You're entirely wrong. He's demonstrating that poetry operates by conventions akin to mathematical systems. The accumulative principle on display fulfills the syllabic demand of the haiku form according to numeral tradition; but is this a compromise of mathematics and its subordination to poetics, or a regulation and even constitution of poetics by mathematics? That is, the haiku form is accomplished here only as an instance of enumeration : thus, the poetic form is performative, performed by mathematics, perhaps a mere effect of it. At the same time, this particular enumeration also suggests a disruption of mathematical convention akin to that of poetic language, in the leaving out of the conjunctive "and", a grammatical (artistic) liberty evoking the poetic persona of a robot. However, this persona, opering exclusively according to the systems of mathematics, expresses itself (its self) as a machine, which you claim to be incapable of art. In so doing, this machine has produced an effect of literary language, and that through ignoring linguistic convention. Poetic convention and mathematical convention are rendered at best historical artifacts, the practices of each dissolved into a unified intellectual (or less culturally burdened, intelligent) activity, the practice of it a domain through which humans and objects fluently move, have exchanges and imitate each other. Rather it is a poem that challenges the soul by suggesting it (the poem) was not only made by a machine, but through a collaboration of man and machine ; that is, it causes the matter of the human soul to be contingent on the machine.