gandy offered a testimony previously brought forth by Jack Copeland which has not yet been commented about:2 It was intended not so much as a penetrating contribution to philosophy but as propaganda.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiasmic Rhetoric: Alan Turing Between Bodies and Words Patricia Fancher Clemson University, [email protected]
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 8-2014 Chiasmic Rhetoric: Alan Turing Between Bodies and Words Patricia Fancher Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Part of the Rhetoric and Composition Commons Recommended Citation Fancher, Patricia, "Chiasmic Rhetoric: Alan Turing Between Bodies and Words" (2014). All Dissertations. 1285. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/1285 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHIASMIC RHETORIC: ALAN TURING BETWEEN BODIES AND WORDS A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorate of Philosophy Rhetorics, Communication, and Information Design by Patricia Fancher August 2014 Accepted by: Dr. Steven B. Katz, Committee Chair Dr. Diane Perpich Dr. Cynthia Haynes Dr. D. Travers Scott DISSERTATION ABSTRACT This dissertation analyzes the life and writing of inventor and scientist Alan Turing in order to define and theorize chiasmic relations between bodies and texts. Chiasmic rhetoric, as I develop throughout the dissertation, is the dynamic processes between materials and discourses that interact to construct powerful rhetorical effect, shape bodies, and also compose new knowledges. Throughout the dissertation, I develop chiasmic rhetoric as intersecting bodies and discourse, dynamic and productive, and potentially destabilizing. Turing is an unusual figure for research on bodily rhetoric and embodied knowledge. He is often associated with disembodied knowledge and as his inventions are said to move intelligence towards greater abstraction and away from human bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Simply Turing
    Simply Turing Simply Turing MICHAEL OLINICK SIMPLY CHARLY NEW YORK Copyright © 2020 by Michael Olinick Cover Illustration by José Ramos Cover Design by Scarlett Rugers All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher at the address below. [email protected] ISBN: 978-1-943657-37-7 Brought to you by http://simplycharly.com Contents Praise for Simply Turing vii Other Great Lives x Series Editor's Foreword xi Preface xii Acknowledgements xv 1. Roots and Childhood 1 2. Sherborne and Christopher Morcom 7 3. Cambridge Days 15 4. Birth of the Computer 25 5. Princeton 38 6. Cryptology From Caesar to Turing 44 7. The Enigma Machine 68 8. War Years 85 9. London and the ACE 104 10. Manchester 119 11. Artificial Intelligence 123 12. Mathematical Biology 136 13. Regina vs Turing 146 14. Breaking The Enigma of Death 162 15. Turing’s Legacy 174 Sources 181 Suggested Reading 182 About the Author 185 A Word from the Publisher 186 Praise for Simply Turing “Simply Turing explores the nooks and crannies of Alan Turing’s multifarious life and interests, illuminating with skill and grace the complexities of Turing’s personality and the long-reaching implications of his work.” —Charles Petzold, author of The Annotated Turing: A Guided Tour through Alan Turing’s Historic Paper on Computability and the Turing Machine “Michael Olinick has written a remarkably fresh, detailed study of Turing’s achievements and personal issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Science in the Forest, Science in the Past Hbooksau
    SCIENCE IN THE FOREST, SCIENCE IN THE PAST HBooksau Director Anne-Christine Taylor Editorial Collective Hylton White Catherine V. Howard Managing Editor Nanette Norris Editorial Staff Michelle Beckett Jane Sabherwal Hau Books are published by the Society for Ethnographic Theory (SET) SET Board of Directors Kriti Kapila (Chair) John Borneman Carlos Londoño Sulkin Anne-Christine Taylor www.haubooks.org SCIENCE IN THE FOREST, SCIENCE IN THE PAST Edited by Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd and Aparecida Vilaça Hau Books Chicago © 2020 Hau Books Originally published as a special issue of HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 9 (1): 36–182. © 2019 Society for Ethnographic Theory Science in the Forest, Science in the Past, edited by Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd and Aparecida Vilaça, is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode Cover photo: Carlos Fausto. Used with permission. Cover design: Daniele Meucci and Ania Zayco Layout design: Deepak Sharma, Prepress Plus Typesetting: Prepress Plus (www.prepressplus.in) ISBN: 978-1-912808-41-0 [paperback] ISBN: 978-1-912808-79-3 [ebook] ISBN: 978-1-912808-42-7 [PDF] LCCN: 2020950467 Hau Books Chicago Distribution Center 11030 S. Langley Chicago, Il 60628 www.haubooks.org Publications of Hau Books are printed, marketed, and distributed by The University of Chicago Press. www.press.uchicago.edu Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Contents List of Figures vii Preface viii Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd and Aparecida Vilaça Acknowledgments xii Chapter 1. The Clash of Ontologies and the Problems of Translation and Mutual Intelligibility 1 Geoffrey E.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Zuse's Thesis, Gandy's Thesis, and Penrose's Thesis Jack Copeland
    Zuse's Thesis, Gandy's Thesis, and Penrose's Thesis Jack Copeland, Oron Shagrir, Mark Sprevak 1. Introduction Computer pioneer Konrad Zuse (1910-1995) built the world's first working program- controlled general-purpose digital computer in Berlin in 1941. After the Second World War he supplied Europe with cheap relay-based computers, and later transistorized computers. Mathematical logician Robin Gandy (1919-1995) proved a number of major results in recursion theory and set theory. He was Alan Turing's only PhD student. Mathematician Roger Penrose (1931- ) is famous for his work with Stephen Hawking. What we call Zuse's thesis, Gandy's thesis, and Penrose's thesis are three fundamental theses concerning computation and physics. Zuse hypothesized that the physical universe is a computer. Gandy offered a profound analysis supporting the thesis that every discrete deterministic physical assembly is computable (assuming that there is an upper bound on the speed of propagation of effects and signals, and a lower bound on the dimensions of an assembly's components). Penrose argued that the physical universe is in part uncomputable. We explore these three theses. Zuse's thesis we believe to be false: the universe might have consisted of nothing but a giant computer, but in fact does not. Gandy viewed his claim as a relatively apriori one, provable on the basis of a set-theoretic argument that makes only very general physical assumptions about decomposability into parts and the nature of causation. We maintain that Gandy's argument does not work, and that Gandy's thesis is best viewed, like Penrose's, as an open empirical hypothesis.
    [Show full text]
  • King's College, Cambridge
    King’s College, Cambridge Annual Report 2015 Annual Report 2015 Contents The Provost 2 The Fellowship 5 Major Promotions, Appointments or Awards 14 Undergraduates at King’s 17 Graduates at King’s 24 Tutorial 27 Research 39 Library and Archives 42 Chapel 45 Choir 50 Bursary 54 Staff 58 Development 60 Appointments & Honours 66 Obituaries 68 Information for Non Resident Members 235 Consequences of Austerity’. This prize is to be awarded yearly and it is hoped The Provost that future winners will similarly give a public lecture in the College. King’s is presently notable for both birds and bees. The College now boasts a number of beehives and an active student beekeeping society. King’s 2 2015 has been a very special year for the bees have been sent to orchards near Cambridge to help pollinate the fruit. 3 THE PROVOST College. Five hundred years ago, the fabric The College’s own orchard, featuring rare and heritage varieties, is now of the Chapel was completed; or rather, the under construction in the field to the south of Garden Hostel. On a larger College stopped paying the masons who did scale, a pair of peregrine falcons has taken up residence on one of the the work in 1515. This past year has been full THE PROVOST Chapel pinnacles and they have been keeping pigeon numbers down. It is of commemorative events to celebrate this a pity that they are unable also to deal with the flocks of Canada Geese that anniversary; a series of six outstanding are now a serious nuisance all along the Backs.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction This is an unusual book. Its unusualness and complexity is appropriate for such an unusually inventive scientist, who was personally unique, as are so many creative thinkers. Of the writings of Alan Turing selected here – which comprise most of those to be found in the Collected Works – a number have attracted a special interest, recognition and impact. And this is reflected in the number of commentaries accompanying his “computable numbers” paper, or the late great pieces on morphogenesis and the Turing test. But the collective power and energy of Turing is in the theoretical coherence of this collection of diverse writings. They are diverse in content, in style, in discipline, conveying different facets of a basic quest for understanding of ‘how the world computes’. You will find here no anonymous papers by committees of researchers. Even the occasional unpublished writing by joint authors on closer inspection, turns out to be written by one man. The rewards of a visceral engagement with these original writings are on various levels. A researcher should always have first-hand experience of any writings referred to. But with Turing the sense of the man behind the formal words is ever present. The organic involvement with the technical material, the sense of its emergence – an important concept in relation to Turing – from some more basic level of thought, is ever with us. And just as the work and the person are unusually at one, there is a personal organic involvement with the writings from many of those paying tribute to Turing’s thinking in this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Alan Turing 1 Alan Turing
    Alan Turing 1 Alan Turing Alan Turing Turing at the time of his election to Fellowship of the Royal Society. Born Alan Mathison Turing 23 June 1912 Maida Vale, London, England, United Kingdom Died 7 June 1954 (aged 41) Wilmslow, Cheshire, England, United Kingdom Residence United Kingdom Nationality British Fields Mathematics, Cryptanalysis, Computer science Institutions University of Cambridge Government Code and Cypher School National Physical Laboratory University of Manchester Alma mater King's College, Cambridge Princeton University Doctoral advisor Alonzo Church Doctoral students Robin Gandy Known for Halting problem Turing machine Cryptanalysis of the Enigma Automatic Computing Engine Turing Award Turing test Turing patterns Notable awards Officer of the Order of the British Empire Fellow of the Royal Society Alan Mathison Turing, OBE, FRS ( /ˈtjʊərɪŋ/ TEWR-ing; 23 June 1912 – 7 June 1954), was a British mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, and computer scientist. He was highly influential in the development of computer science, giving a formalisation of the concepts of "algorithm" and "computation" with the Turing machine, which can be considered a model of a general purpose computer.[1][2][3] Turing is widely considered to be the father of computer science and artificial intelligence.[4] During World War II, Turing worked for the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking centre. For a time he was head of Hut 8, the section responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. He devised a number of techniques for breaking German ciphers, including the method of the bombe, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine.
    [Show full text]
  • After Math: (Re)Configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States
    After Math: (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Dick, Stephanie Aleen. 2015. After Math: (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:14226096 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA After Math (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States Adissertationpresented by Stephanie Aleen Dick to The Department of the History of Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of the History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts November 2014 © 2014 Stephanie Aleen Dick. All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Professor Peter Galison Stephanie Aleen Dick After Math (Re)configuring Minds, Proof, and Computing in the Postwar United States Abstract This dissertation examines the history of three early computer programs that were designed to prove mathematical theorems: The Logic Theory Machine, the Program P, and the Automated Reasoning Assistant, all developed between 1955 and 1975. I use these programs as an opportunity to explore ways in which mathematical knowledge and practice were transformed by the introduction of modern computing. The prospect of automation generated disagreement about the character of human mathematical faculties like intuition, reasoning, and understanding and whether computers could be made to possess or participate in them.
    [Show full text]
  • Association for Symbolic Logic
    Association for Symbolic Logic Business Office: Box 742, Vassar College 124 Raymond Avenue, Poughkeepsie, New York 12604, USA Fax: 1-845-437-7830; email: [email protected] Web: http://www.aslonline.org ASL NEWSLETTER April 2016 • In Memoriam: Georg Kreisel. Georg Kreisel died in Salzburg on March 1, 2015, aged 91. Born on September 15, 1923 in Graz, he came to England before the outbreak of World War II to escape Nazi persecution. He completed his secondary education at Dulwich College, in London, and then studied mathematics at Trinity College Cambridge, where A.S. Besicovitch was his director of studies. During this time, and again in 1946-47, in addition to studying mathematics, Kreisel also discussed philosophy of mathematics with Ludwig Wittgenstein, a Fellow of Trinity College (who in 1944 said of Kreisel that he was the most able philosopher he had ever met who was also a mathematician). Kreisel took his B.A. in Mathematics in 1944 (and was in contention to be Senior Wrangler). He then used his training as a mathematician, particularly in fluid dynamics, for war service as an Experimental Officer in the British Admiralty, and continued in that post until 1946, when he returned to Cambridge. He submitted a dissertation for a Research Fellowship at Trinity College but was not elected. Kreisel never took a Ph.D., though in 1962 he was awarded the Cambridge degree of Sc.D., a `higher doctorate' given on the basis of published research. In 1949 he was appointed Lecturer in Mathematics at the University of Reading, a post he held until 1960, during which time and thereafter he also held visiting positions at the University of Paris (intermittently throughout the 1950s, 60s, and 70s), at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (1955-7 and 1962-3)|where he was closely associated with Kurt G¨odel,who had invited him, Stanford University (1958-9 and 1962-3), All Souls College Oxford (1967), and the University of California at Los Angeles (1968).
    [Show full text]
  • Stal Aanderaa Hao Wang Lars Aarvik Martin Abadi Zohar Manna James
    Don Heller J. von zur Gathen Rodney Howell Mark Buckingham Moshe VardiHagit Attiya Raymond Greenlaw Henry Foley Tak-Wah Lam Chul KimEitan Gurari Jerrold W. GrossmanM. Kifer J.F. Traub Brian Leininger Martin Golumbic Amotz Bar-Noy Volker Strassen Catriel Beeri Prabhakar Raghavan Louis E. Rosier Daniel M. Kan Danny Dolev Larry Ruzzo Bala Ravikumar Hsu-Chun Yen David Eppstein Herve Gallaire Clark Thomborson Rajeev Raman Miriam Balaban Arthur Werschulz Stuart Haber Amir Ben-Amram Hui Wang Oscar H. Ibarra Samuel Eilenberg Jim Gray Jik Chang Vardi Amdursky H.T. Kung Konrad Jacobs William Bultman Jacob Gonczarowski Tao Jiang Orli Waarts Richard ColePaul Dietz Zvi Galil Vivek Gore Arnaldo V. Moura Daniel Cohen Kunsoo Park Raffaele Giancarlo Qi Zheng Eli Shamir James Thatcher Cathy McGeoch Clark Thompson Sam Kim Karol Borsuk G.M. Baudet Steve Fortune Michael Harrison Julius Plucker NicholasMichael Tran Palis Daniel Lehmann Wilhelm MaakMartin Dietzfelbinger Arthur Banks Wolfgang Maass Kimberly King Dan Gordon Shafee Give'on Jean Musinski Eric Allender Pino Italiano Serge Plotkin Anil Kamath Jeanette Schmidt-Prozan Moti Yung Amiram Yehudai Felix Klein Joseph Naor John H. Holland Donald Stanat Jon Bentley Trudy Weibel Stefan Mazurkiewicz Daniela Rus Walter Kirchherr Harvey Garner Erich Hecke Martin Strauss Shalom Tsur Ivan Havel Marc Snir John Hopcroft E.F. Codd Chandrajit Bajaj Eli Upfal Guy Blelloch T.K. Dey Ferdinand Lindemann Matt GellerJohn Beatty Bernhard Zeigler James Wyllie Kurt Schutte Norman Scott Ogden Rood Karl Lieberherr Waclaw Sierpinski Carl V. Page Ronald Greenberg Erwin Engeler Robert Millikan Al Aho Richard Courant Fred Kruher W.R. Ham Jim Driscoll David Hilbert Lloyd Devore Shmuel Agmon Charles E.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Senate 11-19 May 2021
    Electronic Senate E-Senate will commence on Tuesday 11 May 2021 and close at noon on Wednesday 19 May 2021 AGENDA 1. Minute To approve the minute of the meeting held on 10 February 2021 e-S 20/21 3 A ITEMS FOR NOTING OR FORMAL APPROVAL 2. New Members: Professor Stuart Forbes Professor Bryne Ngwenya To note 3. Resolutions e-S 20/21 3 B To comment 4. Senate Exception Committee: call for volunteers e-S 20/21 3 C For action 5. Conferment of the title of Professor Emeritus / Emerita e-S 20/21 3 D To approve 6. Communications from the University Court e-S 20/21 3 E To note 7. Senatus Academicus (Senate) Election Results 2021 – Academic e-S 20/21 3 F Staff To note 8. College Academic Management Structure 2021/22 e-S 20/21 3 G To note 9. Report of the Knowledge Strategy Committee e-S 20/21 3 H To note 10. Report of the Senate Exception Committee e-S 20/21 3 I To note CLOSED 11. Dates of Meetings of Senate 2021/22 Wednesday 20 October 2021 Wednesday 9 February 2022 Wednesday 25 May 2022 H02/02/02 e-S: May 2021 e-S 20/21 3 A Electronic Senate 11 – 19 May 2021 Minutes of Senate meeting held on 10 February 2021 Description of paper 1. The paper provides the minutes of the Senate meeting held on 10 February 2021. Action requested / recommendation 2. For approval. 3. For E-Senate, a nil response is regarded as approval / agreement.
    [Show full text]