|
|
|
| Authored by: JonCB on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
My comment on this argument is that even if i do accept the
argument, that you can't describe hardware within the lambda
calculus, i don't have to accept that software isn't math
because the only thing that matters to software is the CPU
and the actions of a CPU can be described by the lambda
calculus.
Ultimately i'm a software guy. Currently, every working CPU
can be described precisely by lambda calculus. I would
assume some things outside the CPU (buses and such forth)
can probably be described by the calculus but i can't say
that with certainty. That would require a hardware guru who
knows more than I.
Note that i don't think the third argument is universally
true, however i'm willing to accept that there exists some
hardware that the lambda calculus can't describe. That
however doesn't harm the point it just changes how far the
protection should cover.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
but not the software that runs on it, for the reasons stated
in the GP post.
If someone comes up with a novel design for a computer, that
physical hardware would be subject to patent, as it is NOT
information. It may be described by lambda calculus, but it
is NOT the calculus. However, the software IS. That's all
software is - information and the flow of that information
according to mathematical characteristics of the software.
it IS math.
As an engineer, a key to remember - hardware is DESCRIBED by
math, software IS math.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
