The logic of identity and copy for computational artefacts

Angius, Nicola; Primiero, Giuseppe

doi:10.1093/logcom/exy012

Cited by 6 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their approach is "static" in the sense that they hold the domain of the overall theory fixed. The alternative approach is "dynamic" [34] in the sense that abstraction with respect to a given domain may result in a new domain: i.e., we do not work in some fixed formal system but allow systems to grow by abstraction, and by abstractions built upon previous abstractions. This is the present approach.…”

Section: Levels Of Abstractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The computer science literature contains a great many informal discussions of the phrase, “level of abstraction” including its wider philosophical application [ 33 ]. There is also a pioneering formal analysis on the identity of computational artifacts [ 34 ]. However, there are few if any, conceptually motivated formal accounts of such levels within the literature on data abstraction.…”

Section: Levels Of Abstractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Computational Abstraction

Turner

2021

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Representation and abstraction are two of the fundamental concepts of computer science. Together they enable “high-level” programming: without abstraction programming would be tied to machine code; without a machine representation, it would be a pure mathematical exercise. Representation begins with an abstract structure and seeks to find a more concrete one. Abstraction does the reverse: it starts with concrete structures and abstracts away. While formal accounts of representation are easy to find, abstraction is a different matter. In this paper, we provide an analysis of data abstraction based upon some contemporary work in the philosophy of mathematics. The paper contains a mathematical account of how Frege’s approach to abstraction may be interpreted, modified, extended and imported into type theory. We argue that representation and abstraction, while mathematical siblings, are philosophically quite different. A case of special interest concerns the abstract/physical interface which houses both the physical representation of abstract structures and the abstraction of physical systems.

show abstract

Section: Levels Of Abstractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Levels Of Abstractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational Abstraction

Turner

2021

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is exactly in this more theoretical setting that a formal notion of simulation and bisimulation was introduced by Milner. For a recent paper on this problem, see (Angius and Primiero 2018). It is interesting to point out that within computer science, there is a very broad usage of simulation which is quite different from a notion of simulation as used within the physical and biological sciences.…”

Section: A Logician Engaging With Eniac -Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘A Pretence of What is Not’? A Study of Simulation(s) from the ENIAC Perspective

Mol

2019

N.T.M.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The past went that-away. When faced with a totally new situation, we tend always to attach ourselves to the objects, to the flavor of the most recent past. We look at the present through a rearview mirror. We march backward into the future." (Marshall MacLuhan 1967) 1. INTRODUCTION. `ES GIBT KEINE SIMULATION' What, if anything, is the impact of technology x on science y? While instances of this kind of questions have long been neglected within more traditional history and philosophy of science, the steady reversal of the primacy in the science-technology relation since the 1980s (Forman 2007) has given these questions new relevance and put them into a methodological framework where the focus is much more on how certain technological advances affect and shape scientific practice and the knowledge it produces. This focus on technology is, in itself, a historical phenomenon and partially rooted in the growing dependencies between certain branches of science and increasingly complex, and often expensive, technologies where the latter require an expertise which is not necessarily that of the scientist or team of scientists using the technology. One important driving factor in this development was the possibility of high-speed computation. Indeed, today most, if not all, such technological complexes require intricate computational setups which are used in a way which was simply not possible before the development of the high-speed computer. It is from that context that one can understand the recent attention for so-called computational science and the changing role and identity of computer science in the disciplinary spectrum from a discipline struggling for independence from mathematics and engineering to one which has by some been identified as an entirely new scientific domain on a par with the life, physical and social sciences (Tedre 2015; Rosenbloom 2015). Thus, one important instance of the above question is: 1 Part of this work is based on a talk given at the conference The Plurality of Numerical Methods in Computer Simulations and their Philosophical Analysis, 3-4 November 2011, titled ENIAC, matrix of numerical simulation(s). The talk was prepared by M. Bullynck, M. Carlé and myself and dedicated to the memory of Friedrich Kittler. 2 This paper is to some extent determined by some of the ideas elaborated in the ANR project PROGRAMme (ANR-17-CE38-0003-01). I am indebted to Maarten Bullynck, Martin Carlé and Mark Priestley for discussing aspects of this paper. Special thanks go to Sibylle Anderl, Arianna Borrelli, Nathalie Bredella, Rudi Seising and Janina Wellmann for their extensive comments on an earlier version of this paper. 17 See for instance (Fritz 1994) to get an idea of the diversity of problems that were prepared for the machine. 18 See (Bullynck and De Mol) to understand in more detail how the ENIAC worked in its original setup .

show abstract

“…We refer to this as the ontological problem for software copies. This problem has been tackled formally in Angius and Primiero (2018), by proposing a taxonomy of the logical relations for software systems distinguishing among exact, inexact, and approximate copies. This paper will develop upon such taxonomy to address the fundamental ontological problem of identifying the most appropriate level of abstraction (LoA) (Floridi 2008) at which software should be legally protected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Protecting software property rights at the 9 abstract machine level allows one to take advantage of formal tools, such as process algebra, used in theoretical computer science to examine the formal relations holding between two or more distinct algorithms as abstract machines. Angius and Primiero (2018) provide a taxonomy of identity and copy relations between two software systems S and S' in terms of the formal relations holding between the abstract machines realized by S and S'. In particular a distinction is made among exact , inexac t and approximate copies, providing a formal analysis of the potential copy relations considered in (Samuelson et al 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Infringing Software Property Rights: Ontological, Methodological, and Ethical Questions

Angius

Primiero

2019

Philos. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper contributes to the computer ethics debate on software ownership protection by examining the ontological, methodological, and ethical problems related to property rights infringement that should come prior to any legal discussion. The ontological problem consists in determining precisely what it is for a computer program to be a copy of another one, a largely neglected problem in computer ethics. The methodological problem is defined as the difficulty of deciding whether a given software system is a copy of another system. And the ethical problem corresponds to establishing when a copy constitutes, or does not constitute, a property rights infringement. The ontological problem is solved on the logical analysis of abstract machines, and the latter are argued to be the appropriate level of abstraction for software at which the methodological and the ethical problems can be successfully addressed.

show abstract

The logic of identity and copy for computational artefacts

Cited by 6 publications

References 29 publications

Computational Abstraction

Computational Abstraction

‘A Pretence of What is Not’? A Study of Simulation(s) from the ENIAC Perspective

Infringing Software Property Rights: Ontological, Methodological, and Ethical Questions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About