|
Authored by: pem on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:28 PM EST |
Any application. If it's used in an application,
it's applied, no? :-)
I think you have a problem. You are wrong.
You don't understand the difference between pure and applied maths. Compare and
contrast 1+1=2 and "area of a rectangle = width x height".
Both
of those are pure math. Until they are used in applications. Interestingly, a
mathematician might view 1+1=2 as purer math, because it is in some ways more
fundamental, while a layman might view the area calculation as purer math,
because it uses what is normally thought of as more abstract symbology
(certainly algebra is normally taught in school well after simple addition), and
1+1=2 is an example of the kind of calculation that routinely goes on when one
is applying math.
You also don't seem to understand what a
computer does in performing computations. Learn a little assembly
coding.
That's funny. I've been writing in assembly language
since 1977. 8080/Z80, X86, 68K, 8051, ARM, TI DSP, StarCore DSP, etc. As you
point out, I obviously don't know what I'm doing, but please don't tell that to
my employer.
Building the logic to produce a working processor
(that would be able to do more than just add and subtract) and then building the
processor...
Yes, I've actually done that too. On designs that
shipped millions of parts.
The claims claim a computing device
without specifying the computing device. This means that all computing devices
are equivalent from Intel's 4004 to an IBM Blue Gene irrespective of whether it
the software has been coded in actual 0's and 1's, in assembler or python,
etc.
I honestly don't understand your complaint here. If we take
it as gospel that the purpose of patents is to teach in exchange for a
limited-time monopoly, isn't the teaching done best if done at the correct level
of abstraction? Don't get me wrong, too many patents are way too abstract, and
claim the universe without actually teaching anything useful, but when I teach
about how things worked, I always strive to do so at a level that imparts
general, reusable knowledge.
Btw, PolR wasn't patenting a
book.
Right. He claims it is "a novel" not a book. And that is
yet another subtle distinction that makes his writing hard to read. Is the
novel the story? Or is the novel the story embedded in the book? When I say
"that was a really good book" am I really just talking about the ink and the
pages, or am I talking about what PolR means when he says "novel?"
"Novel"
in this context is fairly unambiguous, but "book" in this context is exceedingly
ambiguous, and it is normal human behavior to refer to what I think PolR is
calling a novel as a book. Either that, or he has repurposed the term novel to
mean something different than most people mean when they discuss a novel. In
which case, he should have no complaints about how people don't understand his
new use of an old, well-understood word.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:59 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: bprice on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:52 AM EST
- No, I'm not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:51 AM EST
|
|
|
|