7 ms·

If we can digitally describe something as a sequence of bytes, and we stack those bytes end-to-end, can we not say that the bytes together form a (very large) i

If we can digitally describe something as a sequence of bytes, and we stack those bytes end-to-end, can we not say that the bytes together form a (very large) integer, and that the integer already appears in the set of natural numbers?

contravariant 10y ago
See also: library of babel [1]. [1]: https://libraryofbabel.info/ https://libraryofbabel.info/
virmundi 10y ago
The problem is that the US system doesn't view software as a series of mathematical manipulations. Rather software is considered a thing like a tractor. The internals are therefore patentable. The US system does prevent math from being claimed. Others have tried to explain the inherent math nature by making products with function languages of varying purity. These claims fell on deft ears.
- pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  you're missing the point... not talking about software... talking about ANYTHING. string theory. court has already ruled on "illegal number" as stated above, so it's already murky.
- na85 10y ago
  >These claims fell on deft ears. On deaf ears, you mean? (Or perhaps daft?)
  - virmundi 10y ago
    deaf
- PatentTroll 10y ago
  A lot of us here are software engineers, right? Why should a mechanical engineer's work product be protectable, while a software engineer's work product not? Aren't both the result of creativity and labor?
doomrobo 10y ago
Apparently the distinction isn't so clear. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
adrianN 10y ago
What color are your bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- anon4 10y ago
  The author starts off from an axiom that people might view data as inherently objectionable. To me, however, all bits are colourless. I hold that a picture of a natural landscape is no more inherently legal than a picture of child pornography or a drawing of such. Possession of data itself cannot be illegal. You could, however, have broken the law depending on how you obtained it and what you do with it. So, a 6-year-old being locked in a room with a male horse in heat -- definitely illegal. The string of characters "a 6-year-old being locked in a room with a male horse in heat" -- not illegal. Sending that string of characters to someone who you would reasonably expect to be distressed by it -- kind of a grey area, but obviously some form of harassment, the legality of which depends on other factors. Selling a video of the outcome -- not illegal, though you might be accused and found guilty of performing or instigating the acts shown. Possessing a video of the outcome -- definitely not illegal, though again - it might cast doubt on how you came to possess it. Making the bits themselves illegal doesn't serve to protect anyone. And as long as no person is being hurt, people should be free to write, draw, sing, animate, etc. whatever they like and profit from selling it to consenting adults (likeness rights might prevent you from selling an animation of 7 leather-wearing midgets having their way with one of the current male presidential candidates).
dTal 10y ago
A succinct explanation of why that's true and irrelevant: https://qntm.org/number https://qntm.org/number tl;dr: Abstract "existence", as numbers have, is not the same thing legally or practically as concrete "existence", as files have.

contravariant 10y ago

See also: library of babel [1]. [1]: https://libraryofbabel.info/ https://libraryofbabel.info/

virmundi 10y ago

The problem is that the US system doesn't view software as a series of mathematical manipulations. Rather software is considered a thing like a tractor. The internals are therefore patentable. The US system does prevent math from being claimed. Others have tried to explain the inherent math nature by making products with function languages of varying purity. These claims fell on deft ears.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
you're missing the point... not talking about software... talking about ANYTHING. string theory. court has already ruled on "illegal number" as stated above, so it's already murky.
na85 10y ago
>These claims fell on deft ears. On deaf ears, you mean? (Or perhaps daft?)
- virmundi 10y ago
  deaf
PatentTroll 10y ago
A lot of us here are software engineers, right? Why should a mechanical engineer's work product be protectable, while a software engineer's work product not? Aren't both the result of creativity and labor?

doomrobo 10y ago

Apparently the distinction isn't so clear. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

adrianN 10y ago

What color are your bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

anon4 10y ago
The author starts off from an axiom that people might view data as inherently objectionable. To me, however, all bits are colourless. I hold that a picture of a natural landscape is no more inherently legal than a picture of child pornography or a drawing of such. Possession of data itself cannot be illegal. You could, however, have broken the law depending on how you obtained it and what you do with it. So, a 6-year-old being locked in a room with a male horse in heat -- definitely illegal. The string of characters "a 6-year-old being locked in a room with a male horse in heat" -- not illegal. Sending that string of characters to someone who you would reasonably expect to be distressed by it -- kind of a grey area, but obviously some form of harassment, the legality of which depends on other factors. Selling a video of the outcome -- not illegal, though you might be accused and found guilty of performing or instigating the acts shown. Possessing a video of the outcome -- definitely not illegal, though again - it might cast doubt on how you came to possess it. Making the bits themselves illegal doesn't serve to protect anyone. And as long as no person is being hurt, people should be free to write, draw, sing, animate, etc. whatever they like and profit from selling it to consenting adults (likeness rights might prevent you from selling an animation of 7 leather-wearing midgets having their way with one of the current male presidential candidates).

dTal 10y ago

A succinct explanation of why that's true and irrelevant: https://qntm.org/number https://qntm.org/number tl;dr: Abstract "existence", as numbers have, is not the same thing legally or practically as concrete "existence", as files have.