|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
PoIR
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I really have no counter-argument for the
details you have selected to reply to, except...
You say that mathematics has an implication that being processed is an
imperative of the mathematician. While I don't disagree that there is such an
imperative. I'd like to point out that any such any sub evaluations continues
to represent an equality of the prior (if I remember math class..) and open to
interpretations by the mathematician. They continue to be theoretical, or _not_
real. So any such evaluation can be considered optional since no reality
altering expectations should exist, at least while we are performing
mathematical operations/evaluations of equality.
The final application of a mathematical result is likely to be beyond the bounds
of the mathematics itself, indeed it is likely to be applied in the field of
engineering (like the shape or size of a beam, or in the design of the
components of a cruise missile) or perhaps part of a presentation of a decision
making process. At that point the theory would gain the crucial aspect of
realism, or be host to reality; not saying that it loses its original
theoretical underpinning, but that it becomes real in the lives of people.
If there exists such a point where the meanings within the mathematical model
take one meanings beyond the original pure math. In a computer it's not
unreasonable to say that point is execution time; when all the math gets
transformed into a machine state represented by, electrons and voltages held in
arrays of doped silicon and eventually take part in enhancing the computer
operators personal experience in a way that was expressed by a software
developer. or something.
Perhaps software patents make sense of you consider them to cover machine
characteristics as a whole, perhaps it's better to view software not as a
separate or discrete unit, but as a part of a computer that works by enhancing
the characteristics of the machine as a whole. That way the results of the
mathematics and the cold hard electrons at work are more distant in mind buried
under layers and layers of theoretical virtual machines. We can approach the
users experience and how the characteristics of the machine enhance his living
experience.
You seem to have your position in this little dialectic pretty well defined on
all fronts. I am splitting hairs here for the sake of argument, as you can
probably see. I hope that my viewpoints serve in furthering your own ideas even
if we may continue to have differing ideas, perhaps that's the gain we both
enjoy while entertaining these ideas.
Personally I observe software patents to be a destructive force in the software
ecosystem, they create an artificial and judicially backed critical-K value in
the industry that support monopolies. The cost of defense plus the vast number
of possible cases increases a software firms risks without really providing a
benefit to the consumer. Steve Jobs going thermonuclear is inherent by design
within the software patented arena. One has to wonder if it's intentional or
not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
