computers, magic and complex logic

[frantyck at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 29514

Hullo. Has anyone considered the possible parallels between the 
design of complex spells and enchantments and computer programming?

I'm not going to go into this much at the moment since my brain 
seems to be chewing greedily upon itself at certain strategic 
points, but the thought has been festering for a while, and I 
haven't seen the topic come up yet. If it has, please direct me to 
it... thanks.

Consider Hermione's statement when she solves the potions puzzle in 
PS/SS Ch.16 that "this isn't magic -- it's logic -- a puzzle. A lot 
of the greatest wizards haven't got an ounce of logic, they'd be 
stuck in here for ever." It initially bothered me about wizarding 
education that there was limited scope for the analytically or 
mathematically adept student. A bit like liberal arts combined with 
vocational school.

In fact, any complex spell must require tremendous amounts of 
logical thought and a case-by-case analysis of if-thens and the 
like. Spells like those cast to protect the philosopher's stone, 
certainly, but also spells that disguise magical objects from Muggle 
eyes, that probably seal Hogwarts against enemies but not against 
students and whatever other kind of wizard or witch who chooses to 
arrive there.

There are tons of possible cases in the books alone, just about any 
spell in which a variety of factors operate around input and output 
could illustrate the problem. We Muggles rely on the most complex 
mechanisms to carry out even the most mundane tasks, mechanisms that 
are designed by others.

What are the implications for magic? Is magic not logical? Could it 
be as Rowling usually shows it, fundamentally a matter of training 
and focusing the natural magical 'talent' or ability that wizards 
and witches have?

Is there a form of logic that could operate in the magical world 
that retains our own understanding of sets and subsets and the 
layering of problems, but without the structure of mathematics and 
classical reasoning?

Is there a better way to approach this problem?

("I'm not going to go into this much at the moment?" Pff...)