|
|
|
| Authored by: mrisch on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
Here's a concrete example:
I write a program: print("Hello World"). When compiled, it
is a series of 1's and 0's that form op codes sent to the
processor with data. Put Hello World in RAM. Read from RAM
and send it to display. (simplifying, obviously).
So what do we have:
1. We have a process. It is the process of displaying a
message (maybe even a particular message) on a CRT screen.
Is it a new process? Of course not. But it is a process, and
we should judge it on its merits.
2. We have an apparatus. It is an apparatus having the
capability of printing "Hello World" on the screen. Did it
have that capability before the software was written? Well,
maybe, but not that particular message. It doesn't have that
capability until I load the software onto the machine.
Your point, if I am understanding it, is that this is all
just the computer, and the software does nothing to enhance
the capabilities that were already there. It's just a set of
instructions. Indeed, under that view, that fact that it is
math is irrelevant - there's just nothing added to the basic
machine.
And in this example, I think you are right. But I also think
that there can be a set of instructions for a general
purpose computer that causes it to perform a process or to
be a "thing" that does something it wasn't capable of. It
has to be a process/thing that the designers of the computer
didn't think of, and that wasn't obvious to anyone at the
time that use was thought of. That is an application of the
math to make the machine do something new.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:27 PM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: PolR on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:15 PM EDT
- And even on those processors that do - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:18 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:28 AM EDT
- disgusting. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:45 AM EDT
- Can do vs. Will do - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT
- Ha. You make the complaint of every mathematician makes - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- Your last paragraph is funny. - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- General-purpose computer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:24 AM EDT
- "Capable"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- Patent on problem specification? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Atoms - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- People stuck in the wrong environment - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- Mrisch, from a patent lawyer's point of view, your program was SUGGESTED - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:19 AM EDT
- Software Patents ne Process Patents - Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT
- Thanks a lot, and a clarification - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:16 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
