|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
See the Sources section. References pointing to mathematical proofs are there.
Besides, do we really need a mathematical proof that bits are symbols and
computers manipulate bits?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stegu on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
You are not being serious, right?
It's hard to tell in writing, but if you are
serious: this is obviously not intended for peer
review. It is a mathematician trying to explain
something to his non-peers. Non-mathematicians.
Lawyers. Lawyers are all about words, and would
generally be confused by mathematics as such,
unless they were also mathematicians. (From the
current situation we can safely deduce that there
are very few patent lawyers who are also
mathematicians.)
This is a commendable attempt to fix a huge
misunderstanding, one that is based on a naive,
arrogant and incorrect notion of what "math" really
is, and what an "algorithm" is.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
| An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers ---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
