|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 08:26 AM EDT |
| Polr,
What do you think of this Groklaw
Comment?
Did you watch the video linked
to?
Do you think, that along with your articles, that the video
also could
provide insight for the Judges who will be in
need of an education about
computers?
Could we just send your articles to them in an envelope, for
them to read as a "general education" that could be applied
outside of the
case, as a general education? Where anyone
could send them the materials?
Of course, then it would be
the judges decision to apply knowledge that they
gain, to
whatever decisions that they face in technology in the
future, or
this case that they are looking again at now?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
Where is Part 2, would we need Part 2 to send with Part 1?
Also do you have PDF link (or could you update with one)?
I have been looking back thru all your articles, some have a
PDF link, some do not? Also, when you do put up a PDF link,
the PDF should have a Creative Commons License as part of
the text (where the PDF stands by itself with a CC license).
Thank-you.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
Why symbols, why not objects?
Or, would you consider both to be the same?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
I suspect we could get Mark to file it if you can't. Hum. Got an idea, I'll
email
Mark.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 14 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT |
| You have to worry about human nature when putting your case
forward. Have you
ever heard of "learned
helplessness"? Well, please entertain, how it might be
easy to put the
judges into a state where they are not open
to even seeing a wise solution? We
need to show, without
losing their attention, and their wits, how the MATH
works,
as explained is if it NOT a foreign language to the Judges
(if it not
their native language, they will naturally feel
lost). The idea here, is that,
it will be easy to lose them
in your forest, if they don't have a reference
point to
attach to. You need a case, a real piece of software to use
as a
tool to explain your Software is Math logic.
Can this "Can
Viruses Be Detected?"
by Jennifer Lapell,
http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/can-viruses-be-
detected
be
used as an
example, somehow?
This Quote, and the entire article, might
point to the logic
that I think might, as such, be useful in your PART 2 for
the Judges to also ponder.
Cohen's discussion rests on work done
in the 1930's by
Goedel and other philosophers in the field of logic. Goedel
used his Incompleteness Theorem to demonstrate there will
always be
complexities which cannot be handled by
mathematics, logic, or any other
"language" defined by our
limited imaginations. Alan Turing and other
mathematicians
quickly realized that those "languages" include computer
languages.
These thinkers posed a question which has had an
irreversible
impact on theoretical computer science: "Is it
possible to write a program to
determine if any given
program works properly?" Their answer, surprisingly
enough,
was "No." Though this problem looks easy enough, they
managed to prove
that no program could ever exist which
analyzes program behaviour. Now fast
forward to the 1980's,
when computer users were beginning to realize that the
"virus issue" was a bigger problem than they had ever
anticipated. This is
where Fred Cohen comes in.
Cohen picked up the ball with his Ph.D. thesis in
1986, and
extended Goedel's theorem to prove that no perfect virus
checker can
ever exist. His theorem is devilishly simple,
relying on a technique known as
"proof by contradiction."
See the LINK
above to the article above for
more...
As it shows how a
software program, that the judges KNOW
about, works, or actually does not
work...!
Where it can not have a patent, because due to the MATH,
that it
can't function as an idea, or at all, it can only do
what it can do? -
Actually, if it could do what they
claim anti-virus software can do, you could
not use the
computer because all the MIPS would be used for that one
software
program, leaving nothing left to do anything else
with, if it "could do", but
it "can't do", what many,
including the judges, would expect it to be able to
do.
Judges most likely USE anti-virus software, so could relate
the the
Software is MATH case -if the case we make, is
anchored somehow to something
that they can relate to?
Otherwise, you end up with their eyes glazed over,
as for
those who are not fluent in the logic, or the language, are
lost
easily... (example, take a first year, or first day
French language student,
who know nothing of the language,
and put them into a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year
classroom, and
they will be lost, and alone).
We need to have these judges
engaged in your articles,
fully. We can not afford to have them feel lost, as
then,
the other side, can explain, what they want, and the judges
will give
their side a weight, as they will not give our
side (the correct side) a
greater weight.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
