That may be very true, however , the solution will be limited to the
conditions at the time of the experiment and under an extream set of
assumptions. Just like the economists who can calculate every aspect of
the economy but only if its fixed in time and is controled.
Nature has a way of never remaining constant
Tim
"D.K." wrote:
>> Tim Davies <daviest at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >i just seem to remember that the folks who sort of did the human dna
> >thing last year have a jv with ibm to build a box of around 30tera flop
> >or so. It was to do structure of proteins, so naturally they believe
> >that crunch power is the key to some aspect of the problem.
>> Well, some people believe in really strange things. I attended a
> lecture about 6 months ago, and the speaker said he believes
> in 30 years experimental biologists will be out of business because
> not only we will be able to predict structure from sequence, but
> we will also be able to model a cell and predict all consequences
> of a single mutation on a level of whole organism.
>> All I can say is LOL.
>> >There box
> >will be only partially efficient , so i was thinking that they must be
> >very very sure of there math to build a 100mill box that is only a super
> >cluster type device. Where there is confidence in the math , there are
> >much more efficient routs than the method chosen. so i wonder is the
> >math known , and what is it. does it fit a fast methodology . The
> >problem , from a pure math perspective , must have been structured and
> >tested prior to the build
>> >or someone has more money than brains.
>> That won't be the first time it happened, you know ;)
>> DK
