XPost: comp.lang.misc, sci.physics   
   From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:   
   > Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:   
   >> [...]   
   >> That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.   
   >   
   > Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was   
   > actually the Z1 of 1937.   
      
   Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that   
   the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.   
      
   My point was just when the first _working_ digital and programmable   
   computer was invented. - And in my humble opinion that was the Z3!   
      
   A bit care must be taken though with your quoted Wiki paragraph:   
   "Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur [...]"   
   It's - at least by this statement - open what was already existing   
   and what property was new in von Neumann's concepts. - Here's where   
   the arguments may become heated; remember my statement about: "just   
   define the properties of the own invention, and every other (prior)   
   system may not match by some detail" (sort of).   
      
   The sometimes used technology reasoning is certainly not convincing   
   if we're speaking about the architecture principles and concepts.   
      
   > [...]   
      
   > It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse   
   > (or not).   
   Yes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent"   
   isn't valid in the USA. You need a separate application in the USA.   
      
   What's also true is that even a "Deutsches Reichspatent" would make   
   it possible to make a correct historic attribution of that invention   
   (if only 'ex post').   
      
   >   
   > Therefore the patents of Zuse were simply stolen and also the invention   
   > itself ascribed to somebody else   
      
   Given that they assume that von Neumann did not know about Zuse's   
   invention I think that the word "stolen" is a too harsh valuation.   
      
   I agree concerning the existing (and common) ascription mischief.   
      
   >   
   >> [...]   
   >>   
   >> But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!   
   >> This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.   
   >   
   > But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.   
      
   Yes, but consider also what I wrote above.   
      
   Janis   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)