Patenting logic, mathematics or logarithms? The case of computer-assisted proofs

Recent Patents on Computer Science

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 66-70

  Vallverdú, Jordi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Algorithm; Black box; Computer assisted; Epistemology; Logic; Mathematics; Patent; Proof

Indexed keywords

BLACK BOX; COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EPISTEMOLOGY; LOGIC; MATHEMATICS; PATENT; PROOF;

ALGEBRA; ALGORITHMS; VERIFICATION;

PATENTS AND INVENTIONS;

EID: 79951798345     PISSN: 18744796     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1874479611104010066     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baker A. Experimental mathematics. Erkenntnis 2008; 68(3): 331- 44.
2. st century. NY: AK Peters Ltd. 2008.
3. Shapiro S. Philosophy of mathematics: Structure and Ontology Oxford: Oxford University Press 1997.
4. Dijskstra, E.W. On the Interplay between mathematics and programming. EWD6411977.
5. Klemens B. Math You Can't Use. Patents, Copyright and Software, Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution Press 2006.
6. Moor JH. Three myths of computer science. Br J Philosophy Science 1978; 29(3): 213-22.
7. Leith P. Software and Patents in Europe (Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law) Oxford: OUP 2007.
8. Ritchie G, Hanna F. AM: A case study in methodology. Artif Intel 1984; 23: 249-68.
9. Kowalski R. Logic as a computer language. In Clark KL, Tärnlund SA. Logic programming,London: Academic Press 1982.
10. Ståalmarck, G.M.N. A system for determining propositional logic theorems by applying values and rules to triplets that are generated from a formula. SE467076 (1992).
11. Ståalmarck, G.M.N. System for determining propositional logic theorems by applying values and rules to triplets that are generated from boolean formula. US5276897 (1994).
12. Ståalmarck, G., Natana, M. Method and apparatus for theorem checking. EP0403454 (1995).
13. Knuth D. The Art of Programming Reading (MA): Addison- Wesley 1968-2006.
14. Japanese Source
15. Lenz KF. Grenzen des Patentwesens. Konkrete Maßnahmen gegen die Patentinflation. Germany: Books Demand Gmbh 2002.
16. Carhart, T., Navar, M., Bilobrov, S., Yruski, A. Method for providing episodic media content US7568213 (2009).
17. van der Linden, F.J. Method of and device for verifying a mathmatical proof. EP0322064 (1989) &US5032988 (1991).
18. Billon, J.P. Method of automated proving for unrestricted firstorder logic. CA2133699 (1999).
19. Ståalmarck, G. System for determining propositional logic theorems by applying values and rules to triplets that are generated from boolean formula. US5276897 (1994).
20. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409U.S.63 (1972).
21. Parker v. Flook, 437U.S.584 (1978).
22. Diamond v. Diehr, US45075192 (1981).
23. st Century USA: NAS, 2004.
24. In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, available at 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 21129, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
25. Abadi, A. Automated many-sorted theorem prover. US20090248391
26. Vallverdú J. Computational epistemology and e-science. A new way of thinking. Minds Mach 2009; 19(4): 557-67.
27. Wos L. Automating the search for elegant proofs. J Automa Reasoning 1998; 21: 135-75.
28. Horgan J. The death of proof. Scientific American 1993; 269(4): 93-103.
29. Mackenzie D. Mechanizing Proof Cambridge (MA): MT Press, 2001.
30. Kinard, J. Method and apparatus for creating rigorous mathematical thinking. US20070111172 (2007).
31. Friedman, G. Computer and compter program product to determine model consistency. US2005039103 (2005).
32. Friedman, G. Computer program product & computer with program to execute a well-posed mathematical method. US20080140364 (2005).