|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 09:21 PM EDT |
Symbol manipulation doesn't break down. Hardware breaks down.
Are you arguing software is patentable because hardware can break down?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 09:34 PM EDT |
Yes. Let's try to explain things a bit.
When you were little and learning math, did you ever wonder what it all means?
That's actually a good question* and there are many answers. One of the
answers, is that math is just a formal system. It doesn't mean anything. It
turns out it's a very useful formal system, so we all need to know it. In fact,
most of us really need to know more math.
Now the gist of Poir's argument is that as soon as you remove meaning from the
symbols you enter the realm of math. That part is absolutely correct. What
goes on inside a computer is devoid of meaning. So it can be represented by a
formal system. The software just becomes an element in the formal system.
(Being devoid of meaning is sufficient to mean something can be represented by a
formal system, but not necessary.)
The formal system Poir has chosen is a classic formal system. The only argument
here is if the chosen system can encapsulate existing and future real world
computers.
The argument is not is there a formal system, only which formal system is best
to make the desired point. So while I'm sure you've been trolling, it doesn't
hurt to get more of the details out.
Footnotes:
*I have a theory that kids that ask that question do poorly at math, because
math is taught as a formal system and they simply are not naturally formalists.
I often wonder if some kids would do better at math if they were introduced to a
different philosophy of mathematics, or at least told they should try to be
formalists.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- What is math - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 01:56 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
