|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
> I use the definition of computation theory. You are free to use the
definition you want but then you are not longer using the term of art
mathematicians use.
Thank you. I never claimed that I wanted the benefit from describing math or
software from a computation theory standpoint. Patent examiners/attorneys
certainly don't restrict themselves to such a definition and neither should you
or I.
>> Mathematics never processes anything.
> This is false. Computations are described in computation theory textbooks.
The point of computation theory is to study computations and this requires some
form of processing.
The description of computations are not capable of computations themselves.
They instruct a mathematician or machine as to the rules computations should
follow. The actual processing you refer to is done by mathematician, professor,
student, machine or whomever may be studying them. The computation theory
continue to describe a model that computations should follow. That's why it's
got "theory" as part of it's name.
The same reasoning can be used for the question "Who are you?" You
are more then your name or some other numeric attribute you have taken on to be
yours. You certainly can admit that your body is a part of you but still
distinct from "you" because you can reason that you are more then just
your body.
>No, algorithms are separate from the meaning of symbols. This is clearly
stated in computation theory textbooks.
We agree on this I think. So you mean to say a algorithms may contain symbols
within... But even the algorithms exist to enhance the model being described.
A model is not the same as a symbol. Even though a symbol can be a model.
> Mathematics is a language and algorithms are features of the language.
Mathematics can be used of model nature. But algorithms are abstract
mathematical entities which exists independently of such models.
And we will agree on this too, mostly. The algorithm is a part of the model, a
tool of the "language" you refer to. Even if that model is not
abstract, it *describes* functionality, it doesn't actually perform it's
described functionality. Hence, even abstract math algorithms continue to
contribute to the subject matter, a model.
Software, a subset of possible mathematical algorithms, is a sequence of
instructions that is processed by a machine, rather then a mathematician. The
implication that software can be executed by anyone who has a compatible
machine, even if they are not aware of the theory that makes it work, is of
commercial value. That makes it more then just theory even though it continues
to merely be a model. The "free" functionality brings productivity
which brings value.
It's that aspect that software patents try to protect in the same way it tried
to protect hardware implementations. A gear or wheel or lever as part of a
bigger machine can operate without it's operator being aware of the math or
theory behind it's operations. And mechanical devices all can have mathematical
models behind them that are sufficient to describe or model their functionality.
But it not the mathematical model or algorithms that makes a mechanical device
work. It functions because it is an actual implementation of the model that can
be operated by someone who doesn't know why it works.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
