Re:Missing The Point...Sigh (Score 1)

Hrm. It seems to me that, based on what you said, that algorithims are a type of process expression.

An abstract representation. It does not reflect the physical process (i.e. switching of circuits, etc.). An algorithm is independent of the architecture, whereas the process is dependent on the architecture.

I'd also contest his argument that operating systems are not deterministic - they are, just with a huge amount of state information; I think the trick is they are deterministic between changes in input state.

Given that they must rely on input of a random nature (i.e. from a human source), determinism depends on your point of view. From the view of expressing the process, it depends on the input provided as this determines the next stage of processing.

But to say that it's not based on math - I don't know. Can it be done without math? Probably, just as cooking is most often done without even a cursory knowledge of atomic chemistry (you could probably argue that cooking is its own branch of chemistry).

I would agree.

So, I think it's a lot of noise about stuff that people already know and already practice but for which there just isn't a label.

I feel that it will have an impact on patents, by more clearly showing the difference between algorithm and the actual process performed by a machine. This will highlight the fact that patents have been granted to software without fulfiling basic legal requirements. It may also show that that form of IP belongs to the designer of the processor and associate electronics.