Close
Articles vintage science

The von Neumann Architecture

September 25, 2020

The von Neumann Architecture

Introduction

Have you ever wondered how your computer works? Who decided that we should use keyboards to tell our devices what to do? And who else later decided that touch screens were cooler much of the time. Much of how we think about computing we currently owe to John von Neumann, who developed the current way of thinking about computers.

The Von Neumann architecture is a model that was developed in the 1940s by John von Neumann, a physicist and mathematician, who was an early computer researcher. During World War 2, cracking secret codes and the development of nuclear weapons led to an increase in public funding for computer research, as machines could do lots of arithmetic quickly and accurately. Von Neumann would go on to outline a model for building any sort of computer in his The First Draft Report on the EDVAC (the EDVAC being a computer he was working on at the time) that has been the standard for all computing devices since.

In his model, von Neumann illustrates that a computer should have several main components:

  • Arithmetic Unit
  • Control Unit
  • Memory
  • Input
  • Output

Flexibility of the Model

This model is relatively flexible – in his paper, von Neumann mentions that different machines could very well have different capabilities while still being built with all of these components in mind. Computers that use the von Neumann architecture range from very simple (such as the one in your microwave) to the massive supercomputers that have dedicated buildings. The wide scope of computers that fall under the von Neumann model are proof that von Neumann achieved his goal when it came to creating a model that was versatile.

Components and What They Do

The control unit, as described by von Neumann, is the part of the computer that keeps track of what is supposed to run when. When you turned on your computer, your PC’s control device (most probably inside of a CPU) queued up the correct start up operations. The purpose of the control unit is to allow a computer to run many different kinds of programs, and switch between them when necessary. While this seems trivial now, the first computers were manually operated. If you wanted a computer to do something different than what it was previously doing, you had to go in and change all of the wires yourself. The conception of a control unit allowed the computer to modify its own hardware and software, allowing a great deal of abstraction for users. Computers being able to modify themselves (and other computers) essentially enables modern computing as we know it, the good (high level programming languages, not swapping about the wires in your desktop) and the bad (it would be impossible to hack a pre-von Neumann computer without performing an elaborate heist operation to change around the wiring yourself).

The arithmetic unit of a computer does the logical processing. Computers were originally designed for doing lots and lots of math, so von Neumann designated an entire component of his model to do that. Despite being called the arithmetic unit, this unit is also responsible for doing logical operations as well. Arithmetic units allow computers to distinguish if two sequences of binary are completely the same (an AND operation), if some of the numbers are the same, or allowing sign flippage.

The memory component of this model is probably simplest to understand. If we want computers to do work in a useful capacity, they need to be able to remember what we’ve done. Most modern computers have two types of memory. They’ve got long term, slower memory, which is usually kept in the hard drive. Computers also have faster, short term memory. This is typically stored in RAM. Traditionally, RAM memory has been volatile. This means that it is erased when you turn the power off. This is also why you used to lose everything you did on older video games without saving – if you didn’t tell the computer to move your data out of RAM and onto the hard drive, it was just lost.

The last components of a computer are its input and output components. Input is just how the user puts instructions into a computer. These days, inputs are most often keyboards and/or touch screens, although speakers are becoming more common. Output is how a computer communicates what it’s doing to the user. Most computers have a visual (a screen) and an audio (speakers and/or headphones) component to the output.

Conclusion

The von Neumann model for computing has lasted for nearly a century. Pretty much any device that you use will have been built and designed with the von Neumann architecture in mind. That being said, scientists are looking beyond this model for the future. Quantum computing and other innovations may mean we say good bye to the von Neumann architecture.

References

Brandl, M. F. (2017). A Quantum von Neumann Architecture for Large-Scale Quantum Computing. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02583)

Freiberger, P., & Swaine, M. (2016, November 14). Von Neumann machine. Retrieved September 15, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/technology/von-Neumann-machine

von Neumann, J. (1945). First draft of a report on the EDVAC. doi:10.5479/sil.538961.39088011475779

 

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

Cassandra is a third year Computational Media student at Georgia Tech. Her concentrations are People and Interaction Design, and she hopes to work in UX/UI design after graduating from Tech. Outside of school, she enjoys tabletop RPGs, crochet, and photography.

You May Also Like

Articles, Field Notes, today i learned (til)
Three Dog Star Night (Part 1)
Articles, today i learned (til)
A World with New Plastic
Articles
Kiki vs. Bouba: A Psychological Phenomenon
Articles
Music & Emotions: A Series (Part 1 – Scary/Fear)

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.