Comments on: What Google Won’t Find

By: robert

robert — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:21:58 +0000

I’m having difficulty getting a clearer conception of the “protein folding as computation” notion. Scott, you talked about certain protein folding goals as being a coherent theorem — I know this relates to complexity classes, solution spaces, and the like, but I’m not making the connection here between physical computation and function optimization. Any links/tips?

By: David Mackey

David Mackey — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 04:34:34 +0000

Yes, I feel stupid now.

By: Joshua Drake

Joshua Drake — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:29:25 +0000

In response to Ryan:

Sorry I cannot find the link right now, but there is a paper proposing that businesses do just that.

If your problem will take 5 years to solve with current hardware, just wait two years and it will take 2.5 so you’ve shaved 6 months off the total time to solution.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:06:04 +0000

Anurag: Yes, we know the laws (at least in principle), and yes, we can (again in principle) replicate them on a computer with only modest slowdown.

By: Anurag

Anurag — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:47:34 +0000

I do not understand one thing (actually many)

soap bubble experiment must be following physical laws
so either we know about those laws or we don’t
if we do then can’t we replicate those in computer
and if we don’t then thats itself a discovery

By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Torbjörn Larsson, OM — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:33:15 +0000

oz:

[OT] Thanks for the link. Scanning the paper it looks legit, and while they can only claim correlation between efficiency and speciation impressively the independent cladogram based on other traits concur. Quite a find you made. [/OT]

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:10:12 +0000

Elizabeth: Yes, I know that, and didn’t elaborate only because I figured most readers knew as well. Maybe I should’ve clarified that there are 7 prizes yet to be awarded, and 6 still for the taking.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:52:09 +0000

To be pedantic, and contribute nothing to the main conversation:

All seven Clay Millennium Prizes are still outstanding. None have been awarded. It is widely believed that when CMI convenes an advisory board to review Perelman’s proof of the Poincare conjecture (which, under the rules of the competition, they will be able to do no sooner than June of 2008), that they will declare the proof to be correct and offer the prize to Grigoriy Perelman, who, it is widely believed, will refuse it. However, none of these things have happened yet.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:40:03 +0000

Quick note: Attempts to sidetrack this thread into things having nothing to do with the post will be (and have been) ruthlessly suppressed.

By: oz

oz — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 07:55:54 +0000

Dear Torbjörn Larsson Thanks for your comment. Sorry, here's the speciation link