From nellardo@xxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Thu Oct 28 08:33:59 1999 X-Digest-Num: 269 Message-ID: <44114.269.1467.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 11:33:59 -0400 (EDT) From: David Brookshire Conner From: PILCH Hartmut > Lojban texts are parsable, and it should at least be possible to formulate > computer programs in some lojban-compatible syntax. Sure - syntax is no big deal. > I wonder if Lojban texts themselves could be considered as programs, just > as postscript documents can be. Yes, but like you do with Postscript, you need a machine to run them, even an abstract one. > Lojban parsing is very similar to SGML parsing, but SGML, unlike > Postscript, isn't a full-fledged programming language > > What is needed to make Lojban "turing-complete"? A (virtual) machine that interprets enough of the semantics of lojban to get it over the Turing threshold. Something that understood lojban math would put it over the hump. Interestingly, interpreting variable assignment in the expected way is enough - two integers is enough memory to provide Turing equivalence. Without such a machine for the semantics, i.e., a syntax-only lojban, lojban is not turing equivalent, as it is represented by a context-free grammar (the reference grammar). > I am just looking for more arguments to further confuse the debate about > software patentability, see also > > http://swpat.ffii.org/lojban/ I'm missing something - how does Turing equivalence confuse the issue of software patentability? Are you suggesting that Turing equivalence be a metric for determining whether a language can be patented? This would suggest that Bjarne Stroustrop could have patented C++, which seems a little silly. Copyrighting a reference grammar, sure (but writing something that conforms to that grammar would not violate the copyright). You can copyright a dictionary, but people could still use the words defined in it freely ("small passages" and such), else Merriam-Webster would have a doozy of a lawsuit against all sorts of people. You could even copyright a word list, but using individual words from it would still be legit. At least that's how I understand copyrights to work - being an artist and a writer, I pay some attention to this. John Cowan may have other insights based on the events of the Loglan/lojban split. Trademarking a name used in business (i.e., trade), sure. This is part of the reason Microsoft can trademark "Visual Basic", even though Basic is a widely available language - the trademark covers the product, technically. But patents are broader beasts. I can make a copy of something copywritten for personal use. I cannot (legally) make *any* implementation of something patented, even if it never sees the light of day. Being a software engineer, I pay some attention to this, as well (and have technically violated the RSA patent like oh ten years ago when I took an algorithms class where RSA was an assignment). The hairy question of software patents is when does software change from "speech" (covered by copyright law) to "implementation" (and thus covered by patent law)? Brook --------- RAM disk is not an installation procedure. --------- Fancy. Myth. Magic. http://www.concentric.net/~nellardo/