I’m not really all that serious about this. I am actually just a lowly student that came across something none of my math teachers had ever seen before. It doesn’t have any practical uses that I have seen so far, but it took my math teacher and I about a week to prove it, and we joked about getting it published and instead of having my name on it, calling it the “Useless Theorem”. I was thinking about trying to get it published, in hopes that someone much smarter than me could find a use for it. I guess I shouldn’t have mentioned the word patent, that’s really not what I meant; I just wanted to find out how to officially tag my name to the theorem.
Even though I’m not really serious, I think I might write a paper on it or something if I have some free time this summer and submit it to a journal just to see what happens.
I’m not gonna post it here because I still don’t have good wording on it, and it has taken a good 10 minutes to explain it to well-educated people in the past because of its weird complexity. Also, I’m not even sure what to make of it. In the process of proving my main theorem, I proved about five other things I didn’t find in my old geometry book, each of which seemed more useful than my original thing. IOW, I’m not even sure what I am going to focus on yet, that’s why I like the idea of the paper, because I can cover everything without trying to fit it all in a couple sentences.
Sorry, for wasting everyone’s time, but thanks for the information.
Con Edison is a company that holds many patents, but there is (and can be) no patent on electricity.
Bell (Formerly Bellcore - BELL COrp REsearch labs, now Lucent Technologies, Inc.) is one of the most prolific research companies in the world and holds many patents, including an expired one for the specific designs of the original models, but there is and can be no patent on the process of communication by encoding sound energy atop an electromagnetic carrier wave, either via wire or wireless.
Ford also holds a great many patents for wonderful designs, but cannot patent the concept of a self-propelled wheeled vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine.
If you do your homework and read some of my other posts, you’ll see that I am one of the most emphatic defenders of the Constitution that you will ever meet. My problem isn’t the concept of Patent itself, but the abuse of Article I,
Sec 8. Sure you can copyright (not patent) a particular implementation of a mathematical concept, but a) not the concept itself, and b) it will be circumvented. It’s generally not too difficult to write a custom implementation of an algorithm that does not incorporate any of the original code.
But a proof of a mathematical concept generally does not have much practical use except in that it proves the concept. For example, the gentleman who finally proved Fermat’s last theorem owns the copyright on the paper he published, but he doesn’t own and cannot regulate usage of the fact that a[sup]n[/sup]+b[sup]n[/sup]=c[sup]n[/sup] has no solution when n > 2. Get it?
However, if you play with your cat using a laser pointer, you are in violation of patent #5,443,036. Wonderful country, eh? (couldn’t link directly, but go the search page at http://www.uspto.gov )
Here’s a direct link: US5443036:Method of exercising a cat.
I see that our tax dollars have really paid off, since they referenced this patent to develop the cat exerciser:
US5194007:Semiconductor laser weapon trainer and target designator for live fire 
Arjuna34
I admit I didn’t read every sentence of every previous post.
But, (I didn’t see this in my quick scrolling down) is there a database of deposited math theorems?
If you want to know something about a biological subject, you search NIH’s PubMed database. Type in say, estrogen, into the search engine and you might get 20,000 hits–references in the literature.
Is there a similar physical search engine for math and physics?
I apoligize if I missed the post, but it’s getting late and a PubMed type physical search engine would be great. But I’m not in the field and unfamilar w/one.
647, if you want to search for publications in physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. you would go to http://www.webofscience.com. However, they only list publication title, author(s), and abstract. If you want to search for, say, “superfluid helium” it’s pretty straightforward – you’ll get a list of publications.
However, if you want to search for a theorem you’re not sure exists and don’t know the name of if it does, you’re out of luck. There may be math-specific databases of theorems, but I wouldn’t know.
Thanks for the idea, giraffe, but when I clicked on your link I was sent to a page that said I needed a subscription to the ‘Web of Science’. And I’m accessing the Web through a Univ server.
I guess I’m looking for the equivalent of PubMed for physical sciences. A public database that will let me search the abstracts of the papers published in the physical science literature. PubMed gives anybody free access to the abstracts in the bio field. How about a PubPhys?
Where can I type in “Black Hole” into a physical science search engine ala PubPhys?