|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
classic...when someone's argument is demolished throw up a "I
could explain my point of view but you are too dumb to
understand it" response. Does anyone think emmenjay might be a
liberal arts major?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bprice on Saturday, September 01 2012 @ 03:37 AM EDT |
I got about 1/4 way through a detailed explanation of the many
things wrong with this, and I gave up. There are so many fundamental holes in
your understanding, you probably won't understand me anyway.
Try
us; there are more than just a few mathematicians, including programmers, here.
If your explanation has any substance, we can all discuss it and, mayhap, find
some more fundamental holes in your understanding.
I'll make
a few quick points and then I'll leave it to the religious
zealots.
We can omit the religious zealotry, and concentrate on why
software is a discipline of mathematics.
There is no universally
accepted definition of "mathematics". Some people define it so loosely that
there is nothing, that is not mathematics. If you define maths as "everything"
then it is meaningless. Saying "maths cannot be patented" is the same as saying
"nothing can be patented".
Unless "mathematics" is a
well-understood term, then your argument makes no sense whatsoever: if you
don't know what "mathematics" denotes, you cannot validly say that software
isn't mathematics, can you?
That may or may not be a good idea
(patenting nothing), but it is not the current law in any jurisdiction I can
think of.
But current law in (at least) the US forbids patenting
abstractions and laws of nature. Since mathematics is abstractions, it's not
patentable, from which we see that software, being all abstractions (of
mathematics) is not patentable. Your observation about "patenting nothing" is
not relevant to the discussion.
Whether patents are desirable is a
subject for a different post. This one is just on defining
software.
OK. You should also expose your definition of
mathematics, also — I conjecture that your objection to treating software
as mathematics derives from a serious misunderstanding (or lack of
understanding) of what mathematics, in even a bit of its glory, really
is.
I would be inclined to include the analysis or manipulation of
numbers, symbols or geometric shapes. Arithmetic, algebra, calculus, geometry.
Stuff like that.
But not algorithms, data structures, relations,
etc, which are at least as mathematical as algebras, arithmetics,
calculi, and geometries? Where's the line that separates the mathematics that
you reject from the mathematics that meets your approval? Why should
mathematicians honor your preferences wrt approved vs unapproved
mathematics?
Stuff that I would exclude includes copying/storing
stuff, designing a good UI with user-friendly layout and pleasing colours,
understanding how people want to do their job or play their game or whatever
they are doing.
Of course one excludes the purpose of the
mathematics (unless the purpose of the math is more math). The purpose of the
math is often the realm of taste, judgement, and the like — such as the
items of your exclusion list. Keep in mind that the purpose of the math,
whether it be more math or non-math, has no bearing on the nature of the
mathematics that is the software.
I'm sure there are better
definitions, but that's the best I can think of, right now.
So you
don't have any definition to support your argument, then.
I like the
definition of algorithm from reference.com: "a set of rules for solving a
problem in a finite number of steps".
That sounds an awful lot like
a lay definition of the mathematical construct having the same
name.
OK, I'm done. Flame away. ---
--Bill. NAL:
question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
