|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 10:17 PM EST |
There is no disputing the physical cpu is
physical.
YES
The fact you can create an abstract
situation to test the logic that the CPU would be expected to perform does not
alter the fact such a test is still abstract!
YES - BUT, You have
not addressed the FPGA case in this comment at all. And FPGAs are potentially
both physical and reprogrammable.
You have basically
said:
....CPU is physical
YES
....I can do what
the CPU does in the concept of software
NO I can define the CPU
in HDL; which IS software; where the HDL is all that is required to
create the CPU in a number of forms including an FPGA bitstream, an ASIC chip
and an executable for running a simulated version on another CPU.
These are
the concrete processes and tools used by CPU designers as they specify how CPUs
should be made.
This is the CONCRETE modern hardware design and
validation process.
...Therefore software must be
physical
NO rather "Therefore software MAY be
physical"
If that's all it took to change the abstract into the
physical then the Supremes would not have invalidated the patent in Mayo vs
Prometheus.
YES in this case the Supremes found that particular
software is not physical.
BUT my argument does not require that ALL
software be physical.
If that was your effort to prove the physical
existence of software: Fail!
NO The challenge was to disprove
that ALL software is abstract.
I have proven that some software is
physical.
Using proof by contradiction, it is clear that NOT all software is
abstract.
QED.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
