From mva@df.lth.se  Thu May 10 21:58:44 2001
From: mva@df.lth.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Wahl=E9n?=)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:58:44 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: [Patents] Re: European arguing for patenting pure math formulas
In-Reply-To: <200105102025.QAA08999@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.32.0105102245420.13412-100000@igloo.df.lth.se>


> So I suppose you are against all chemical patents, since I can reduce all
> chemical structures to quantum mechanical wavefunctions, derive new

Really! You must be really good at quantum mechanics then. Please tell me
how you do this and I shall stop my research into fluid dynamics at once.
Of course the granularity makes this not computationally feasable AFAIK.

Also, you seem to be very sure of quantum mechanics, remember that this is
still just a good model! It may not be true at all! This is where software
differs fundamentally from most other fields as it really is a direct
application of logic to a physically abstract device. Machine code is
really targeted to an idealized machine (right) and as such is just a
language used to express logic.

Wow, sometimes I can confuse myself:-)

> chemical by combining such wavefunctions, and even test out the properties
> by doing quantum mechanical calculations.  And if you are against
> chemicals, you must also be against chemical compositions and gene
> sequences, because they are mostly linear superpositions of quantum
> mechanical wave functions.

Quantum Mechanics is just like most other mathematical modelling based on
mapping mathematical concepts to matter. However software is rather the
reverse mapping the computer to the logical concepts expressed in the
software.

Martin



