[OT] Free software versus software idea patents
debatem1 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 14 18:51:38 CEST 2011
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777 at charter.net> wrote:
> geremy condra wrote:
>> Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do
>> for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a
>> political football. If you can prove something,*prove it*. If you
>> cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that
>> math says you're right.
> Fair enough.
> With your background, you will have no problem with this text...
> although, and I do apologize, it is a long text... scroll down and begin
> reading at the heading:
> An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers
> By PolR
> The write-up is excellent, written as well or better than I could write
> it myself, and is very clear and concise... yes, even a lawyer can
> understand it.
This is not a proof. This is an argument. There's a very big difference.
To be clear, this article makes basically the same mistake you do- you
assume that a program is exactly equivalent to its computation, while
the article makes the additional and even more wrong assumption that a
program is perfectly defined by its CPU instructions. It's to your
credit that you avoided advancing this obviously incorrect claim, but
you still haven't addressed my earlier points.
More information about the Python-list