wow. an overload of information for a saturday morning. lol. I do indeed intend to further my maths and programming knowledge but at the moment I need to focus solely on the completion of my product and dissertation for which I only have little over 2 weeks (possibly 5 but this would eat into exam revision time) left to do 4 months of work, which at the moment isn't going very well.
I am not even supposed to be doing the work as my doctor has advised me not to but he doesnt fully understand my situation and the fact that I need to complete my degree this year and if I don't complete it I will have wasted 4 years of my life. Aaron. On 15/04/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > These days they teach the Philosophy of Science, and students get to > > understand why Mathematicians are awarded Arts not Science degrees. > > > > Although it seems highly pedantic it is actually very important that > > programmers have an insight into what they are really doing if they are > > to advance the art. Are algorithms discovered or invented? Modern > > opinion is that they are invented and hence can be patented, not > > discovered like the laws of gravity etc, which are definitely not > > patentable. That puts computing into the arts area along with > mathematics. > > JS > > By the logic you propose you would have to place Biology, Chemistry, > Physics > and Engineering in the field of Arts; > Had Einstein been more astute he could have patented e=mc squared and > claimed > intellectual property rights every time matter was converted into energy > in > an atomic bomb > (If I hadn't given you the idea you couldn't have done it. If it explodes > you owe me royalties). > If an algorithm is patentable, why not a formula? Is a formula a one step > algorithm, or is an algorithm a sequence of formulae? (I am not asking for > a > serious reply to this one!!) > Patentability hardly clarifies the issue: there is little 'Art' in a > Biogenetics company > patenting the genetic code of a still living man with a genetic malady: > more > artful than artefice, > and I think I smell the whiff of money; > Philosophy, the love of sophistry, Science, the knowledge of something, > and > Art, the ability to apply knowledge to doing something, in the classical > sense, together with the more modern idea that the practically useful is > Science and that the culturally edifying though inessential is Art, in a > sense, has only served to fudge the issue, as does the whimsical > conferment > of diplomas by category in educational institutions (Where shall we put > Maths this year, Arts or Sciences?); > > The debate over Art and Science is an old one (and incidentally we are > very, > very Off Topic): though 'mixing' from between disciplines is decidedly > healthy (a little bit of lateral thinking does you good); I have to say > that > most programmers are not good at lateral thinking (locked in to certain > ways > of thinking: too much Maths perhaps); > > >
