|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 15 2012 @ 12:35 AM EDT |
I think you made a jump there and validated it via metaphor.
Symbols and notation are not mathematics, they are the expression of
mathematics. We could change the symbols that defines addition among
the integers, but, still (n mod k) + (m mod k) is still ((n+ m) mod k), as long
as n,m, and k are members of a set for which commutativity and
associativity are valid and there are two operators for which each member
of the set may be defined as: a op1 k op2 b, where 0 is less than or equal
to b which is less than k.
0 is a symbol that joined arithmetic relatively recently, yet, mathematically,
it was always the identity element for addition in the integers.
Blue is our verbal notation for light within a range of frequencies. It would
still be had we not named it. Indeed x-rays were discovered in the 1890s
and
got a name so they could be discussed as physicists worked out the
relationship to visual light.
Had I read the passage of yours you quoted, I would have been struck by
the interjected subtle self-premising and self-proving tautology of
"competent authors."
And that's indicative of a problem: you started with a conclusion and then
sought the evidence from a body of works drawn over the most tumultuous
of centuries with regards to the meaning of mathematics and then you over
valued notation (which you call symbols) to prove that software is
unpatentable mathematics.
Patentable chemical processes also have a notation and obey rules which
are described mathematically. Is chemistry mathematics?
And you overlooked my other point, hardware and software are
equivalents. You can interchange them.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
