6 ms·

Everything you can instruct a computer to do is just math, yes. "Instructions on how to use the math" is, unsurprisingly, also more math. https://en.m.wikipedi

Everything you can instruct a computer to do is just math, yes. "Instructions on how to use the math" is, unsurprisingly, also more math. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
I am well aware of the foundations of CS and the lambda calculus, but this is more than a bit reductionist, like saying "everything is made of subatomic particles." Patents on processes and methods are pretty common. Dismissing it as "they just patented some math" and then falling back to saying "oh, lambda calculus" -- I think you can do better :-) But, yes, I'm sure the patents suck.
- akersten 4y ago
  Why should Free software advocates need to "do better" than to argue from literal first principles? Fourier could call his transform a "process" all he wants, but that does not make it patentable. So yes, "oh, math."
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    These files have carefully constructed format though. To read and write the patented format goes beyond patenting math. I think cmrdporcupine was getting at something.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      Yep, it's not like I think the patent is just. I think software patents are mostly junk. But saying "because it's math" is highly uninformative.
  - alex_smart 4y ago
    First principles is fine, but where is the argument?
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Almost all inventions can be reduced to "just math", because after all, that's what we use to describe the physical world, and oh also computer software things. I'm not in favour of patents at all, but the entire "it's math" argument has always seemed exceedingly weak to me.
- drmpeg 4y ago
  B-frames (bi-directional predicted frames with a reference frame in both the past and the future) are patented. I'd say that's a process or method.
- djmips 4y ago
  I don't feel like you were asking on good faith after this response.
alex_smart 4y ago
I don't quite understand how you do not recognize that that is a strong argument against your position.
- FabHK 4y ago
  Insofar as GP seems to be against software patents in general, it is not an argument against his position, is it?
  - alex_smart 4y ago
    It definitely is. Church Turing thesis basically states that all systematic procedures can be encoded as math. So, software can be encoded as math yes, but also music can be encoded as math. Life can be encoded as math (which is what our DNA is). Rather than providing a basis of not allowing software to patented, I think it makes the statement "X can be encoded as math" trivially true - and therefore uninteresting. In so far as there is value in patents on any systematic procedure at all, the position that "software should not be patentable because it can be encoded as math" is completely untenable.
    - t-3 4y ago
      The difference is that music is not, in fact, math. The representation is abstract to the utility. With software, the math is the utility.
      - jolux 4y ago
        What does “the representation is abstract to the utility” mean? I mean, music isn’t patentable, but it is thoroughly copyrighted.
      - alex_smart 4y ago
        Software is also, in fact, not math. Nor is the math the utility of software. Software's utility (usually) is the business problems it solves. The processes are encoded as math, and a lot of writing software is about improving those processes, but that is not in fact the utility. Think of the guy who invented the equi-tempered scale. All throughout history you had to make instruments that are tuned to play in one scale. Now you can suddenly make instruments that can play all of them. Solves a real problem from music by making an improvement in the representation, so it can be viewed as all math. But is it really "just" math?
SemanticStrengh 4y ago
The link you're looking for is curry howard correspondance
em3rgent0rdr 4y ago
Everything is math.
gitgud 4y ago
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

I am well aware of the foundations of CS and the lambda calculus, but this is more than a bit reductionist, like saying "everything is made of subatomic particles." Patents on processes and methods are pretty common. Dismissing it as "they just patented some math" and then falling back to saying "oh, lambda calculus" -- I think you can do better :-) But, yes, I'm sure the patents suck.

akersten 4y ago
Why should Free software advocates need to "do better" than to argue from literal first principles? Fourier could call his transform a "process" all he wants, but that does not make it patentable. So yes, "oh, math."
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  These files have carefully constructed format though. To read and write the patented format goes beyond patenting math. I think cmrdporcupine was getting at something.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Yep, it's not like I think the patent is just. I think software patents are mostly junk. But saying "because it's math" is highly uninformative.
- alex_smart 4y ago
  First principles is fine, but where is the argument?
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Almost all inventions can be reduced to "just math", because after all, that's what we use to describe the physical world, and oh also computer software things. I'm not in favour of patents at all, but the entire "it's math" argument has always seemed exceedingly weak to me.
drmpeg 4y ago
B-frames (bi-directional predicted frames with a reference frame in both the past and the future) are patented. I'd say that's a process or method.
djmips 4y ago
I don't feel like you were asking on good faith after this response.

alex_smart 4y ago

I don't quite understand how you do not recognize that that is a strong argument against your position.

FabHK 4y ago
Insofar as GP seems to be against software patents in general, it is not an argument against his position, is it?
- alex_smart 4y ago
  It definitely is. Church Turing thesis basically states that all systematic procedures can be encoded as math. So, software can be encoded as math yes, but also music can be encoded as math. Life can be encoded as math (which is what our DNA is). Rather than providing a basis of not allowing software to patented, I think it makes the statement "X can be encoded as math" trivially true - and therefore uninteresting. In so far as there is value in patents on any systematic procedure at all, the position that "software should not be patentable because it can be encoded as math" is completely untenable.
  - t-3 4y ago
    The difference is that music is not, in fact, math. The representation is abstract to the utility. With software, the math is the utility.
    - jolux 4y ago
      What does “the representation is abstract to the utility” mean? I mean, music isn’t patentable, but it is thoroughly copyrighted.
    - alex_smart 4y ago
      Software is also, in fact, not math. Nor is the math the utility of software. Software's utility (usually) is the business problems it solves. The processes are encoded as math, and a lot of writing software is about improving those processes, but that is not in fact the utility. Think of the guy who invented the equi-tempered scale. All throughout history you had to make instruments that are tuned to play in one scale. Now you can suddenly make instruments that can play all of them. Solves a real problem from music by making an improvement in the representation, so it can be viewed as all math. But is it really "just" math?

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

The link you're looking for is curry howard correspondance

em3rgent0rdr 4y ago

Everything is math.

gitgud 4y ago

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png