Proofs can be represented as programs, not the other way around. Also, USA allows for algorithm parents, and algorithms are maths. While I agree with you, your reasoning is not correct.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, the proof - program correspondence is in both directions.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Correspondence is quite a weak relation. Very far from one being another.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I'd say if you ask a mathematician, they would disagree with you. But maybe that depends on how far they have gone into maths from common sense

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

That's why it's also called Curry-Howard isomorphism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

Correspondence is not correlation.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Judges and Justices are not that precise. They aim to preserved public order before anything else. If a whole industry is based on a questionable interpretation of patent, they is a lot of chances that judges would agree on it. Even in countries where you could not patent algorythm, industries patent the documentation, the "software design", the brand name, the illustrations used, and aggregates everything together, to say they own it. And it works.

TL;DR : Class Justice