On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 21:04 -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:00:15PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 22:23 -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > > A song, novel, poem, picture, all have representations that are not
> > > integers. In particular, they are objects (though I contend
> > > that the relevant fact is that they are not integers).
> > >
> >
> > Any song, picture, or novel can be represented as an integer or a
> > series of numbers in the same way. Check out Michael F. Barnsley and
> > Iterated Fractal Systems.
>
> Here's the thing though (and this will become more clear in my next
> paragraph) - a representation of a song/picture/novel/etc *does not
> function* as a song/picture/novel/etc. A computer program is unique
> in this aspect - it IS its integral representation.
>
> > > Since there is no difference between some big integer and a computer
> > > program, you must defend a copyright against either use. You have a
> > > computer program and I am doing math. I email you my results, and it
> > > contains the number of your program. I am using your program without
> > > a license. After all, *you have no way to tell that I am not*.
> > >
> >
> > This is so specious it doesn't deserve an answer. Are you trying to
> > say that there is absolutely no creative process involved in
> > programming?
>
> Not at all! I think I wasn't clear with my claim. I am making a
> careful distinction between an actual computer program (ie, the data
> that my computer actually executes), and the code that we write when
> we program.
>
> > What you're doing is called reverse syllogism.
>
> There are cases when a reverse syllogism is a valid argument. In
> particular, this is a true statement:
>
> > All programs are an integer. That is an integer, therefor it is a
> > program.
>
I misunderstood then. I thought you meant it would be a program
that actually did something. Just for grins I made a file with 1 byte
in it. The byte contained the hex value 0x01. I made it executable and
tried to run it. My system says - cannot execute binary file.
Therefore this integer is not a program. While the above may be true in
some cases it is not *always* a true statement.
> Of course, I never said it was necessarily a useful program.
> The problem I see with making a distinction is an epistimological one.
> How can you ever tell the difference? [1]
>
> I think I might write a piece of software that demonstrates this.
> I've been thinking about. It's very easy to write a shell script that
> prints the integer a program makes.
>
> But I couldn't find anything that does the reverse, because the vast
> majority of integers almost certainly don't do anything interesting.
> But in principle it should be easy.
>
> > I definitely accept ownership of software. If I didn't I certainly
> > wouldn't be writing any open source software since ownership and
> > copyright of that software is what protects my code from being usurped
> > by any company around and used without my permission. Is that what you
> > are advocating, that all software should be public domain so that
> > companies that don't release source code can just steal it and hide it
> > from you? Brilliant!
>
> No - I too accept copyrighting of software for pragmatic reasons. The
> reasons you identifed are really good ones. It's also the status quo
> and it's really hard to get by otherwise.
>
> I just find this to be a very difficult arguement to resolve. When
> someone asked about a distinction I've thought about a lot, I thought
> I might stick my idea out into the world ::-)
>
> > A program is an artistic object or at least it can be. Any program
> > that is above the complexity of "Hello World" will be programmed
> > differently by any two programmers. My assumption from reading your
> > responses is that you are not a programmer. I've been programming
> > professionally (i.e. I get paid for it) for almost 30 years.
>
> I am a programmer, though not professionally at this point. My
> degree is in mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. I guess
> you've also figured I'm strong on the philosophy ::-)
>
> I don't deny the creativity in software development at all. I'm just
> busy being creative in other ways right now!
>
>
> [1] You know some logic - are you familiar with the proof of Godel's
> Incompleteness Theorem? If so, we're at the point after arithmetic
> has been Godel-numbered: we can no longer distinguish between an
> integer and an arithmetic statement.
Nope, never heard of it. I thought an integer *was* an arithmetic
statement ;-)
> --
> Ross Vandegrift
> ross@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who
> make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians
> have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine
> man in the bonds of Hell."
> --St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
Yeah, you can't trust those mathematicians ;-)
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
