They look great, but some have already complained that the new tapes show Buzz Aldrin touching the surface first, which completely changes the character and motivation of the scene.
I can accept that, but what really ruined the tapes for me was the new extended musical sequence.
Thats a broken window if i ever saw one... We got Cooperation out of something costing over 10B! This isn't a high rollers sesame street.
No, it's international politics, where it takes more than a singing muppet and the promise of milk and cookies to earn cooperation.
Getting no return is no return. This thing does nothing, and putting all that work and effort into something else would have been better for everyone except perhaps a few NASA workers that would have needed to find other work.
Figuring out how to get multiple space agencies with completely different cultures, from different cultures, to cooperate on constructing a project of that magnitude, and to work together in space to operate it, is not "no return". Yes there are more practically useful things that could have been built, but this is the one that was agreed upon and accomplished and simply being able to agree on it is a feature for this kind of work. Work that is difficult and useful even if you don't appreciate or comprehend it as evidenced by repeatedly referring only to NASA involvement. It's about the "I" in "ISS", and ignoring the "I" doesn't make it go away.
Yeah, I agree with you. I believe in souls, but that soul is in a physical body, and that body is definitely a biological machine that can be altered or manipulated. The evidence of this is simply overwhelming -- look at mental illness. A person's "spirit" overcoming psychological brainwashing or even more advanced technological control is a nice device for fiction, but in reality we have no reason to think that's the way it will work.
Not given, lent. Wells fargo will pay that money back in full. Other banks may not, but the taxpayer isn't paying wells fargo to do this any more than a mortgage holder is paying a person to buy a house. Quite the opposite in fact.
So, if I understand you, Wells Fargo has given up bailout money in the days before Passover?
Face it, the ISS was a make-work project for NASA. It was not a tool designed to teach us something we wanted to know. When it crashes to Earth, science will barely notice.
No, it was a make-work project for multiple space agencies around the globe, working in concert on a complex project. Science may have had little use for it, but what was accomplished in terms of international cooperation is really quite impressive. Cooperation on major space projects -- between former arch-rivals no less -- is an important step in the history of space exploration and something we'd have to deal with eventually. ISS did in fact teach us something we wanted to know.
However, this aspect of the ISS has already been accomplished and just maintaining the status quo, while a challenge in and of itself, isn't particularly useful. So, much as I might like to keep it just for 'cool' factor, I too won't be especially sad to see it go.
Oh please. And when I was a Boy Scout Patrol Leader, that made the other scouts my Subjects who'd sacrificed their self-determinacy to me. That you had to specifically pluck a word from the dictionary with the connotation you want just proves how vacuous the argument is. The President isn't a King, that's why he can't just order the people around. There are different types of leader than just sovereigns.
Does anyone remember when we elected people to represent us, not to lead us?
No, I don't remember, from my life or from history. The President has always been Leader, not representative. Do you think the people voted General George Washington to represent or to lead the nation? We vote for Congressmen, aka Representatives, to represent our interests in creating the law that governs us. We vote for Presidents to lead the nation, to guide its direction in war or peace. You vote for a leader you think is capable of the task, and who wants to lead the country in a direction you want to go. They're the Executive both in name and in terms of the powers granted them in our Constitution. That's what President means -- leader of the Republic.
The preception by the administration was that it was a legal manner. Your sort of arm chair quarterbacking here and using the later presumption of not being legal to invalidate the entire idea of thinking it was legal at the time it was done. Let's see if I can put this in a car analogy, if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?
Oh please. The legal situation here is actually not terribly complex.
At the time, Bush and his legal advisers never claimed that the search programs respected the 4th Amendment, because they obviously didn't. The official legal argument was that it didn't apply because the President said it was important to executing his Presidential Duties that it not. So, it basically comes down to whether you buy that bullshit. Does the Constitution say the President can just write a note that says that he doesn't think he has to follow a law passed by Congress, or if he really has to he can ignore the Bill of Rights and that's it? Gee, that's not in the Constitution. So maybe you can make a legal argument for it, but don't tell me it's apparent, and that you aren't working backwards from the desired conclusion. As if lawyers, especially our previous two AG's, work any other way. Yeah, they "accidentally" broke the law due to a "misunderstanding". Not "thought they could pile up enough BS to get away with it."
And now Obama is caving in to the same shit, in part because obviously defending the executive branch and its power regardless of handovers to other parties is what Presidents and their legal teams do, and also not in the least because it's not worth the political capital to fight against the Congressmen from both parties for whom National Security(terror war al qaeda terror) is still a big issue. Like ordering Gitmo closed, then backing off as much as possible when they screamed about (alleged wah?) evil terrorists being held on U.S. soil in our normal civilian justice system.
So frankly I'm glad the Judicial Branch has come through once again and denied the specious reasoning no matter who is presenting it. The main reason all those Gitmo detainees are still in legal Limbo is because the Judicial denied Bush the ability to convict them of crimes in military courts. Funny how the least Democratic branch of government ends up being such a defender of our freedoms. Of course when they don't you can't do a lot about it, but that just makes the result all the more astounding.
There is only one constant holding in the range of varying CAFC decisions over the years: software cannot be categorically rejected as a class of patentable subject matter.
Yes, and also that software by itself, as the pure mathematical abstraction that it is, is not patentable and has never been considered to be so. Software must be coupled with a physical device, and while the dodges around this were made wider for many years, they are now appropriately closing.
Shame on anyone who attempts to invent arbitrary distinctions in this field. In attempting to warp the business of software to suit your ends, you ignore the conclusions of Turing that form the basis of your area of technology.
The line between pure symbolic math, and a physical representation of that math, is anything but arbitrary. It's no more arbitrary than the difference between the words on your screen "Mt. St. Helens" and an actual volcano in Washington.
The Turing Machine was not and could never have been patentable, because it is nothing more than a mathematical abstraction. All your stated variations on the theme accomplish the same thing in essentially the same way only at the level of pure abstraction and logic. A physical circuit is only essentially the same as the computational model it embodies when you remove the physicality of the circuit and consider only the math itself. Then and only then does the math say that it and the Turing Machine it attempts to model are interchangable. But then that's because you're only doing mathematical equivalence.
Math is not patentable. Software is math. There is no debate, only those who know what math and software are and thus know that software is math, and those who don't and in their imagination feel they must be different.
Shame on those who would try to argue in favor of locking up mathematics, the most fundamental language of human progress, because they fail to see the difference between the abstract and the physical, between math and things that can be described by math.
10 whole comments after over 4.5 hours. scientific articles are lost on slashtards. all they care about is free music, free software and politicizing non political issues.
Trying to compare Hubble with Herschel is like comparing a fire with a bucket of liquid nitrogen.
Which is easy if you're like me and the only criterion for comparison you care about is: Does it feel good or bad on my junk?
Easy-peasy. Fire on the junk: Bad. Liquid Nitrogen on the junk: Bad. Hubble Space Telescope on the junk: Bad. Hershel Space Telescope on the junk: ooh yeah!
So sorry, I don't find your analogy very accurate.
Hmm... Using a time-variant model of attractiveness would complicate my data analysis too much. I'm just going to use an average and call your ideal mate "20 year old Rosie O'Donnell".
But the idea for evolution is that prettier women/animals are "more fit",
Only if that makes them more attractive to the opposite sex and thus more likely to mate and reproduce. When the selection criterion is more complicated than that, then the evolutionary pressure is also.
I doubt the definition of attractiveness in the study has much depth beyond very superficial characteristics
Yes, because the study was done on red junglefowl, who use a superficial characteristic for judging potential mates.
The parent said attraction = all attractions, including psychological attraction. The parent is in agreement with the article while the GP is not.
Yes, which is exactly what I said in a response to the "GP", only with a lot more verbiage, which amuses me. Did you think I was saying the post I replied to was redundant with the post they replied to? I'm not the OP in this thread.
For this experiment to have any scientific value, there must be an objective measure of attractiveness, one with a proper definition and units (including a calibration standard).
No there doesn't. In fact to be as accurate as possible you must use a subjective one, because if you're trying to find a correlation between attraction and seminal potency, then it would naturally be the subject's opinion of attractiveness that matters. If you tried to find an "objective" measure of hawtness (realizing part of your point is that you can't), but the subject's metric differed, then you might find no correlation when in fact they are doing exactly what you hypothesized: emitting more/faster sperm when they find their partner more attractive.
Yes this means you would invite a subjective measurement, the subject's self-reported level of arousal/attraction, but this is hardly unprecedented.
BTW, in the study they didn't use humans or rats but red junglehens, where the metric is apparently pretty simple and uniform among males: size of the female's comb. Lots of animals have relatively simple selection criterion like this. Humans don't. So it becomes more complicated, but not impossible or invalid.
Seems like the same conclusion to me, if you simply expand the definition of "attractive" for human males to mean more than superficial physical features; shouldn't "sexually attractive" essentially be a synonym for "sexually arousing"? The question would always be "what does the male find attractive in females?" and while for red junglefowl this may be a simple and largely empirical matter, for humans it obviously isn't. For the human version of the study, you'd probably just have to ask the man his opinion to find the correlation, though if humans have this ability then I would expect that you would see it correlate with "sexual attractiveness" as you surmise, and not "physical beauty" which isn't necessarily the same thing.
Well, thrill-seeking is just that, but this guy was going on the equivalent of a Sunday drive. I doubt that "fly around and smash into a mountain" was on his list of activities that provide excitement.
Yeah no kidding he probably didn't plan on dying. But "take a small dive and fly near a mountain" very well could have been on his list of cheap thrills. And I doubt his idea of a Sunday drive is the same as yours. You think someone like that tooling around in a Ferrari on empty country roads wouldn't decide to have a little fun? He's in the air in his private plane, and confident in his abilities. Who's going to stop him?
One must wonder why such a skilled aviator was taking a gamble with such hostile conditions, given that he was looking for a flat stretch of land to race cars on, but that is one mystery we shall probably never know the answer to.
I wondered, but in about a second I came up with this: An adventurer and thrill-seeker, in the course of looking for a place for future thrill-seeking, decided to seek some thrills?
Sure it's just idle speculation... but based on what little I know of the man, taking gambles with danger while tooling around alone in his private plane sounds exactly like something he would do. It makes enough sense for me, at least.
This line you are trying to draw between addition and sorting algorithms, as if one is math and the other is not, is imaginary. It does not exist. Boolean Logic is not the only possible logic involving modulo 2 arithmetic, the dependence on its creator is in its name, and what you said is no different than saying if 10 mathematicians invented ten O(n*log n) sorting algorithms they'd all be the same. Yet if they *did* create the same algorithm, then those algorithms would have the same mathematical properties.
If you'll look up in this thread, you'll see where mathematicians have proven that software is math. But hey, what would they know about the definition of math? I'm sure your made-up definition is the right one.
So make math patentable. I don't see why those brilliant mathematicians who invent/discover new mathematical systems, or create useful, interesting proofs should be paid the same or less than some PHP/javascript/J2EE code monkey.
Because math is the fundamental language of scientific progress. It'd be like patenting language, the ability to talk about certain things. And in science, especially in electronics, 20 years is an eternity to lock up something so important as an algorithm. You know, if software patents had been around in the 60s when all those sorting algorithms and other basic components of modern computer science were being hammered out, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
There's a reason mathematicians are not lobbying to change the Constitution to allow math to be patented, and in fact go to the effort to prove that all software is math. But hey, again, what would they know about their field? If it makes you feel better, pure mathematicians who hold positions at universities tend to do pretty decently. Webmonkeys don't command the salaries they used to. But brilliant scientists often are concerned with more important things than money. Their work living forever is a pretty damn good reward.
Algorithms are not a fact or discoverable, like mathematics. Instead, most algorithms are man-made, artificial software machines created by combining other smaller machine parts (more algorithms).
What makes you think mathematics is a "fact" or "discoverable"? That is not in any way the definition of math. The most basic rules of a mathematical system are called "axioms" or "postulates", as in things assumed to be true, not "facts". Who "discovered" addition? "Discovered" Boolean logic? All mathematical systems are man-made symbolic constructs. That some math is useful for describing reality, that they may in a very real way represent and spring from reality, doesn't change this. Many mathematical systems do not include axioms that represent what we know of reality. Many algorithms are useful for describing reality, they are man-made, but they are still math.
Hell, this is just a categorical failure here. Algorithms are math.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm now in a cage taking heavy doses of barbiturates "to help me with my progress".
And I see he thought a laptop with internet access would help too. Very wise, this Dr. Lector...
Given the presence of a rootkit that makes SecuRom look like unicorn dander and faery farts, I'll pass, thanks.
Okay but I'm allergic to both those things (and many other fey creature emnations).
They look great, but some have already complained that the new tapes show Buzz Aldrin touching the surface first, which completely changes the character and motivation of the scene.
I can accept that, but what really ruined the tapes for me was the new extended musical sequence.
Thats a broken window if i ever saw one... We got Cooperation out of something costing over 10B! This isn't a high rollers sesame street.
No, it's international politics, where it takes more than a singing muppet and the promise of milk and cookies to earn cooperation.
Getting no return is no return. This thing does nothing, and putting all that work and effort into something else would have been better for everyone except perhaps a few NASA workers that would have needed to find other work.
Figuring out how to get multiple space agencies with completely different cultures, from different cultures, to cooperate on constructing a project of that magnitude, and to work together in space to operate it, is not "no return". Yes there are more practically useful things that could have been built, but this is the one that was agreed upon and accomplished and simply being able to agree on it is a feature for this kind of work. Work that is difficult and useful even if you don't appreciate or comprehend it as evidenced by repeatedly referring only to NASA involvement. It's about the "I" in "ISS", and ignoring the "I" doesn't make it go away.
Yeah, I agree with you. I believe in souls, but that soul is in a physical body, and that body is definitely a biological machine that can be altered or manipulated. The evidence of this is simply overwhelming -- look at mental illness. A person's "spirit" overcoming psychological brainwashing or even more advanced technological control is a nice device for fiction, but in reality we have no reason to think that's the way it will work.
Personally I was thinking Ash.
"Then it came after me, it got into my hand and it went bad, so I lopped it off at the wrist."
Not given, lent. Wells fargo will pay that money back in full. Other banks may not, but the taxpayer isn't paying wells fargo to do this any more than a mortgage holder is paying a person to buy a house. Quite the opposite in fact.
So, if I understand you, Wells Fargo has given up bailout money in the days before Passover?
Face it, the ISS was a make-work project for NASA. It was not a tool designed to teach us something we wanted to know. When it crashes to Earth, science will barely notice.
No, it was a make-work project for multiple space agencies around the globe, working in concert on a complex project. Science may have had little use for it, but what was accomplished in terms of international cooperation is really quite impressive. Cooperation on major space projects -- between former arch-rivals no less -- is an important step in the history of space exploration and something we'd have to deal with eventually. ISS did in fact teach us something we wanted to know.
However, this aspect of the ISS has already been accomplished and just maintaining the status quo, while a challenge in and of itself, isn't particularly useful. So, much as I might like to keep it just for 'cool' factor, I too won't be especially sad to see it go.
Oh please. And when I was a Boy Scout Patrol Leader, that made the other scouts my Subjects who'd sacrificed their self-determinacy to me. That you had to specifically pluck a word from the dictionary with the connotation you want just proves how vacuous the argument is. The President isn't a King, that's why he can't just order the people around. There are different types of leader than just sovereigns.
Does anyone remember when we elected people to represent us, not to lead us?
No, I don't remember, from my life or from history. The President has always been Leader, not representative. Do you think the people voted General George Washington to represent or to lead the nation? We vote for Congressmen, aka Representatives, to represent our interests in creating the law that governs us. We vote for Presidents to lead the nation, to guide its direction in war or peace. You vote for a leader you think is capable of the task, and who wants to lead the country in a direction you want to go. They're the Executive both in name and in terms of the powers granted them in our Constitution. That's what President means -- leader of the Republic.
The preception by the administration was that it was a legal manner. Your sort of arm chair quarterbacking here and using the later presumption of not being legal to invalidate the entire idea of thinking it was legal at the time it was done. Let's see if I can put this in a car analogy, if you checked your blindspot and thought it was safe to change lanes only to find later the you missed a car and hit it when changing lanes, did you act maliciously and intentionally to hit the car or did you think you were being legal and safe but erred?
Oh please. The legal situation here is actually not terribly complex.
At the time, Bush and his legal advisers never claimed that the search programs respected the 4th Amendment, because they obviously didn't. The official legal argument was that it didn't apply because the President said it was important to executing his Presidential Duties that it not. So, it basically comes down to whether you buy that bullshit. Does the Constitution say the President can just write a note that says that he doesn't think he has to follow a law passed by Congress, or if he really has to he can ignore the Bill of Rights and that's it? Gee, that's not in the Constitution. So maybe you can make a legal argument for it, but don't tell me it's apparent, and that you aren't working backwards from the desired conclusion. As if lawyers, especially our previous two AG's, work any other way. Yeah, they "accidentally" broke the law due to a "misunderstanding". Not "thought they could pile up enough BS to get away with it."
And now Obama is caving in to the same shit, in part because obviously defending the executive branch and its power regardless of handovers to other parties is what Presidents and their legal teams do, and also not in the least because it's not worth the political capital to fight against the Congressmen from both parties for whom National Security(terror war al qaeda terror) is still a big issue. Like ordering Gitmo closed, then backing off as much as possible when they screamed about (alleged wah?) evil terrorists being held on U.S. soil in our normal civilian justice system.
So frankly I'm glad the Judicial Branch has come through once again and denied the specious reasoning no matter who is presenting it. The main reason all those Gitmo detainees are still in legal Limbo is because the Judicial denied Bush the ability to convict them of crimes in military courts. Funny how the least Democratic branch of government ends up being such a defender of our freedoms. Of course when they don't you can't do a lot about it, but that just makes the result all the more astounding.
There is only one constant holding in the range of varying CAFC decisions over the years: software cannot be categorically rejected as a class of patentable subject matter.
Yes, and also that software by itself, as the pure mathematical abstraction that it is, is not patentable and has never been considered to be so. Software must be coupled with a physical device, and while the dodges around this were made wider for many years, they are now appropriately closing.
Shame on anyone who attempts to invent arbitrary distinctions in this field. In attempting to warp the business of software to suit your ends, you ignore the conclusions of Turing that form the basis of your area of technology.
The line between pure symbolic math, and a physical representation of that math, is anything but arbitrary. It's no more arbitrary than the difference between the words on your screen "Mt. St. Helens" and an actual volcano in Washington.
The Turing Machine was not and could never have been patentable, because it is nothing more than a mathematical abstraction. All your stated variations on the theme accomplish the same thing in essentially the same way only at the level of pure abstraction and logic. A physical circuit is only essentially the same as the computational model it embodies when you remove the physicality of the circuit and consider only the math itself. Then and only then does the math say that it and the Turing Machine it attempts to model are interchangable. But then that's because you're only doing mathematical equivalence.
Math is not patentable. Software is math. There is no debate, only those who know what math and software are and thus know that software is math, and those who don't and in their imagination feel they must be different.
Shame on those who would try to argue in favor of locking up mathematics, the most fundamental language of human progress, because they fail to see the difference between the abstract and the physical, between math and things that can be described by math.
10 whole comments after over 4.5 hours. scientific articles are lost on slashtards. all they care about is free music, free software and politicizing non political issues.
Exactly what a Libertarian would say.
Trying to compare Hubble with Herschel is like comparing a fire with a bucket of liquid nitrogen.
Which is easy if you're like me and the only criterion for comparison you care about is: Does it feel good or bad on my junk?
Easy-peasy. Fire on the junk: Bad. Liquid Nitrogen on the junk: Bad. Hubble Space Telescope on the junk: Bad. Hershel Space Telescope on the junk: ooh yeah!
So sorry, I don't find your analogy very accurate.
Hmm... Using a time-variant model of attractiveness would complicate my data analysis too much. I'm just going to use an average and call your ideal mate "20 year old Rosie O'Donnell".
Who says that only humans experience more than physical beauty or anything for that matter.
Nobody. Not me, anyway.
But the idea for evolution is that prettier women/animals are "more fit",
Only if that makes them more attractive to the opposite sex and thus more likely to mate and reproduce. When the selection criterion is more complicated than that, then the evolutionary pressure is also.
I doubt the definition of attractiveness in the study has much depth beyond very superficial characteristics
Yes, because the study was done on red junglefowl, who use a superficial characteristic for judging potential mates.
The parent said attraction = all attractions, including psychological attraction. The parent is in agreement with the article while the GP is not.
Yes, which is exactly what I said in a response to the "GP", only with a lot more verbiage, which amuses me. Did you think I was saying the post I replied to was redundant with the post they replied to? I'm not the OP in this thread.
For this experiment to have any scientific value, there must be an objective measure of attractiveness, one with a proper definition and units (including a calibration standard).
No there doesn't. In fact to be as accurate as possible you must use a subjective one, because if you're trying to find a correlation between attraction and seminal potency, then it would naturally be the subject's opinion of attractiveness that matters. If you tried to find an "objective" measure of hawtness (realizing part of your point is that you can't), but the subject's metric differed, then you might find no correlation when in fact they are doing exactly what you hypothesized: emitting more/faster sperm when they find their partner more attractive.
Yes this means you would invite a subjective measurement, the subject's self-reported level of arousal/attraction, but this is hardly unprecedented.
BTW, in the study they didn't use humans or rats but red junglehens, where the metric is apparently pretty simple and uniform among males: size of the female's comb. Lots of animals have relatively simple selection criterion like this. Humans don't. So it becomes more complicated, but not impossible or invalid.
Attraction isn't just physical... "turned on" = attracted
LOL. Exactly my point, with equal insight, but in 7 words. Hat's off. :)
Seems like the same conclusion to me, if you simply expand the definition of "attractive" for human males to mean more than superficial physical features; shouldn't "sexually attractive" essentially be a synonym for "sexually arousing"? The question would always be "what does the male find attractive in females?" and while for red junglefowl this may be a simple and largely empirical matter, for humans it obviously isn't. For the human version of the study, you'd probably just have to ask the man his opinion to find the correlation, though if humans have this ability then I would expect that you would see it correlate with "sexual attractiveness" as you surmise, and not "physical beauty" which isn't necessarily the same thing.
Well, thrill-seeking is just that, but this guy was going on the equivalent of a Sunday drive. I doubt that "fly around and smash into a mountain" was on his list of activities that provide excitement.
Yeah no kidding he probably didn't plan on dying. But "take a small dive and fly near a mountain" very well could have been on his list of cheap thrills. And I doubt his idea of a Sunday drive is the same as yours. You think someone like that tooling around in a Ferrari on empty country roads wouldn't decide to have a little fun? He's in the air in his private plane, and confident in his abilities. Who's going to stop him?
One must wonder why such a skilled aviator was taking a gamble with such hostile conditions, given that he was looking for a flat stretch of land to race cars on, but that is one mystery we shall probably never know the answer to.
I wondered, but in about a second I came up with this: An adventurer and thrill-seeker, in the course of looking for a place for future thrill-seeking, decided to seek some thrills?
Sure it's just idle speculation... but based on what little I know of the man, taking gambles with danger while tooling around alone in his private plane sounds exactly like something he would do. It makes enough sense for me, at least.
This line you are trying to draw between addition and sorting algorithms, as if one is math and the other is not, is imaginary. It does not exist. Boolean Logic is not the only possible logic involving modulo 2 arithmetic, the dependence on its creator is in its name, and what you said is no different than saying if 10 mathematicians invented ten O(n*log n) sorting algorithms they'd all be the same. Yet if they *did* create the same algorithm, then those algorithms would have the same mathematical properties.
If you'll look up in this thread, you'll see where mathematicians have proven that software is math. But hey, what would they know about the definition of math? I'm sure your made-up definition is the right one.
So make math patentable. I don't see why those brilliant mathematicians who invent/discover new mathematical systems, or create useful, interesting proofs should be paid the same or less than some PHP/javascript/J2EE code monkey.
Because math is the fundamental language of scientific progress. It'd be like patenting language, the ability to talk about certain things. And in science, especially in electronics, 20 years is an eternity to lock up something so important as an algorithm. You know, if software patents had been around in the 60s when all those sorting algorithms and other basic components of modern computer science were being hammered out, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
There's a reason mathematicians are not lobbying to change the Constitution to allow math to be patented, and in fact go to the effort to prove that all software is math. But hey, again, what would they know about their field? If it makes you feel better, pure mathematicians who hold positions at universities tend to do pretty decently. Webmonkeys don't command the salaries they used to. But brilliant scientists often are concerned with more important things than money. Their work living forever is a pretty damn good reward.
Algorithms are not a fact or discoverable, like mathematics. Instead, most algorithms are man-made, artificial software machines created by combining other smaller machine parts (more algorithms).
What makes you think mathematics is a "fact" or "discoverable"? That is not in any way the definition of math. The most basic rules of a mathematical system are called "axioms" or "postulates", as in things assumed to be true, not "facts". Who "discovered" addition? "Discovered" Boolean logic? All mathematical systems are man-made symbolic constructs. That some math is useful for describing reality, that they may in a very real way represent and spring from reality, doesn't change this. Many mathematical systems do not include axioms that represent what we know of reality. Many algorithms are useful for describing reality, they are man-made, but they are still math.
Hell, this is just a categorical failure here. Algorithms are math.