|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:22 PM EST |
Please don't conflate the referent and the sign-vehicle.
Software is math doesn't mean all referent is math. It means the programmed
computer is a sign-vehicle for mathematical language. Not everything is a
sign-vehicle for mathematical language.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:56 PM EST |
>The problem is you could just as easily argue that all mechanical inventions
are math as well, since they act only in accordance with mechanical laws which
can be expressed as math.
You appear to be confusing two concepts which are not at all related:
(1) Software is math.
(2) Physical process ARE DESCRIBED BY software.
Physical processes are not software, and software is not a physical process (it
is a MENTAL process).
Take your favorite Fortran subroutine. Now ... replace it by math. (How? It is
ALREADY a sequence of operations on values encoded as numbers....it's already
math.) Now. Calculate the math. See? It's the SAME THING as executing the
software.
Take your favorite suspension bridge. Now ... replace it by software. See how
heavy a truck the software will hold. (Hint: make sure the truck is paid for,
before you attempt to drive it across the software.) See...a bridge cannot be
replaced by software. Software can only describe the bridge, not replace it.
Software IS a MATHEMATICAL description of ... something else. Now, mathematics
is recursive: that is, mathematicians are always mathematically manipulating
mathematical concepts of manipulation. And software can manipulate software (as
anyone who's ever written a compiler or debugger will know.) But--the software
that manipulates other software is no replacement for the software it
manipulates -- A Java compiler can't REPLACE an image processor, just like a PDF
blueprint can't REPLACE a bridge.
Software can describe other kinds of mathematics, and other kinds of mathematics
can describe software. But that fact is completely irrelevant in this
discussion.
What matters here is: software IS mathematics, the mathematics that you replace
software with, does exactly the same thing.
And mathematics IS NOT a physical process; the physical process you replace by
mathematical formulae won't have the physical effects that the process was
designed to achieve.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 04:08 PM EST |
The problem with your argument is that you do not understand
math.
If you look at pure math, there are tons of functions and
symbols that abstract certain operations. However, there is
absolutely no disagreement that it is still math even though
it is abstracted.
When you design a computer program, you design an algorithm
to perform the functions you want. This is a mathematical
exercise. People who are good at math write good programs.
People who are bad at math have no clue how to program.
You don't need to understand physics to invent something
material.
You do need to understand math to program.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 06:15 PM EST |
Anything that has a material existence!
Why oh why do people have this religious fanaticism about maths!? MATHS IS A
FANTASY!!! An incredible useful fantasy, true, but a fantasy none-the-less.
Anyway, you clearly have not been following the argument. Let's take a cat. We
have the object - a real cat. We have the symbol - the word "cat". And
we have the interpreter - you or me - who when they see the symbol
"cat" promptly think of a real cat.
MATHS IS NOT REAL!
Maths is the SYMBOL that DESCRIBES the invention. It is not - cannot be - the
invention because, as has been pointed out again and again - maths DOES NOT DO
ANYTHING.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
