Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #2687 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000 |
| Last post | 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 102 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Brendan Simon <Brendan@BrendanSimon.com> - 2011-04-06 14:40 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-06 03:03 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 18:26 +1000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-06 12:29 +0000
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-06 23:06 +1000
[OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-07 07:50 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:03 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:19 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 11:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-04-07 17:15 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 05:55 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 21:49 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 00:53 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 01:36 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:53 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:32 -0400
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:44 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 15:39 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 09:10 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:17 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-11 22:28 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 15:55 -0700
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 11:34 +0000
Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:11 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-12 10:02 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 03:15 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 09:54 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:35 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:36 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-16 00:21 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 23:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Algis Kabaila <akabaila@pcug.org.au> - 2011-04-16 21:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-16 23:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-17 10:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-16 18:35 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-18 01:29 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-18 00:34 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-04-12 13:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:56 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 17:05 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 07:39 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 18:17 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> - 2011-04-07 03:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 10:31 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2011-04-07 11:50 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> - 2011-04-07 13:55 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 14:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-08 01:30 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:37 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-09 23:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 19:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 10:18 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-10 20:48 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-10 21:01 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-11 11:26 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-12 04:22 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 06:59 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 10:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 11:13 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:56 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 00:50 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> - 2011-04-13 23:38 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 02:29 -0500
Re: Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 08:42 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents CM <cmpython@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-15 23:27 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:37 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-12 23:45 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-14 01:04 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 19:15 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-14 14:02 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 00:11 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:46 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:21 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:52 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 13:50 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 21:36 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 08:01 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:13 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 01:51 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 15:23 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-04-14 22:55 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-15 02:09 +0000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 12:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-04-14 22:43 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-14 14:20 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 02:28 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-14 10:49 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 15:05 -0600
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-04-12 03:31 +1000
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-08 01:41 -0500
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-04-08 07:14 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-04-08 09:10 -0700
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2011-04-09 07:45 +0100
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> - 2011-04-07 14:18 -0400
Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-04-10 11:53 +1000
Re: Free software versus software idea patents (was: Python benefits over Cobra) sturlamolden <sturlamolden@yahoo.no> - 2011-04-12 09:04 -0700
Re: Python benefits over Cobra harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-04-07 00:25 -0500
Re: Python benefits over Cobra Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-04-07 06:43 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 22:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4da380a4$0$29982$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #2989 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:17:09 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: [...] >> Of course, some mathematics is obvious, or at least intuitive (although >> proving it rigorously can be remarkably difficult -- after 4000 years >> of maths, we still don't have an absolutely bullet-proof proof that >> 1+1=2). > > Erm. This is getting a bit far afield, but yes, we do. The statement you > provide above part of Presbuger arithmetic, which is both complete and > decidable. Ah, I didn't know that! How wonderful! But in any case, Presburger arithmetic is much weaker than even Peano arithmetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presburger_arithmetic So, let me re-phrase my statement... in any realistically complex arithmetic that is consistent with operations performed for real-world applications (e.g. multiplication, division, exponentiation, ...), one cannot demonstrate a bullet-proof proof of 1+1=2. Better? :) Presburger arithmetic, Peano arithmetic, the Axiom of Choice... we're getting further and further away from "natural" mathematics, e.g. counting sheep in a field. [...] >> Part of the patent problem is that the distinction between discovery of >> a fact (which should not be patentable) and invention (which, at least >> sometimes, should be patentable) is not clear. The iPod existed as a >> Platonic ideal in some mathematical bazillion-dimensional abstract >> design space long before it was invented by Apple; does that make it a >> discovery rather than an invention? On the other hand, it is doing >> Apple a great disservice to ignore their creativity in finding that >> design point, out of the infinite number of almost-iPods that suck[3] >> or don't work. > > I agree. Of course, your post existed as a billion-point platonic ideal > beforehand, so you can't really claim credit (man, Plato figured > *everything* out!), but still. Damn Library of Babel, it has *everything* in it. Anyway, this is now getting off-topic even for the original off-topic post. Time to move on, methinks. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-11 15:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.229.1302562540.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #2995 |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:17:09 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Steven D'Aprano >> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > [...] >>> Of course, some mathematics is obvious, or at least intuitive (although >>> proving it rigorously can be remarkably difficult -- after 4000 years >>> of maths, we still don't have an absolutely bullet-proof proof that >>> 1+1=2). >> >> Erm. This is getting a bit far afield, but yes, we do. The statement you >> provide above part of Presbuger arithmetic, which is both complete and >> decidable. > > Ah, I didn't know that! How wonderful! But in any case, Presburger > arithmetic is much weaker than even Peano arithmetic. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presburger_arithmetic > > So, let me re-phrase my statement... in any realistically complex > arithmetic that is consistent with operations performed for real-world > applications (e.g. multiplication, division, exponentiation, ...), one > cannot demonstrate a bullet-proof proof of 1+1=2. Better? :) Well, Peano arithmetic is normal, everyday arithmetic fully axiomatized, and Presburger arithmetic is a subset of it, so we can utilize the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is provable in Presburger arithmetic (damn is my spell checker getting a workout on this sentence) to prove it in Peano arithmetic, and therefore in everyday use. You'd also be surprised what you can do with some limited arithmetic forms. During my undergrad I spent some time writing a Presburger prover that was actually fairly handy- there are definitely instances where trading multiplication by non-constant factors for provability superpowers is a good deal. > Presburger arithmetic, Peano arithmetic, the Axiom of Choice... we're > getting further and further away from "natural" mathematics, e.g. > counting sheep in a field. Yes, the sheep would much rather hear about patent reform than the axiom of choice ;) <snip> > Anyway, this is now getting off-topic even for the original off-topic > post. Time to move on, methinks. Yeah, looks like a good time to let this one trail off. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 11:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] |
| Message-ID | <4da438b6$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3001 |
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:55:37 -0700, geremy condra wrote: >> Ah, I didn't know that! How wonderful! But in any case, Presburger >> arithmetic is much weaker than even Peano arithmetic. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presburger_arithmetic >> >> So, let me re-phrase my statement... in any realistically complex >> arithmetic that is consistent with operations performed for real-world >> applications (e.g. multiplication, division, exponentiation, ...), one >> cannot demonstrate a bullet-proof proof of 1+1=2. Better? :) > > Well, Peano arithmetic is normal, everyday arithmetic fully axiomatized, > and Presburger arithmetic is a subset of it, so we can utilize the fact > that 1 + 1 = 2 is provable in Presburger arithmetic (damn is my spell > checker getting a workout on this sentence) to prove it in Peano > arithmetic, and therefore in everyday use. Alas, that's not the case. Peano arithmetic is undecidable: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanoArithmetic.html Oh, and this may be of interest: http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/extreme_math_1_1_2.php -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 11:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [even more OT than before] Arithmetic [was Free software versus software idea patents] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.269.1302631897.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3042 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:55:37 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > > >>> Ah, I didn't know that! How wonderful! But in any case, Presburger >>> arithmetic is much weaker than even Peano arithmetic. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presburger_arithmetic >>> >>> So, let me re-phrase my statement... in any realistically complex >>> arithmetic that is consistent with operations performed for real-world >>> applications (e.g. multiplication, division, exponentiation, ...), one >>> cannot demonstrate a bullet-proof proof of 1+1=2. Better? :) >> >> Well, Peano arithmetic is normal, everyday arithmetic fully axiomatized, >> and Presburger arithmetic is a subset of it, so we can utilize the fact >> that 1 + 1 = 2 is provable in Presburger arithmetic (damn is my spell >> checker getting a workout on this sentence) to prove it in Peano >> arithmetic, and therefore in everyday use. > > Alas, that's not the case. Peano arithmetic is undecidable: > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanoArithmetic.html Presburger arithmetic is a subset of Peano Arithmetic, ie, all statements which are true in Presburger Arithmetic are true in Peano arithmetic, and all statements which are false in Presburger arithmetic are false in Peano arithmetic. A bullet-proof proof of the fact you listed exists in Presburger arithmetic. By implication the statement is therefore proven true in Peano arithmetic. Also, undecidable does not mean that *no* statement can be proven formally true or false, only that statements which cannot be proven true or false exist within the confines of those axioms, ie, an axiomatic system is undecidable if there exists an expressible statement within it that is independent of all of the axioms. As you note below, there are other proofs under ZF (and optionally C). > Oh, and this may be of interest: > http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/extreme_math_1_1_2.php It's fine until you get to the end, then it drops into a completely incorrect interpretation both of what R&W were doing and of Godel's work. By the way, if you're interested in this sort of thing, Paul Bernays' (the 'B' in NBG set theory, the other two being no less than von Neumann and Godel) book on axiomatic set theory is cheaply available through Dover and is really, really good at getting to the meat on this sort of thing. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 10:02 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <878vvg5obs.fsf@benfinney.id.au> |
| In reply to | #2973 |
geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> writes: > […] I think it's quite reasonable to contend that the existence of > lambda calculus no more rules out the applicability of patents to > software (which I detest) than it rules out the applicability of > patents to hardware (which I find only slightly less ridiculous) or > other meatspace inventions. That matches my own position on the topic. Further, most software idea patents are worded so that they give lip service to the theory that pure algorithms can't be patented; they tie the patent to “A machine for computation plus [insert broad obfuscated description of algorithm here]”. Yessir, this is an amazing invention of ours to turn this general-purpose computer into a machine that does what we want it to do. Patenting ideas? You must be thinking of someone else. So, even if the theory of non-patentable algorithms were to stand up in most jurisdictions, it doesn't have any force against the software idea patents that are actually problematic. -- \ “Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a | `\ religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.” | _o__) —Anonymous | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 03:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <YSTop.14143$0s5.12794@newsfe17.iad> |
| In reply to | #2973 |
geremy condra wrote:
>> Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is not just
>> > based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics.
> I am extremely skeptical of this argument.
... as are a great number of other people; corporations, lawyers,
venture capitalists, SPAM SPAM SPAM...
That is what made the last Supreme Court decision (from this
argument in part) so important... because for the first time the U.S.
Supreme Court is beginning to buy it ... in part.
See Groklaw here if you're not familiar with the issue:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2009022607324398
In this case, the court left software patents intact for the
moment, but they slammed the door shut on Bilski... and the interesting
thing here is that what Bilski was claiming to have invented is similar
is most respects to all other "software idea patents," and for similar
mathematical reasoning. It was a slam dunk, by the way... here is a
block quote from Groklaw you might find interesting:
===== block quote =====
If you are a lawyer wondering why some argue that software is
mathematics, and hence ineligible for patent protection, or are just
interested to know why software developers, particularly those who
develop Free and Open Source software, almost to a man oppose software
patents, you might enjoy reading Groklaw's An Explanation of Computation
Theory for Lawyers, as well as the amicus briefs and articles marked
with the discreet red stars [*], below. Donald Knuth, called the
"father" of the analysis of algorithms, stated: "Basically I remain
convinced that the patent policy most fair and most suitable for the
world will regard mathematical ideas (such as algorithms) to be not
subject to proprietary patent rights." Also, there is a 30-minute movie,
Patent Absurdity: How software patents broke the system, which explains
it well.
=====/block quote=====
> it isn't clear to me that software and
> computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus only models computation,
> and software has real properties in implementation that are strictly
> dependent on the physical world
(see above)
> I think it's quite reasonable to
> contend that the existence of lambda calculus no more rules out the
> applicability of patents to software (which I detest) than it rules
> out the applicability of patents to hardware (which I find only
> slightly less ridiculous) or other meatspace inventions.
The difference is that while hardware may be "described" by
mathematics (all of it is, actually) software IS the description. You
know this to be true, because you prove it everyday... yourself. How
many times have you had a problem, and rather than sit down with your
pad of paper and a slide rule (or your TI-89 Platinum) YOU solved the
problem right there on the screen... er, I mean... the machine solved
the problem for you, uh, after you wrote out the symbols ... ??? We
don't think out our problems on paper much these days... we just enter
them into the 'ol terminal and play with it there... frankly, that is
what appeals to me with languages like Python, Haskell, and Erlang...
they are my research engines ... they take the place of paper and
pencil and slide rule and calculator (and counting on ones fingers) ...
but its still little 'ol me doing the thinking... the days of doing
multiple differential equations on a black-board (or white board) are
long gone for most of us.
The handwriting is on the wall (not so much wishful thinking as
just noting that everyone including Supreme Court justices are beginning
to get it). It is equally important that *all* software engineers and
FOSS developers *get it!* We need everyone on board with this...
really... the time is critical for everyone to understand this... what
is actually at stake is freedom... what we need to focus on is ending
software patents forever... now.
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 09:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.264.1302627287.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3033 |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:15 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > geremy condra wrote: >>> >>> Software is another sort of animal entirely. Because software is not >>> just >>> > based on mathematics--- IT IS mathematics. > >> I am extremely skeptical of this argument. > > ... as are a great number of other people; corporations, lawyers, > venture capitalists, SPAM SPAM SPAM... That's irrelevant to me. I'm much more concerned about your abuse of mathematics in pursuit of politics than I am about your politics, which (in broad strokes) I agree with. > That is what made the last Supreme Court decision (from this argument in > part) so important... because for the first time the U.S. Supreme Court is > beginning to buy it ... in part. > > See Groklaw here if you're not familiar with the issue: > > http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2009022607324398 > > In this case, the court left software patents intact for the moment, but > they slammed the door shut on Bilski... and the interesting thing here is > that what Bilski was claiming to have invented is similar is most respects > to all other "software idea patents," and for similar mathematical > reasoning. It was a slam dunk, by the way... here is a block quote from > Groklaw you might find interesting: > > ===== block quote ===== > If you are a lawyer wondering why some argue that software is mathematics, > and hence ineligible for patent protection, or are just interested to know > why software developers, particularly those who develop Free and Open Source > software, almost to a man oppose software patents, you might enjoy reading > Groklaw's An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers, as well as the > amicus briefs and articles marked with the discreet red stars [*], below. > Donald Knuth, called the "father" of the analysis of algorithms, stated: > "Basically I remain convinced that the patent policy most fair and most > suitable for the world will regard mathematical ideas (such as algorithms) > to be not subject to proprietary patent rights." Also, there is a 30-minute > movie, Patent Absurdity: How software patents broke the system, which > explains it well. > =====/block quote===== I'm familiar with the case, and agree with Knuth (and you) that math should not be patentable. I'd also agree that algorithms are mathematics. Critically, algorithms *are not* software. >> it isn't clear to me that software and >> computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus only models computation, >> and software has real properties in implementation that are strictly >> dependent on the physical world > > (see above) In your rush to misunderstand this you haven't addressed it yet. >> I think it's quite reasonable to >> contend that the existence of lambda calculus no more rules out the >> applicability of patents to software (which I detest) than it rules >> out the applicability of patents to hardware (which I find only >> slightly less ridiculous) or other meatspace inventions. > > The difference is that while hardware may be "described" by mathematics > (all of it is, actually) software IS the description. Software does not, in general, describe hardware. > You know this to be > true, because you prove it everyday... yourself. How many times have you had > a problem, and rather than sit down with your pad of paper and a slide rule > (or your TI-89 Platinum) YOU solved the problem right there on the screen... > er, I mean... the machine solved the problem for you, uh, after you wrote > out the symbols ... ??? We don't think out our problems on paper much > these days... we just enter them into the 'ol terminal and play with it > there... frankly, that is what appeals to me with languages like Python, > Haskell, and Erlang... they are my research engines ... they take the place > of paper and pencil and slide rule and calculator (and counting on ones > fingers) ... but its still little 'ol me doing the thinking... the days of > doing multiple differential equations on a black-board (or white board) are > long gone for most of us. This does not even provide evidence towards your claim that software describes hardware, let alone prove it. It does reinforce my growing suspicion that you do not work in mathematics at a professional or research level, though. > The handwriting is on the wall (not so much wishful thinking as just > noting that everyone including Supreme Court justices are beginning to get > it). It is equally important that *all* software engineers and FOSS > developers *get it!* We need everyone on board with this... really... the > time is critical for everyone to understand this... what is actually at > stake is freedom... what we need to focus on is ending software patents > forever... now. Why is it that the trolls on this board always say this? I'm genuinely baffled by that. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 00:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <zIvpp.16304$Ay5.13448@newsfe07.iad> |
| In reply to | #3061 |
geremy condra wrote:
> I'm familiar with the case, and agree with Knuth (and you) that math
> should not be patentable. I'd also agree that algorithms are
> mathematics. Critically, algorithms*are not* software.
> it isn't clear to me that software and
> computation are synonymous. Lambda calculus only models computation,
> and software has real properties in implementation that are strictly
> dependent on the physical world
> In your rush to misunderstand this you haven't addressed it yet.
I am sorry, I was not clear and you rightly misunderstood my
indirection. I am not claiming that software describes hardware. Please
allow me to restate.
Mathematics describes hardware, yet hardware is patentable and
mathematics is not. The hardware is patentable, but the mathematics used
in the hardware production is not. ( I think we are in agreement so
far). Again, patent the chip, but not the symbol.
All software (and yes, I mean all of it) is nothing more nor less
than mathematics... relationship over symbol--- but not limited to
algorithms, and certainly not limited to computation. Software is not
*just* described by mathematics (as hardware is) software is itself
mathematics--- the description. (not the description of hardware, the
living and breathing description of relationship over symbol). Software
is mathematics, and it is therefore not patentable. Please don't confuse
hardware with this... I never meant to go there--- my fault. The
mathematics of software is no more physical than the mathematics of
(chalk on a blackboard) is physical. The chalk dust and board are not
the issue; neither are the circuits and switches. Relationship over
symbol is the issue; and algorithms and computation are the very least
of it, if at all. Think "thought" and "process".
When I am speaking of mathematics I am NOT even speaking about
computation, nor am I speaking about *just* algorithms; although,
mathematical 'process' is certainly at the heart of the discussion.
Richard Feynman has said, "Nature talks to us in the language of
mathematics," and it behooves all educated people to grapple with the
understanding of this powerful aphorism. When authors of software are
composing software, they are "doing" mathematics. The craft is ever
present. Some, like myself more theoretical and philosophical, others
more practical and applied. Yet both kinds of person are doing
mathematics (generating mathematics) with every manipulated symbol. The
beautiful symbols of software development are the very symbols of
harmonious mathematical relationship from every pure functional
construct (or even OOP Class) right down to each and every 1 & 0 (on and
off). This artistry is pure and applied science (the stuff of every
human thought in logic and reasoning).Jan Gullberg has said,
"Mathematics grows and develops in many ways unrelated to science, and
thus plays a crucial role in the history of human thought". This is the
art and science of software engineering of which I am speaking. Software
is the very stuff of human thought and expression. In so many ways
software reflects the very nature of what it means to be human; how we
reflect, organize, structure, and relate cognitively over symbol. I love
mathematics, as I love software, and I have abused neither.
If you agree with my politics (with broad strokes) why would you
not like to try to understand what my politics are based in? Are you
apposed to software patents out of frustration and emotion only? Or, is
there another in-born reason why you detest them? I suspect that the
mathematician in you is screaming to be let out...
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-13 23:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.349.1302762982.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3176 |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:35 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > I am sorry, I was not clear and you rightly misunderstood my indirection. > I am not claiming that software describes hardware. Please allow me to > restate. > Mathematics describes hardware, yet hardware is patentable and > mathematics is not. The hardware is patentable, but the mathematics used in > the hardware production is not. ( I think we are in agreement so far). > Again, patent the chip, but not the symbol. I think you're still ascribing slightly too much power to mathematics here, but I don't think its relevant to the main point you're making. > All software (and yes, I mean all of it) is nothing more nor less than > mathematics... relationship over symbol--- but not limited to algorithms, > and certainly not limited to computation. Restatement is not a form of proof. If you're right, prove it to me- I've stated my initial objections. > Software is not *just* described > by mathematics (as hardware is) software is itself mathematics--- the > description. (not the description of hardware, the living and breathing > description of relationship over symbol). Software is mathematics, and it > is therefore not patentable. Please don't confuse hardware with this... I > never meant to go there--- my fault. The mathematics of software is no > more physical than the mathematics of (chalk on a blackboard) is physical. > The chalk dust and board are not the issue; neither are the circuits and > switches. Relationship over symbol is the issue; and algorithms and > computation are the very least of it, if at all. Think "thought" and > "process". This is just repetition. Besides being a marginally effective attempt to bedazzle with eloquence, it again contributes nothing to your argument. > When I am speaking of mathematics I am NOT even speaking about > computation, nor am I speaking about *just* algorithms; although, > mathematical 'process' is certainly at the heart of the discussion. > Richard Feynman has said, "Nature talks to us in the language of > mathematics," and it behooves all educated people to grapple with the > understanding of this powerful aphorism. When authors of software are > composing software, they are "doing" mathematics. The craft is ever present. > Some, like myself more theoretical and philosophical, others more practical > and applied. Yet both kinds of person are doing mathematics (generating > mathematics) with every manipulated symbol. The beautiful symbols of > software development are the very symbols of harmonious mathematical > relationship from every pure functional construct (or even OOP Class) right > down to each and every 1 & 0 (on and off). This artistry is pure and applied > science (the stuff of every human thought in logic and reasoning).Jan > Gullberg has said, "Mathematics grows and develops in many ways unrelated to > science, and thus plays a crucial role in the history of human thought". > This is the art and science of software engineering of which I am speaking. > Software is the very stuff of human thought and expression. In so many ways > software reflects the very nature of what it means to be human; how we > reflect, organize, structure, and relate cognitively over symbol. I love > mathematics, as I love software, and I have abused neither. Again, repetition. You've found the fire and wonder but lost the precision in the process, and that *is* an abuse of mathematics. Give it precision and you'll do just fine. > If you agree with my politics (with broad strokes) why would you not like > to try to understand what my politics are based in? Are you apposed to > software patents out of frustration and emotion only? Or, is there another > in-born reason why you detest them? I suspect that the mathematician in you > is screaming to be let out... It's been let out. I'm a security researcher and a cryptanalyst, and I have colleagues who do the same work I do who identify themselves as mathematicians. My opposition to software patents is based in the firmly held belief that they're a way for entrenched players to kick the crap out of real innovators. I believe that to be profoundly unfair, and I don't have a great love of bullies. Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a political football. If you can prove something, *prove it*. If you cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that math says you're right. In this case you've let yourself get carried away with some very deep, very complex math that you don't fully understand and used it to justify a view that almost is almost certainly held for other reasons. You've reduced some of the most elegant and powerful works of the human mind to simple confirmation bias, and I think most mathematicians would find that shameful. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 02:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <Jgxpp.19070$0s5.13108@newsfe17.iad> |
| In reply to | #3181 |
geremy condra wrote:
> Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do
> for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a
> political football. If you can prove something,*prove it*. If you
> cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that
> math says you're right.
Fair enough.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20091111151305785
With your background, you will have no problem with this text...
although, and I do apologize, it is a long text... scroll down and begin
reading at the heading:
An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers
By PolR
The write-up is excellent, written as well or better than I could
write it myself, and is very clear and concise... yes, even a lawyer can
understand it.
Kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-14 09:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.364.1302799902.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3185 |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > geremy condra wrote: >> >> Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do >> for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a >> political football. If you can prove something,*prove it*. If you >> cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that >> math says you're right. > > Fair enough. > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20091111151305785 > > > With your background, you will have no problem with this text... > although, and I do apologize, it is a long text... scroll down and begin > reading at the heading: > > An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers > > By PolR > > > > The write-up is excellent, written as well or better than I could write > it myself, and is very clear and concise... yes, even a lawyer can > understand it. This is not a proof. This is an argument. There's a very big difference. To be clear, this article makes basically the same mistake you do- you assume that a program is exactly equivalent to its computation, while the article makes the additional and even more wrong assumption that a program is perfectly defined by its CPU instructions. It's to your credit that you avoided advancing this obviously incorrect claim, but you still haven't addressed my earlier points. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-16 00:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <UH9qp.5859$MK2.1737@newsfe02.iad> |
| In reply to | #3206 |
geremy condra wrote:
>> > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20091111151305785
>> >
> This is not a proof. This is an argument. There's a very big difference.
>
> To be clear, this article makes basically the same mistake you do- you
> assume that a program is exactly equivalent to its computation,
Yes, I agree there is a difference between argument and proof. I
full well know that what you are requiring here is a formal rigorous
"mathematical" proof. I'm not trying to be coy about that issue, nor the
issue of undecidability; because at the moment it is not necessary for
the purpose of isolating the problem underlying software idea patents.
I'll explain that in a bit... in another post where it better fits...
(hold that thought...)
The main point here is that *all* that is necessary at the moment
is to make the "argument" crystal clear, demonstrably (but not rigorous
by mathematical standards), that software *is* mathematics. But, that
Mathematics *is not* necessarily Software... something new to follow...
Please consider these statements as pairs, then a small argument:
Mathematics *is not* chess.
Chess *is* mathematics.
Mathematics *is not* Tic-Tac-Toe
Tic-Tac-Toe *is* mathematics.
Mathematics *is not* "The Towers of Hanoi".
"The Towers of Hanoi" *is* mathematics.
Mathematics *is not* Fourier Analysis.
Fourier Analysis *is* mathematics.
Mathematics *is not* computation.
Computation *is* mathematics.
Mathematics *is not* software.
Software *is* mathematics.
I am not stating the problem as "natural" and "obvious" from the
direction of Mathematics ==> Software. *NOT* That aspect would in fact
require a formal rigorous proof (in my opinion). That aspect of the
discussion must at this point remain stipulated as merely conjecture---
maybe with resounding circumstantial evidence and demonstration, but
conjecture none the less. At least, I have never seen a formal proof.
(This is the direction of my work and research, but more on that later...)
I am asserting something of a subset in computational theory, even
logic, and certainly number theory--- but there are others--- that the
discussion at this point is from the other direction, namely,
Software ==> Mathematics. This aspect of the discussion (and the only
one I believe matters for software idea patents at the moment) does not
*require* a formal rigorous mathematical proof (we are not trying to
prove a theorem here, rather to only demonstrate that software is the
same 'thought' and 'process' (certainly a subset) as natural and obvious
mathematical 'thought' and 'process'. What?
Namely--- input, control, arithmetic, logic, and output.
These are subset to the broad and rich categories of mathematical
thought and process. However, these small categories *are* definitive
subsets of mathematics, obvious and natural, for all thinkers all over
the globe. This is the reason I presume to apply for why you find
software idea patents unfair and detestable. Because down underneath
somewhere (like the rest of us), you too know that this aspect is
natural and obvious. Its unfair (I really don't like that word) because
it violates truth. Truth and freedom are very closely related topics.
In this pursuit for freedom we are not violating (nor abusing)
mathematics. (quite the opposite) The full rigor of mathematical thought
and philosophical reasoning in mathematics are at the pinnacle of human
endeavor and at the height of science. This I fully and truly respect.
The issue is *not* to pull mathematics down somehow... the issue is to
clearly define *what* software *is* and from where it ultimately derives
(as a subset)--- what constitutes "software"? The constituency of
software is nothing less than mathematics, from my viewpoint.
In a different post (in response to another of your good questions)
I will try to lay out a different argument that comes a little closer at
what you are looking for in terms of proof... still not rigorous
mathematical proof... but perhaps more demonstrable logically. Be
patient, I'm trying to limit my posts to *not too many* whatever I mean
by that. :)
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-15 23:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.410.1302936378.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3292 |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:21 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: <snip> This looks to me like an application of the troll motto "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull". It certainly does nothing to prove your claim, despite clearly attempting to word-salad your way through an argument. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Algis Kabaila <akabaila@pcug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-16 21:01 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.420.1302951683.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3292 |
On Saturday 16 April 2011 16:46:10 geremy condra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:21 PM, harrismh777 > <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: > > <snip> > > This looks to me like an application of the troll motto "if > you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with > bull". It certainly does nothing to prove your claim, > despite clearly attempting to word-salad your way through an > argument. > > Geremy Condra Sounds rather unkindly reaction. Besides, I like trolls and their country of origin - it keeps being classed as the best place to live in this earth of ours! Peace!. If you ever reach my age, you will appreciate peace. OldAl. -- Algis http://akabaila.pcug.org.au/StructuralAnalysis.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-16 23:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <4daa27f6$0$29986$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #3292 |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:21:55 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > software *is* mathematics No it isn't. I might accept an argument that *algorithms* are mathematics, but software is not algorithms. Consider the difference between the mathematical concept of leverage and an actual physical lever. We wouldn't say that a physical machine "is" mathematics just because we can describe an idealized version of the machine in the language of mathematics. (If the machine is particularly simple -- you might be able to exactly simulate a lever in pure mathematics, but simulating, say, a nuclear bomb or a dialysis machine in mathematics is more of a challenge...) Likewise, we shouldn't try to pretend that an actual software implementation of an algorithm, written for an actual hardware machine, with all the complications and difficulties that entails, "is" mathematics just because we can hypothetically describe an idealized version of that algorithm in mathematics. We of all people, being programmers, should understand the practical difference between an algorithm in a book and the actual code needed to implement that algorithm, and not just gloss over the differences with a handwave and a confident assertion. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-17 10:31 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.448.1303000300.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3357 |
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > (If the machine is particularly > simple -- you might be able to exactly simulate a lever in pure > mathematics, but simulating, say, a nuclear bomb or a dialysis machine in > mathematics is more of a challenge...) I can easily model a massless, frictionless, inelastic, infinitismally thin lever. Beyond that, it gets complicated. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-16 18:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.449.1303004156.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3357 |
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano > <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: >> (If the machine is particularly >> simple -- you might be able to exactly simulate a lever in pure >> mathematics, but simulating, say, a nuclear bomb or a dialysis machine in >> mathematics is more of a challenge...) > > I can easily model a massless, frictionless, inelastic, infinitismally > thin lever. Beyond that, it gets complicated. With what kind of precision? Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 01:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <5TQqp.30624$0s5.4344@newsfe17.iad> |
| In reply to | #3357 |
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> software*is* mathematics
> No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
> (If the machine is particularly
> simple -- you might be able to exactly simulate a lever in pure
> mathematics, but simulating, say, a nuclear bomb or a dialysis machine in
> mathematics is more of a challenge...)
I do not disagree with your frustration over what may or may not be
simulated by mathematics, within a computer, but that is to
misunderstand the thrust of the argument. Essentially what you are
saying is that because it is difficult to simulate in software what is
evident in pure mathematics that software is somehow not mathematics...
if I have understood what you are saying here, then you are absolutely
incorrect. If I have misunderstood you, please clarify.
We are not talking about what can or can not be simulated--- much
less how difficult those simulations might be. The argument is much much
simpler than that... please do not over complicate this.
What it is that software does is to extend human thought and
process over symbol across a machine ALU (the von Neumann funnel). The
machine ALU is the medium *only* for the natural and obvious expression
of mathematics (relationship over symbol) carried about in the human
mind yet extended and expressed across the registers and switches of the
machine, rather than markers and white-boards (or black-boards and
chalk, if you're as old as I am).
Software is comprised of nothing more nor less than mathematics;
the human tools of thought and process, relationship over symbol,
expressed across the domain of switches and registers in the processor's
ALU.
This is the part of the argument that Geremy will loath and despise
perhaps even more than you do... that what software is comprised of
resides at the very heart of the CPU itself... that which we call the
von Neumann funnel--- the ALU. It does not matter in the least what is
being simulated (H bomb, or word-processor, or spread-sheet, or life
automata) no software ever ever ever ever does anything other than
logically manipulate registers of bits (ones and zeros) on and off at
very high speeds (that's it, nothing more and nothing less). All of this
is mathematics, and nothing more nor less.
Even addition in the ALU is not computation... it is logical
manipulation of 1s and 0s with a bitwise exclusive (xor) function across
the register with carry. Whalla, ADD. All logic operations in the ALU of
all CPUs are comprised of logical manipulations (algorithms) designed to
simulate higher and higher types of functions; regardless of what is
simulated, at the core and heart of the CPU is nothing more nor less
than logical algorithm(s) expressing relationship over symbol by
"software". In fact, the software itself is some of the logical
manipulation --- in other words, the software itself is processed in
precisely the same ways.
Again:
Mathematics *is not* software.
Software *is* mathematics.
kind regards,
m harris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | geremy condra <debatem1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-18 00:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.502.1303112051.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3463 |
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:29 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote: <snip> Ok, so, you're basically saying that perfect simulation is not a requirement for something to 'be mathematics'. I don't think you can construct a nontrivial model for mathematics without including that, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong, and if you'll provide your criteria for the question of what qualifies as 'being mathematics' we might get somewhere. Geremy Condra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-04-12 13:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents |
| Message-ID | <mailman.267.1302630195.9059.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #3033 |
On 4/12/2011 4:15 AM, harrismh777 wrote: Anyone here who does not understand how absurd software patents can get should contemplate the following (based on a real patent from about 20 years ago, when CDroms were new. A Methods for Ensuring that the Correct CDROM is in the CDROM drive. While the correct cdrom is not in the drive: Display a message asking the user to insert the correct CD. Buried in a page of verbiage, that was it, completely obvious and unoriginal. > That is what made the last Supreme Court decision (from this argument in > part) so important... because for the first time the U.S. Supreme Court > is beginning to buy it ... in part. What might help lawyers understand the obsurdity of software patents would be to have them contemplate the possibility of patents on laws and legal arguments, so that a legislature could not write a law, nor a lawyer submit a legal brief, without possibly having to pay royalties or violate a patent. -- Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web