|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 10:24 PM EST |
Your fallacy is that you don't notice a computer is a sign-vehicle for the
mathematics of computing. It is not the referent. Your argument is like saying a
novel is not text because it is described by text.
Software is not described by math in the manner you discuss. Software *is* the
manipulation of symbols and this *is* math.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 05:07 AM EST |
Lets try a different tack:
Anything you can do with a specific subset of math you can do with software, and
anything you can do with software you can do with that same specific subset of
math.
Please explain how that is not an equivilence relation that justifies saying
"Software is Math"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 10:12 AM EST |
Yes - math can be used to describe a lightbulb - but math can't be used to
produce the light coming from the lightbulb. No matter how well defined your
math on the lightbulb is - it will never light your path down
stairs.
Software can be used to describe what pixels should be lit by the
monitor - but it is the monitor that lights the pixels and provides you the glow
of an image on the screen. Software will never - ever - provide light!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
