- Slides: 137
Alan Mathison Turing (1912年 6月23－1954年 6月7日) Alan Turing 29 March 1951 (NPL Archive Science Museum)
涂林的父親（Julius Mathison Turing）
涂林與母親（Ethel Sara Turing）
老師的評語 英文：“I can forgive his writing, though it is the worst I have ever seen, and I try to view tolerantly his unswerving（不變的） inexactitude（不正確） and slipshod（潦草）, dirty, work, inconsistent though such inexactitude is in a utilitarian; but I cannot forgive the stupidity of his attitude towards sane discussion on the New Testament. ” 拉丁文：“He ought not to be in this form of course as far as form subjects go. He is ludicrously behind. ”
涂林 Christopher Morcom 1930年 2月13日逝世
懷海德（Alfred N. Whitehead, 1861 -1947）
羅素（Bertrand Russell, 1872 -1970）
Whitehead and Russell, Principia Mathematica
1935 涂林發表第一篇數學論文 Equivalence of left and right almost periodicity, J. London Math. Soc. , 10: 284 -285. 同年他還寫了 On the Gaussian error function ，因而獲選為國王學院 Fellow。
1935 他在拓樸學家紐曼的「數學基 礎」課裡聽到希爾伯特的「判定性 問題」。 1936 涂林發表 On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungspoblem。
紐曼（M. H. A. Newman, 1897 -1984）
涂林在 Bletchley Park 的 作室 Hut 8
Peter Hilton (1923 -2010) 「模仿遊戲」裡扮演Hilton 的演員Matthew Beard “Alan Turing was obviously a genius, but he was an approachable, friendly genius. He was always willing to take time and trouble to explain his ideas; . . . He had a very lively imagination and a strong sense of humor – he was a fundamentally serious person but never unduly austere. ”
1946 涂林加入國家物理實驗室，寫 了第一篇程式儲存在記憶體的電腦 設計：Proposals for development of the mathematics division of an ACE。 此報告在 1972才解密。
Some of the feats that will be able to be performed by Britain's new electronic brain, which is being developed at the N. P. L. , Teddington, were described to the SURREY COMET yesterday by Dr. A. M. Turing, 34 -year-old mathematics expert, who is the pioneer of the scheme in this country. The machine is to be an improvement on the American ENIAC, and it was in the brain of Dr Turing that the more efficient model was developed. . From the local suburban newspaper, the Surrey Comet, 9 November 1946.
The Pilot ACE (1950)
希爾伯特（David Hilbert, 1862 -1943）
哥德爾（Kurt Gödel, 1906 -1978）
Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series 42: 230 -265, 1936
Charles Petzold (b. 1953) 詳細註解涂林的論文
丘池（Alonzo Church, 1903 -1995）
Turing’s friend Robin Gandy said that ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’ was intended not so much as a penetrating contribution to philosophy but as propaganda.
Turing thought the time had come for philosophers and mathematicians and scientists to take seriously the fact that computers were not merely calculating engines but were capable of behaviour which must be accounted as intelligent; he sought to persuade people that this was so.
He wrote this paper—unlike his mathematical papers—quickly and with enjoyment. I can remember him reading aloud to me some of the passages—always with a smile, sometimes with a giggle.
Computing Machinery and Intelligence 1. The Imitation Game
I propose to consider the question, ‘Can machines think? ’ This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms ‘machine’ and ‘think’. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous.
If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think? ’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd.
Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.
The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call the ‘imitation game’. It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B), and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a room apart from the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman.
It is A’s object in the game to try and cause C to make the wrong identification. The object of the game for the third player (B) is to help the interrogator.
We now ask the question, ‘What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game? ’ Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, ‘Can machines think? ’
3. The Machines concerned in the Game We only permit digital computers to take part in our game. We are not asking whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers at present available would do well, but whethere are imaginable computers which would do well.
4. Digital Computers 介紹了Turing Machine的原理。 ‘digital computer with a random element’ It is not normally possible to determine from observing a machine whether it has a random element, for a similar effect can be produced by such devices as making the choices depend on the digits of the decimal for .
5. Universality of Digital Computers This special property of digital computers, that they can mimic any discrete state machine, is described by saying that they are universal machines. The question, ‘Can machines think? ’ should be replaced by ‘Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game? ’
6. Contrary Views on the Main Question We cannot altogether abandon the original form of the problem, for opinions will differ as to the appropriateness of the substitution and we must at least listen to what has to be said in this connexion.
I explain first my own beliefs in the matter. I believe that in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 109, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent. chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.
6. Contrary Views on the Main Question (1) Theological Objection. (2) The ‘Heads in the Sand’ Objection. (3) The Mathematical Objection. (4) The Argument from Consciousness. (5) Arguments from Various Disabilities.
6. Contrary Views on the Main Question (6) Lady Lovelace’s Objection. (7) Argument from Continuity in the Nervous System. (8) The Argument from Informality of Behaviour. (9) The Argument from Extra-Sensory Perception.
7. Learning Machines Instead of trying to produce a programme to simulate the adult mind, why not rather try to produce one which simulates the child’s? If this were then subjected to an appropriate course of education one would obtain the adult brain.
7. Learning Machines We have thus divided our problem into two parts. The child-programme and the education process. Structure of the child machine = Hereditary material Changes of the child machine = Mutations Natural selection = Judgment of the experimenter
Joan Murray, (née Clarke; 1917 -1996) 1936 年在劍橋大學 Newnham 學院
Joan Murray, (née Clarke; 1917 -1996) 1946 年與 Bletchley Park 同事
“The idea that marriage should include a mutual sexual satisfaction was still a modern one, which had not yet replaced the older idea of marriage as a social duty. ” 二戰後Clarke並沒有像「模仿遊戲」裡那樣再去 看涂林。
Joan Murray, (née Clarke; 1917 – 1996) An extract of an 1992 Horizon programme about Alan Turing
I suppose the fact that I was a woman made me different. We did do some things together, perhaps went to the cinema and so on. But, certainly it was a surprise to me when he said, I think his words probably were ehm ‚Would you consider marrying me? ‘ but ehm, although it was a surprise I really didn’t hesistate and saying ‘Yes’. And then he knelt by my chair and kissed me. We didn’t have very much physical contact. Now, the next day, I suppose we went for a walk together, after lunch, he told me that he had this homosexual tendency and ehm, naturally that worried me a bit because I did know that ehm that was something almost certainly permanent but ehm we carried on.
1993年 10月Clark回覆Tropp的信 I remember just one subject on which I knew more than Alan. He told me that his mother’s last letter mentioned making 9 lbs of jam from 4 lbs of plums and 4 lbs of sugar – “but that’s impossible, contradicting the Law of Conservation of Mass’. I explained that for most jams and certainly plum jam, one adds water.