Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
We're not talking about incompleteness or decidability here.
This is about compilers and virtual machines. "Symbolic reference" is
decades-old terminology with a specific meaning. A numeric index into a table
does not qualify. Neither does a numeric offset, by itself.
A "symbolic reference" requires two things: (1) a string containing
the "symbol", and some sort of "symbol table" to resolve the
reference with (usually a hash table). A numeric index does not meet this
extremely low bar.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Unbelievable! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 11:39 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
Every program is just a recursive funtion x_k+1 = f(x_k). That is not the point
here. "Symbolic reference" is a technical term and it means a human
readable symbol. Period.
The witness knows this. He lied for money.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
It doesn't matter! Everyone in this case is allowed to change their mind at any
time.
In the final statements expect to hear Google shouting Benson, Benson! whilst
chasing this dog of a case off into the distance.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
Imagine if you could mix and match numeric and symbolic references whenever it
suited you. Memory fragmentation would be extreme and the performance penalty on
modern processors high as the cache controller tries to load data all over the
address space.
Professor Mitchell's testimony is a case of Oh what a tangled web we weave.
It is a pity the US courts system does not pay more than lip service to a
"Jury of your peers" the jury should be composed of Programmers and or
computer scientists
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|