[DF] "But I'm a (half) angel!"

[simply Nathan]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

The other plot-line was that this proved the existence of the supernatural, and caused the global multivac to shut down in a puff of logic.

I do not follow what this means, and it's not just because I'm not familiar with the term "multivac".

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

the term "multivac".

"Multivac" was the name given by Isaac Asimov to a super-computer in a series of stories. Often enough Multivac was in charge of running the world. The name was a play on the early Univac brand name.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

I do not follow what this means, and it's not just because I'm not familiar with the term "multivac".

One of the earliest computer manufacturers was called UNIVAC. The term "multivac" was in vogue in SF for a while for a more advanced computer, playing off the uni- and multi- prefixes. (EDIT: I see that Anaraxes beat me to this part of the answer.)

Computers of almost any sort are only good with mathematical logic - the existence of something supernatural would be something that they probably wouldn't be able to handle.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by robkelk

Computers of almost any sort are only good with mathematical logic - the existence of something supernatural would be something that they probably wouldn't be able to handle.

Well, under the tropes of SF of the time, I guess. Realistically, some computer network that would be capable of running the world would be an AI (and, absent real AIs, we don't really know what they'd be good or bad at), and the computerized help that runs big parts of the world would generally ignore evidence of the supernatural as being out of scope for the problems they're tasked with solving.

[Ashtagon]

Found the story title.

The Devil Was Sick by Bruce Elliott. In the far future, a student summons a demon as his thesis project, then takes it to the Sane Asylum where it's cured by advanced technology.

The multivac I referred to upthread was responsible for determining whether or not a given thesis had already been studied; students were unable to graduate unless they did something original, which after thousands of years of study, was increasingly hard to do.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by robkelk

Computers of almost any sort are only good with mathematical logic - the existence of something supernatural would be something that they probably wouldn't be able to handle.

Why? Who would program a computer to catastrophically fail when faced with facts that disagree with previously understood facts? That would mean the A.I. couldn't ever have learned to begin with.

"Recent experimental evidence disproves Relativity while simultaneously uniting a new theory with Quantum Mechanics." Oh noes! Catastrophic shutdown! That's silly.
It's mainly people that go bonkers when faced with their own mistakes.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Why? Who would program a computer to catastrophically fail when faced with facts that disagree with previously understood facts? That would mean the A.I. couldn't ever have learned to begin with.
...

What is this "A.I." you speak of? We're only allowed one improbable assumption per SF story, and the one here is "a computer system that reaches around the world".

(Just because we have it now doesn't mean anybody expected it then.)

[Bruno]

We're only "allowed" one improbable assumption? What, are the Sci-Fi police going to come and burn all my Asimov novels now?

This side-conversation started with the discussion of a world-spanning AI system.

But if you decide to ignore the AI system part, it's even more ludicrous that the computer would catch fire/implode/whatever from being presented something outside its parameters.

What actually happens when dumb computers get nonsensical input is one of
a) validation routines reject the input (I refuse to believe!/You must be mistaken, Hal)
b) attempts to process the input and aborts, basically taking extra time to get to a)
c) attempts to process the input and crashes, which is a decidedly non-lethal condition. It can certainly cause an annoying service interruption, but it's not system-death.
d) processes the garbage input and produces garbage output, then continues largely unmoved by the experience.
Q: "Has this thesis ever been done before?"
A: "Coconut."
There may now be lingering coconut-related nonsense in the database that needs cleaning up, but again, this is nonlethal.

[robkelk]

Originally Posted by Bruno

We're only "allowed" one improbable assumption? ...

Well, yes. It's called the Unicorn in the Garden rule (after the James Thurber story of the same name) - go past one improbable assumption and suspension of disbelief gets snapped.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Bruno

We're only "allowed" one improbable assumption? What, are the Sci-Fi police going to come and burn all my Asimov novels now?

This side-conversation started with the discussion of a world-spanning AI system.

But if you decide to ignore the AI system part, it's even more ludicrous that the computer would catch fire/implode/whatever from being presented something outside its parameters.

What actually happens when dumb computers get nonsensical input is one of
a) validation routines reject the input (I refuse to believe!/You must be mistaken, Hal)
b) attempts to process the input and aborts, basically taking extra time to get to a)
c) attempts to process the input and crashes, which is a decidedly non-lethal condition. It can certainly cause an annoying service interruption, but it's not system-death.
d) processes the garbage input and produces garbage output, then continues largely unmoved by the experience.
Q: "Has this thesis ever been done before?"
A: "Coconut."
There may now be lingering coconut-related nonsense in the database that needs cleaning up, but again, this is nonlethal.

Early computers were very physical and didn't have fancy things like input filtering and such. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc945sNB0uA