Tangential but may be of interest: a cool book (compilation?) that somewhat addresses this topic is ‘Ideas That Created the Future’ edited by Harry R. Lewis [0].

[0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ideas-created-future

Working through it now - reading the Laws of Thought by George Boole was a spiritual experience for me. The connection between natural language, logic, and math finally made sense to me. Before I had a hard time understanding the saliency of things like Analytic Philosophy (what does language have to do with truth?) or why the work of someone like Chomsky would be so important to computer scientists. Boole wasn't the only person at time to work on a project to reduce logic to solvable equations (clearly that time in history was ripe for this work, and also Leibniz had laid some of the spiritual groundwork, himself inspired by Ramon Llull and Confucian texts) but the way he wrote about it really resonated with me.

The other surprising thing to me was that it didn't really resemble modern algebra at all. As a former math student I think it's easy to create a mental model of math history where when new fields are created they resemble the modern incarnation. But when you actually look at the primary founding texts its clear the ideas and notation are pretty unrefined at least compared to today's standards.

Off topic, but Charles Petzold wrote a really great book that walks you through Turing's historic paper on computability and the Turing Machine. The book is called The Annotated Turing.

I've just started reading it and Petzold claims all you need is a decent grasp of high school mathematics.

I've had that book on my shelf for so long, I really do need to shift it higher in my reading list.

Shannon, von Neumann

What does "founder" mean to you? Leibniz did a lot of important foundational work 300 years ago, but at the same time CS as a separate field didn't emerge until the 1940s with pioneers like Turing.

Might want to add Post, Chomsky and Kleene, too.

Gottfried Leibnitz, David Hilbert, Kurt Gödel.

Should Russell and Whitehead count as well, in terms of this path which seems focused on the formal logic aspect?

Leibniz technically