Probably this is well known. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5373560.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html (check (3))
Because of their importance in encryption algorithms such as RSA encryption, prime numbers can be important commercial commodities. In fact, R. Schlafly (1994) has obtained U.S. Patent 5373560 on the following two primes (expressed in hexadecimal notation):
fuck, fuck, fuck.
On Mon, May 12, 2014, at 03:36 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
Probably this is well known.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5373560.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html (check (3))
Because of their importance in encryption algorithms such as RSA encryption, prime numbers can be important commercial commodities. In fact, R. Schlafly (1994) has obtained U.S. Patent 5373560 on the following two primes (expressed in hexadecimal notation):
fuck, fuck, fuck.
The silver lining to this cloud is that these patents have almost certainly expired by now or will very soon, given that they date from 1994. -- Shawn K. Quinn skquinn@rushpost.com
Dnia poniedziałek, 12 maja 2014 04:25:39 Shawn K. Quinn pisze:
On Mon, May 12, 2014, at 03:36 AM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
Probably this is well known.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5373560.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html (check (3))
Because of their importance in encryption algorithms such as RSA encryption, prime numbers can be important commercial commodities. In fact, R. Schlafly (1994) has obtained U.S. Patent 5373560 on the following two primes (expressed in hexadecimal notation): fuck, fuck, fuck.
The silver lining to this cloud is that these patents have almost certainly expired by now or will very soon, given that they date from 1994.
The WTF is, however, that they were granted at all in the first place. -- Pozdr rysiek
From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>
Probably this is well known. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5373560.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeNumber.html (check (3))
Because of their importance in encryption algorithms such as RSA encryption, prime numbers can be >>important commercial commodities. In fact, R. Schlafly (1994) has obtained U.S. Patent 5373560 on the >>following two primes (expressed in hexadecimal notation):
fuck, fuck, fuck.
To repeat what ought to be well-known, in order to be patentable, an invention must be: 1. New 2. Useful 3. Unobvious to those skilled in the art. Those two primes were clearly not 'new'. (The knowledge by humans that those primes WERE primes may have been new, however. But I don't think that qualifies.) Arguably, these primes are 'useful'. However, these numbers (to the extent they are primes) are indeed 'obvious' to those skilled in the art. Also, I believe there is a rule that says that laws of nature aren't patentable. To the extent that primality is a law of nature, it shouldn't be patentable. The good news is that patents last 20 years these days. If the patent was granted in 1994, it either has run out or shortly will do so. Jim Bell
On 2014-05-12, 18:25, jim bell wrote:
Also, I believe there is a rule that says that laws of nature aren't patentable. To the extent that primality is a law of nature, it shouldn't be patentable.
To be pedantic, primes aren't so much a law of *nature*, they're in *maths*. I'm not aware of any law of, e.g., physics that would depend on primes, but would love to learn of one, if one exists. Fun, Stephan
From: Stephan Neuhaus <stephan.neuhaus@tik.ee.ethz.ch> On 2014-05-12, 18:25, jim bell wrote:
Also, I believe there is a rule that says that laws of nature aren't patentable. To the extent that primality is a law of nature, it shouldn't be patentable.>To be pedantic, primes aren't so much a law of *nature*, they're in *maths*. I'm not aware of any law of, e.g., physics that would depend on primes, but would love to learn of one, if one exists.
There is a long (and interesting, though I don't consider myself a mathematician) debate on whether "mathematics" was "invented" or "discovered". I tend to think of it as being "discovered", if for no other reason than I don't believe mathematicians have much choice about what the mathematics will do. (They have the same choice that all archeologists do, deciding where to dig, but they can't choose what to find once they start digging at some specific location.) Jim Bell
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:56:50PM +0200, Stephan Neuhaus wrote:
On 2014-05-12, 18:25, jim bell wrote:
Also, I believe there is a rule that says that laws of nature aren't patentable. To the extent that primality is a law of nature, it shouldn't be patentable.
To be pedantic, primes aren't so much a law of *nature*, they're in *maths*. I'm not aware of any law of, e.g., physics that would depend on primes, but would love to learn of one, if one exists.
Fun,
Stephan
Allegedly Riemann zeta function is related to physics, though this well might be just speculations (search the web for ref). It is more interesting to me if sqrt(-1), n-dimensional space, etc. are part of nature...
From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:56:50PM +0200, Stephan Neuhaus wrote:
Also, I believe there is a rule that says that laws of nature aren't patentable. To the extent that primality is a law of nature, it shouldn't be patentable.
To be pedantic, primes aren't so much a law of *nature*, they're in *maths*. I'm not aware of any law of, e.g., physics that would depend on primes, but would love to learn of one, if one exists. Stephan Allegedly Riemann zeta function is related to
On 2014-05-12, 18:25, jim bell wrote: physics, though this well might be just speculations (search the web for ref).
It is more interesting to me if sqrt(-1), n-dimensional space, etc. are part of nature...
My understanding is that they are part of nature. If you think about it, to hunter-gatherer-level societies, negative numbers could be called "imaginary": There is no such thing as "negative-3 sheep", for instance. Nor is there a third of a (living) sheep. It was easy enough for people to divorce themselves from the idea of integers, or positive numbers. It was much more difficult to deal with "irrational numbers" (numbers which could not be expressed as the ratio of two integers). Square roots were comparatively easy...as long as you were talking a positive number. Computing imaginary roots seems terribly difficult, until you express the number in terms of a real/imaginary graph, and voila, it's trivial again. I think that (e (to the power of (2 times pi times I)) -1) =0 was discovered at least a couple hundred years ago. It's been attributed to Euler, nearly 300 years ago. And the various string theories proposed in the last 20 years require the universe to contain 10 or 11 dimensions, with 6 (or 7) of them wound up tightly, perhaps near a Planck length. (10e(-33)cm). Jim Bell
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 01:29:58AM -0700, jim bell wrote:
From: Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>
It is more interesting to me if sqrt(-1), n-dimensional space, etc. are part of nature...
My understanding is that they are part of nature. If you think about it, to hunter-gatherer-level societies, negative numbers could be called "imaginary": There is no such thing as "negative-3 sheep", for instance. Nor is there a third of a (living) sheep. It was easy enough for people to divorce themselves from the idea of integers, or positive numbers. It was much more difficult to deal with "irrational numbers" (numbers which could not be expressed as the ratio of two integers). Square roots were comparatively easy...as long as you were talking a positive number. Computing imaginary roots seems terribly difficult, until you express the number in terms of a real/imaginary graph, and voila, it's trivial again. I think that (e (to the power of (2 times pi times I)) -1) =0 was discovered at least a couple hundred years ago. It's been attributed to Euler, nearly 300 years ago. And the various string theories proposed in the last 20 years require the universe to contain 10 or 11 dimensions, with 6 (or 7) of them wound up tightly, perhaps near a Planck length. (10e(-33)cm). Jim Bell
I am not good at neither math nor physics, but your argument didn't convince me for the relation with physics (the math appears correct). IMHO currently we know little about both math and physics, so the future might tell.
2014-05-13 11:40 GMT+02:00 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com>:
My understanding is that they are part of nature. If you think about it, to hunter-gatherer-level societies, negative numbers could be called "imaginary": There is no such thing as "negative-3 sheep", for instance. Nor is there a third of a (living) sheep. It was easy enough for people to divorce themselves from the idea of integers, or positive numbers. It was much more difficult to deal with "irrational numbers" (numbers which could not be expressed as the ratio of two integers).
offtopic and what's worse: "You owe me three sheep. You have -3 sheep." "This grain must be shared between 3 people. 1/3 of the grain is his. 1/3 is hers. 1/3 is mine."
Every patent is contained in the grammar of English. Finding a meaningful pattern that others haven't yet, that seems to be what a patent needs. They found some prime numbers, very useful, and someone else found the nuclear reactor, also useful. The nuclear reactor's design follows directly from the current state of engineering (valve?steam?superconductor?etc) and some properties that follow directly from physics (uranium and water -> good). So it's wacky to patent a number, but not that wrong. Don't forget finding primes is actually a pretty expensive exercise.
participants (6)
-
Georgi Guninski -
jim bell -
Lodewijk andré de la porte -
rysiek -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Stephan Neuhaus