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.
This
retort is especially depressing.
He didn't "start with a conclusion", he
started with a question that needs to be answered. If his evidence seems
obscure to you, that's probably only because you don't know anything about
computation theory. Anybody who knows a bit about computation theory should
recognize that PolR is just citing the most important results in the branch of
mathematics known as computation theory, which is the foundation of all modern
computing.
The sad thing is that he has to write this article to explain how
computers actually work, for an audience that has been using computers regularly
for their entire adult lives! Even some programmers who write software for a
living seem to be convinced for some reason that software is not
mathematics. That just shows how deficient their education was on what
computers are and how they actually work. Sheesh. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
