This Pi Day, imagine a world where the calculations for Pi were patented by a few oligarchs. The wheel would *literally* have to be invented again. We ask you to support our efforts to #endsoftwarepatents Check out: https://u.fsf.org/3f-
get an education
Tell me you pretend to know something while you do not understand it at all¹.
Unfortunately you got an education.
And it didn't worked at all.
Maybe... get a culture²? 😉
____
1) Mathematical constants are nothing more than useful cultural conventions, see for example https://tauday.com/tau-manifesto
2) Mathmatic constants are determined based on proofs that help uncover their value. They’re laws of nature, Pi, e, Avogadro’s Number, i, and numerous other constants proven.
For example, Pi’s proof: https://mathscholar.org/2019/02/simple-proofs-archimedes-calculation-of-pi/
Also, it’s not a great look trying to use an opinion article to make a point about how math works. It proves you’re out of your depth. So take some time, find a reputable source, read how things work, and maybe one day you won’t embarrass yourself on the internet.
😘
Dude, you are confusing the definition of a constant with its numerical expression (likely in base 10).
I argued, since the beginning, that any software can be encoded as a mathematical constant.
That is: for any software, you can define a mathematical constant whose binary representation correspond to its executable (or its UTF-8 source code, or...).
Just like you can define 1 to be... 1¹.
As for spelling, well... thanks God I'm not a native English speaker!
English is just one of the languages I can speak and likely not my favourite one!
Sure, I'm sorry for your pain, but trust me: USA caused (and cause) much MUCH more pain around the world!
___
¹ yet, to be honest, I would be eager to learn about the proof that help uncover "the value of one"!
@p2hang
Uhm... no.
Constants are _defined_.
Just as an example, (since @p2hang mentioned this book), attached you can read an extract from page 36 of #PrincipiaMathematica¹ where the number one is _defined_.
Mathematicians define mathematical constants all the time as they need them in their theorems.
It has nothing to do with their "size" (what is a "huge number" btw? huge compared to what?) and all to do with notational convenience.
As notations they are communication tools (just like the rest of Mathematics, to be fair²) and their usefulness depends on their arbitrary meaning, the information they convey.
So if you want to distribute a software you do not have the right to distribute, all you have to do is to express it as a (somewhat interesting) number and you are fine.
Here a constructive proof of this (quite obvious fact): http://fatphil.org/maths/illegal.html
Then sure, some constants can be expressed in several ways and you need to prove that each of them are equivalent.
That's the case of Pi's decimal expression, for example.
But confusing the process of defining constants and the process of expressing their value in a particular form shows that you do NOT understands mathematics at all.
___
1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
2) http://www.tesio.it/2018/10/11/math-science-and-technology.html
So initially you seem to be trying to argue that anything that's been defined qualifies as a mathematical constant? But no, as I already told you, that isn't what anyone means when they use that term. You're just completely wrong about that.
Then you shift gears to argue that if you come up with a contrived derivation for a number (thus making it an actual mathematical constant) that this will somehow magically absolve you of all intellectual property violations in the eyes of the law.
> So if you want to distribute a software you do not have the right to distribute, all you have to do is to express it as a (somewhat interesting) number and you are fine.
Lawyers hate this one weird trick to invalidate intellectual property! But no, that's not how any of this works. The courts don't generally care about contortions. They will judge your intent and it will be obvious that your "mathematical constant" serves no legitimate purpose and you will lose that case.
... and yet Phil Carmody is still free and his prime encoding #DeCSS was published.
Sure, @roboneko, you are right about the fact that a Judge consider actual intention, but as much as he want to praise the most powerful, he still has to follow the Law (at least formally).
And sure, I'm not suggesting to actually do anything illegal.
I'm just arguing that any software (or any content) CAN be encoded as a mathematical constant.
You just have to define it.
Now you say that by defining "mathematical constant" as "a convenient notation to precisely convey a useful meaning", I'm not using the term properly.
Let's assume you are right.
So what's the definition "anyone use"?
You seem pretty confused.
(assuming you are not just trolling).
Maybe if you unroll the thread you might get the point.
Or maybe not.
Here a short recap:
1) @fsf points out that #Copyright law slows down human progress by comparing software to Pi
2) @agntsmith points out that mathematical constants are excluded by copyright protection
3) I noted that any software (or content or data) can be encoded as a mathematical constant basically because they are just notational conventions and proved my point by recalling the famous case of Carmody illegal primes.
4) @p2hang argued that I should get an education because I do not know that constants need mathematical proofs. When asked about a proof for the value of 1, he tried a call to authority by telling that Principia Mathematica contained such proof.
5) I opened Principia Mathematica and guess what? 1 is DEFINED, not proved, at page 36. So I deduced that he got an education but it didn't worked as he didn't understood what he studied (so much to not being able to tell a definition from a proof).
Finally you came arguing that judges consider intent (true) that not every number can be a constant (false), that the illegal primes are actually illegal (unknown, as no one even tried to open such legal pandora box) and several other confused argument I don't bother to repeat here.
And I didn't even mentioned the Curry-Howard equivalence!
Guess what?
Every single program out there is a theorem too. And theorem are not protected by copyright or patents.
So sure, maybe I need to get an education. But please tell me where you got yours so that I can avoid your misinformed arrogance.
😘
> Phil Carmody is still free
Presumably because no one could be bothered to prosecute him. Note that everyone bills those prime numbers as being illegal, not as a legal technicality.
> he still has to follow the Law (at least formally)
And the law says that what you are proposing to do is illegal. What's your point?
> you say that by defining "mathematical constant" as "a convenient notation to precisely convey a useful meaning", I'm not using the term properly.
No, that's not what I said. You were originally saying that more or less anything you write down counts as a mathematical constant and I objected to that.
Now you're saying that if you come up with a contrived mathematical process that results in the desired constant that it counts. I don't object to the definition in that case I claim that it doesn't qualify on the basis of intent or practical usage or similar. Writing down some random letters on a piece of paper doesn't create a new word, at least on its own. Words convey meaning and are used by people. A collection of random letters that no one has ever seen before doesn't do that.