check out the article guys, what do you think this spells for our future?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/np-complete-problem-solved-with-biological-motors/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link
>>7889221
here is the research paper
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1510825113.full
> NP solved
fuck off
>>7889221
>what do you think this spells for our future?
Nothing much really
>>7889221
>memory required scales exponentially
>read/write operation need to access memory
>ergo, complexity scales exponentially
biologists man, someone should send them a copy of Knuth
>>7889221
oh boy so anytime you want to solve a problem, you have to go etch a microfluidic chip that describes the problem, grind up a bunch of meat to extract the actin and myosin, dye the actin, coat your chip in myosin, and put in your actin, and look at it through a microscope.
Sounds real practical.
Actin motility assays are pretty cool though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mFGdvceCOs
WOOO ACTIN WORMS!
>>7889221
>implying
Nothing got solves. Especially not by biologists. Especially not by some faggots working way outside their own field with no education on the material.
>solving P=NP
That'd solve one of the big problems of humankind faggot.
>>7889221
>We proved a mathematical problem
>By making an example
Yup, that's how I like my proofs.
This is why everyone laughs at biologists.
I solve NP problems all the time with GAs, it's part of my job in fact. No big deal.
>>7889221
The butthurt by mathfags is real here, holy shit, without even reading the article.
"Those filthy biologists can't be smart, they can't ever be published in relevant problems!1!"
Anyway, here is the original article, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1510825113.full
For the people who actually want to read what the author implies with his experiment.
From the discussion part:
>However, it is inherent to combinatorial and NP-complete problems (assuming P! = NP) that the exploration of the entire solution space requires the use of exponentially increasing amounts of some resource, such as time, space, or material. In the present case this fundamental requirement manifests itself in the number of agents needed, which grows exponentially with 2N. Effectively we are trading the need of time for the need of molecular mass. The error rates of this first device are too large for scaling up to problems containing more than ∼10 variables
Never change /sci/.
>>7889324
>experiment
This is the problem. No one was asking for a fucking experiment. Any one with a fucking python interpreter installed could perform a fucking experiment.
What is important and inherently mind bending about P=NP is how the answer seems to be completely obvious (P!=NP) but as it stands, there is no way to rigorously prove this result.
That is what people want. A proof.
>>7889250
more practical than waiting weeks for the same computation
>>7889345
>No one was asking for a fucking experiment.
Asking for? the OP simply posted an article that showed how biocomputation could be used to solve NP problems, not rigorously prove P!=NP. In fact, the author assumes P!=NP in his article. He didn't set out to prove it in the first place. This article just experimentally shows that biocomputation (based on the results) could be potentially useful for solving similar problems with energy efficiency. Nothing more.
This >>7889364 was the whole point of the experiment from the outset.
>>7889369
>This article just experimentally shows that biocomputation (based on the results) could be potentially useful
Fair enough. Not proving it but finding ways to solve problems could be useful but then I point you to >>7889250
So we aren't proving anything, applying anything. That biologist basically spent all his time doing this shit for nothing. But you know how they call that down at the bio department? A typical day for biologists.
>>7889379
>That biologist basically spent all his time doing this shit for nothing.
You really couldn't contain your autism in your post? Only in a completely fucked up mind would it be possible to think that an advancement in biocomputation technology is "spent time for nothing". This is how new technology is created. Someone publishes an article with parameters to create the fundamentals of the potential new technology, and others optimise it to make it commercially useful. Yes, novel technology, the same thing that allowed you to have electronics, the internet, and the ability to post on this board shitting on it, because of a crusade against biology. Pathetic. If you have such disdain for new technology, you and the rest of the math people are probably posting in the wrong thread, which was my point from the beginning. Cheers.
>>7889394
>biology
>technology
Pick one and only one.
>>7889399
biology is the science, biocomputing is the application. inb4 biology =/= science. Wrong board again. Also,
>biocomputers
>not technology
If you don't see the problem, an hero is the recommended course of action.
>>7889405
>biology is the science
Here is the mistake of your entire premise. Biology is not a science.
>>7889412
>inb4 biology =/= science
You came to a thread about biocomputing, posted irrelevant stuff, got called out on it, posted more irrelevant stuff to make your involvement legit. Give up already.
>>7889418
When a biology degree teaches partial differential equations I will 'give up'. Stop pretending to be something you aren't, accept you are a fucking voodoo man.
>>7889423
Well, I'm sorry to say, you must feel awful that the most likely reason you exist now is because those voodoo witch doctors decided to create vaccines to preserve life such as yours. You owe the very existence of your genius to those filthy biologists, god how despicable. Although I have to say it was a prudent decision, because life such as yours is a curious specimen indeed, worthy of further study.
>>7889430
Hey, I never said voodoo magic didn't work. I works a lot of the time but without rigorous mathematical models of the kind that govern mathematics, physics, engineering, etc. then whatever you are doing, as correct as it is, is not a real science.
>>7889345
Knuth believes P=NP but the proof will be non-constructive, actually. There is no real reason why those two categories should be different.
>>7889435
>mathematician thinks he can give his own definition of science
If all of science needed partial differential equations to work, we would be fucked pal. Quite hypocritical that you would trust pharmaceuticals and vaccines to work on you even though they don't use "rigorous" mathematical models to ensure they work "all the time".
Your "science requires higher math" style is easily identifiable in /sci/ threads now, and it is embarrassing to your fellow grounded math and physics majors. You should consider ceasing. Just a suggestion.
>>7889443
>partial differential equations to work
The mathematical models that describe biology but you bums are too lazy to construct need not use partial differential equations.
>Quite hypocritical that you would trust pharmaceuticals and vaccines to work on you
Well, what can I do? Is it hypocritical of a man to wipe his ass with leaves when there is no paper around? Would it be better to just stay with a bunch of shit around your ass? No, it wouldn't.
I take what I can but I am informed of the fact that people die from vaccines because of mistakes in administration or prediction of side effects based on a person's conditions.
I will add that all of these could be prevented if biologists stopped being a bunch of junkies and got to the math of biology and were able to make a function where you simply plug in the parameters of a patient's medical history, the vaccine and completely predict how the patient will react to it to determine if it is safe to proceed.
>inb4 but who knows how hard that would be
Well, everyone else has done it. Physicists, mathematicians, engineers, chemists (to a limited extend but still respectable), etc. Why not you?
>>7889444
First off, nice trips
I don't have the time to get into another shit-flinging argument with you. I will redirect you to the second part of my previous post.
On the things you said:
>I will add that all of these could be prevented if biologists stopped being a bunch of junkies and got to the math of biology and were able to make a function where you simply plug in the parameters of a patient's medical history, the vaccine and completely predict how the patient will react to it to determine if it is safe to proceed.
This argument shows your lack of understanding of the complexity of what's going on and how a simple function could predict how the patient will react to it. Read up on the problem to get an accurate view of it without relying on 4chan math posters for your knowledge for biology.
You also said
>inb4 but who knows how hard that would be
and
>Why not you?
It's being done. The mathematical modelling of biological phenomena is called systems biology, and is being taught in serious undergrad programs. It's also become a big area of research but hasn't become the most pivotal part of the field because of the aforementioned complexity. We're getting there. Cheers.
>>7889449
Good then. Mathematics and Physics became rigorous since the 19th century. We've been patiently waiting for you.
>>7889452
Lol
>we've
as if YOU'VE contributed to anything related in physics or mathematics
>>7889379
>>7889399
>>7889412
>>7889423
>>7889435
>>7889444
>>7889452
Holy fuck, this guy should be banned from posting on any forum, website, or cartoon board relating to science forever. Seriously, you're head is so far up your ass. Math ability is not a measure of "scienceness", and your association between the two betrays either autism or stupidity. I suspect the latter.
Your posts are stupid, you are stupid, get the fuck off this board.
>>7889801
>Math ability is not a measure of "scienceness"
It is a measure of rigor, which in turn is a measure of how much you can simulate and predict in the field you study.
Gone are the days when the scientists where jack offs trying random shit in a laboratory until something worked. Mathematicians and Physicists have been using mathematics for centuries and we've already translated all of that into various simulations that allow us to 100% accurately predict the systems we work in.
Meanwhile you biologists have had your entire fist up your asses as you saw the mathematical revolution start with Newton hundreds of years ago and literally, LITERALLY did nothing new with the new tools that were being developed by mathematicians.
Ooh you biologists simulate population group with differential equations. HOT SHIT I BET. Meanwhile we are already past DEs and onto full on analysis.
But you know, if you are content with calling your voodoo magic a science then fair enough. I don't own the dictionaries. I am but a man with a strong opinion. Stay retarded if you want. After all, the reason biology has stagnated and stayed behind other sciences is exactly because of close minded pricks like you who couldn't take a little bit of criticism.
Biologists are the literal embodiment of the phrase:
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
>>7889250
Hey, maybe you can produce the proteins in recombinant expression systems.
>>7889221
>solve
why are biologists such mongs
>>7890533
i seriously hope you're a shitty troll
>>7890533
>muh rigor
I was expecting you'd say that when I saw the word "math" being used.
