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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
