Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
If this "Dr" Mitchell is even a part-time programmer, he knows better
than this. I don't consider myself much of a programmer (for me, it's
more of a "necessity is the mother of all inventions" thing)... The
sad
thing is, EVEN I KNOW BETTER THAN THIS, and I don't have ANY college
degree!
Can't someone out there somehow trick him into admitting he knows
better than this? There is no way, in my mind, that I could reasonably
believe he is this dumb... And he is testifying under oath... Grrrrr!!!!!!!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
Maybe someone should lookup things he has done before, like lectures he gave, or
papers he has written, or discussions he had with others before, that may have
details that contradict his testimony on these points. I wouldn't be surprise if
it were not that hard to find.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
He is describing something called memoization. This is not
the same thing as dynamically resolving a symbolic reference.
If the patent
covers memoization then we have a lot of prior art. See the linked wikipedia
article for an historical account going as far back as 1968. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:45 AM EDT |
He misdirected.
If I remember my abstract algebra correctly, a number can be a symbolic name.
Note the different field of mathematics: Abstract Algebra.
Not Computer Science, a branch of Applied Mathematics.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|