|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
Yes, you are being overly picky... :-)
True the internal operation of the processor is indeed basic binary arithmetic.
However modern processors provide a richer external interface than this.
But not so rich that it isn't just maths.
The bizarre and arcane internal gubbins* that provide branch prediction and out
of sequence execution amongst other things that make understanding what's
actually happening somewhat harder than it used to be are moot. They don't
affect the output of the processor, which is a mathematical transformation of
it's input.
jrw
* this is an advanced technical term...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Even then - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- Even then - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
OP here.
Yeah, I understand, DSPs even do built-in multiplication out of necessity.
That's why I covered myself with "etc" :P.
Glad to see by the responses that I'm not completely off track in my reasoning.
As some of the deeper posts have stated, you can abstract software even further
to the presence or absence of "something", be it voltage, pressure,
space in a punch card, etc. You can go even further and quantify this
"something" if you wish to build an analog computer (i.e. measure a
voltage), but that doesn't change the fact that it is simply performing
mathematical/logical operations that are not patentable. Just because you put
together millions of these operations to run a program does not make the program
patentable any more than putting millions of equations into a theory makes it
patentable. Both are abstract.
It doesn't matter if the program is running on a set of relays, vacuum tubes,
ICs, quantum particles, hydraulic pumps, bundles of wooden sticks, or whatever,
it's still the same program. It is not "transformed" by being run on a
computer, the computer and the software remain the same (assuming the computer
is capable of running said program).
If schools would teach more about how computers work at lower levels, I think we
would have far less confusion over this.
On a side note, I gotta get myself an account, I doubt too many people read
these anonymous posts, especially ones that are this long. :P[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
