[kaffeinecoma]

If we can digitally describe something as a sequence of bytes, and we stack those bytes end-to-end, can we not say that the bytes together form a (very large) integer, and that the integer already appears in the set of natural numbers?

[doomrobo]

Apparently the distinction isn't so clear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

[contravariant]

See also: library of babel [1].

[1]: https://libraryofbabel.info/

[adrianN]

What color are your bits? http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

[virmundi]

The problem is that the US system doesn't view software as a series of mathematical manipulations. Rather software is considered a thing like a tractor. The internals are therefore patentable.

The US system does prevent math from being claimed. Others have tried to explain the inherent math nature by making products with function languages of varying purity. These claims fell on deft ears.

[PatentTroll]

A lot of us here are software engineers, right? Why should a mechanical engineer's work product be protectable, while a software engineer's work product not? Aren't both the result of creativity and labor?

[na85]

>These claims fell on deft ears.

On deaf ears, you mean? (Or perhaps daft?)

[virmundi]

deaf

[dTal]

A succinct explanation of why that's true and irrelevant: https://qntm.org/number

tl;dr: Abstract "existence", as numbers have, is not the same thing legally or practically as concrete "existence", as files have.