# Abstraction Lets Us Predict the Behavior of Machines by Ursula Martin > “You can’t point to a variable or an addition instruction in Babbage’s machine—only to the mechanical activities that represent them. What Lovelace can only tackle with informal explanation was made more precise in the 1960s when computer scientists such as Oxford’s Dana Scott and Christopher Strachey used separate abstractions to model both the machine and the program running on it, so that precise mathematical reasoning could predict its behavior. These concepts have become further refined as computer scientists like Samson Abramsky seek out more subtle abstractions using advanced logic and mathematics to capture not only classical computers, but quantum computation as well.” > **— Ursula Martin**, *2017, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?”* ## Sources and Context - **Direct Edge response and surrounding essay:** [Edge response](https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27205) — Edge published this passage in its 2017 Annual Question collection, *WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?*. - **Exact archived wording:** “You can’t point to a variable or an addition instruction in Babbage’s machine—only to the mechanical activities that represent them. What Lovelace can only tackle with informal explanation was made more precise in the 1960s when computer scientists such as Oxford’s Dana Scott and Christopher Strachey used separate abstractions to model both the machine and the program running on it, so that precise mathematical reasoning could predict its behavior. These concepts have become further refined as computer scientists like Samson Abramsky seek out more subtle abstractions using advanced logic and mathematics to capture not only classical computers, but quantum computation as well.” - **Complete local collection index:** [[research/Edge 2017 Full Quotation Curation|Edge 2017 Full Quotation Curation]] — retained source-first record for the response cohort and this passage's promotion status. ## Related Articles and Collections - **Collection:** [[collections/Edge|Edge]] - **Collection:** [[collections/Simple Reminders|Simple Reminders]] - **Collection:** [[collections/Machine Succession|Machine Succession]] - **Article:** [[articles/A History of Machine Intelligence|A History of Machine Intelligence]] - **Article:** [[articles/Digital Darwinism and the Invisible World of Machine Evolution|Digital Darwinism and the Invisible World of Machine Evolution]] - **Wiki map:** [[wiki/Asymmetry of Abstraction|Asymmetry of Abstraction]] ## Related Topics - [[wiki/Asymmetry of Abstraction|Asymmetry of Abstraction]] ## Share on Social Media ``` “You can’t point to a variable or an addition instruction in Babbage’s machine—only to the mechanical activities that represent them. What Lovelace can only tackle with informal explanation was made more precise in the 1960s when computer scientists such as Oxford’s Dana Scott and Christopher Strachey used separate abstractions to model both the machine and the program running on it, so that precise mathematical reasoning could predict its behavior. These concepts have become further refined as computer scientists like Samson Abramsky seek out more subtle abstractions using advanced logic and mathematics to capture not only classical computers, but quantum computation as well.” — Ursula Martin, 2017, Edge Annual Question, “WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?” https://bryantmcgill.com/simple-reminders-ursula-martin-abstraction-predicts-machines ```